You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: I used to be a fan of Steven Crowder ...

in #freedom6 years ago

What a coward and a tool.... Weed is less harmless than water.. You can drink too much water and die and people do it all the time.. You CAN'T smoke too much weed and nobody 's died from it ever... This guy is really disingenuous, thanks for exposing this weakling..

Sort:  

Have You watched the opinion of that doctor? The fact noone has ever died from THC doesn't mean it has no negative effects on the brain, does it? If You have any scientific rebuttal of the doctor, please share.

I said its less harmless than water meaning that I at least think it can be somewhat potentially harmful. The fact no one's ever died from it doesn't mean it doesn't have any negative effects on the brain, so in what way am I saying that? Why would I listen to a doctor who is going to highlight some minor risks when there are many superior medicinal/therapeutic applications/interventions over expensive toxic synthetic patented prescription/otc FDA sanctioned chemicals ! I trust God over man, meaning nature over science... You can die from a pound of salt, so should we make it illegal? The globalists want weed illegal because they want people zonked out on meds, beer and cigs, it threatens their profits and their control over the population... Weed makes you introspective and question authority.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4543605/ Here's an article on 'The role of cannabinoids in adult neurogenesis'.

Well... we consume water everyday and that's essential for survival, while daily consumption of MJ is not for everyone. I've watched a BBC docummentary about mental issues, which had a section about THC and it's potential to induce psychosis in some low percentage of users. That's an exception, but there are general long term effects too. I'm rather skeptical about some, e.g. that about decline in IQ I saw here, but so I am about claims that MJ cures cancer. Maybe it does, but it requires far more research and positive peer reviews. Not the first and not the last time when there are sensational news about wonderful cures that after time prove to be not working or harmful. That said, I think ganja has big potential in medicine, e.g. in alleviation of seizures, but I'm not so sure about treating cancer.

I haven't done much research as I wouldn't call myself a ganja user (I tried it few times, for recreacional, not medicinal reasons), although I don't think water is an adequate comparison. More so would be, imho:

  • sugar as some scientist alarm about harmful effects of high intake of it, including allegedly negative effects on brain (while others disagree)
  • or porn. I haven't done much research on it's effects either, but I found BPS's video "MGTOW and the CANCER of Porn on Society" interesting and he linked to a post where he references what the video is based on. I don't think anyone has ever died from a daily fap, but it's not w/o some adverse effects.

Am I a coward or a tool for commenting like that?

No, you're not a coward or a tool. But for sure you're missing the point. The original question was 'is weed as or more dangerous than alcohol'. And it's a simple 'fuck no'... lol..

I think we can agree on that ;)

Thanks, man, I appreciate your honesty.. I think we can also agree on the more important philosophical idea that Adam was trying to reach for, which is that it's not up to any body or person (government, businesses ie) to decide what an individual consumes... And that's what the big picture is, the realization that the war on drugs has failed and is a racket... or it's only doing what it was intended to do: erode our freedoms?!

Well... I realize the war on drugs is very costly and doesn't stop willing people to do drugs. Plus illegal drugs are involved in gang violence, police corruption etc. On the other hand I'm not for complete deregulation of all the drugs. If that only affected the individuals willingly doing drugs and just give people their personal freedom, I wouldn't mind. I have 2 notes though:

  • Choosing drugs is a matter of freedom until one gets addicted and people often overestimate their free will when trying crack, heroin, tobacco, alcohol or few other substances with high addictivity potential. After some point it's really not quite their freedom, but rather necessity to do the drugs - often with detrimental effects on their health, social relations, etc.
  • Many drugs have detrimental effects on families and broader society, increase the rate of crime and accidents, etc.

How would You like drugs like heroin and crack treated? Similarly to tobacco and alcohol now (age restrictions, high excise taxes, regulations of advertisement, penalization of driving under influence) or w/o restrictions?