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
[+] [S] -8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Where in the post and my comments have I said to ban these substances? I find it frustrating that people come to me and mention so-and-so substance can have medicinal properties, because I understand this concept, but I'm assuming this type of medicine is prescribed by a certified doctor or therapist, and not by random people on the internet just because they use it in their culture or country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    You made the mistake of assumption. Your post specifically bans discussion around these substances in a positive light, which is why I specifically brought up morphine. Nobody is going to argue that morphine isnt an incredibly valuable medical discovery in the context of modern medicine, but that discovery came from opium, which definitely has some extremely negative implications where China is concerned. For all that tobacco causes cancer, it also reduces stress and provides a mild stimulant. Sometimes, that's important. Further, medicine is constantly evolving. People in Berkeley, CA seem to think that even psychotropic mushrooms have medical value. While that's not my cultures approach to the subject, we still believe some of the same things, even if we got there by very different paths.

    Idk overall you seem too emotionally invested in this argument to handle this topic with any kind of impartiality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Why did you bring up morphine, to prove that we should be able to discuss morphine or related substances outside the context of medical use or research?

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

    Morphine is medicine. Nobody is going to argue that it's a drug with no medical use. Opium is a lot harder to argue for, but it's still a valid argument because that history is important to the medical context of morphine. "Drugs are bad" is a really immature and shortsighted stance to take when the relationship between drugs and medicine is such a complex interplay with all kinds of overlap.

    And that's ignoring the extremely important cultural context associated with using drugs OR medicine throughout the history of China, let alone other countries.

    I'm not even trying to ratio you here. You're doing it to yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

    Discussing how a psychoactive drug is used regularly and ritualistically would fall into "neutral or positive", no? As the rule is phrased, it doesn't matter how the drug is procured.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •