12
Discussion of new Rule 4: Do not promote or put drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants in a positive light. (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/china@lemmygrad.ml
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rule 4: Do not promote or put drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants in a positive light.

Some comrades mentioned in private channels that weed is not addictive, I'm not going to argue on this point because this is a fundamental divide between China and some western countries.

My view is that whether you're addicted to them or not, you shouldn't promote these substances or put them in a positive light. It's fine if you don't agree with me, but anyone who leaves a comment here arguing the opposite will be banned from the community (30 days for now).

If a lot of people oppose this rule, either by downvotes and/or number of comments, I will willingly step down as moderator of this community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

My suggestions: 1) make an exception for using (psychedelic) drugs for medical purposes, provided there's sufficient scientific understanding of their efficacy; 2) clearly define what "put in a positive light" means - for example, the word "based" afaik comes from the word "freebase", referring to the purified form of cocaine; the word itself in my opinion have long become a harmless expression of approval, it's an old meme. 3) I think it's obvious to everyone, still - the context under which similar phrases are said matters. Saying things like "you are alienated, go ahead and try some MDMA" or something is unambiguously clear in its intent, that would go against the rule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I was considering adding "(for non-medicinal purposes)" to the rule, but people who mention medical purposes have proved to me that this is unnecessary. I'm going to repeat this again, online spaces are not a good place to receive advice on medical prescription from others just because they use it in their culture or country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's not to say people should give medical advice on the internet, especially if they're not professionals - I'm against that. But saying factual phrases like "ayahuasca is currently being researched for its potential to treat PTSD and other related illnesses" is pretty neutral - it is not advice, I think it's fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd like to add that such phrases should be backed up with sources and details, and not just as a matter-of-fact statement. Other factual statements like "X substance is legal in Y country" or "X substance is proven scientifically to have Y properties and Z effects" might not be fine depending on the context, like if the statements are used to justify promoting the substance in a person's comment/post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I’d like to add that such phrases should be backed up with sources and details

    Absolutely, yes - that's what I meant in point 1

    depending on the context

    And that is the core idea behind point 3

    Also, I'll add point 4 - caffeine and theobromine (the active ingredient in tea) are technically psychoactive drugs, but I think it would be fine to talk about coffee and tea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent