655
BACK IT UP (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
236 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://academictorrents.com/

☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️

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

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy. Which would mean that they wouldn't agree with the policy beyond the legalization itself.

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

    I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

    Could you elaborate on what you mean?

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

    If the brain worms tell RFK Jr. That psychedelics are actually a cancer cure, then legislation could be put forth to legalize psychedelics. But rather than allowing recreational use, or using them for a medical purpose based on scientific fact such as use in conjunction with therapy to treat depression, it could be legalized as prescribed medication for cancer. This has the drawbacks of not allowing access to people that could actually benefit from it, as well as now being used as a snake oil cure for something completely unrelated that will prevent people from getting other more effective treatment.

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

    I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn't be favorable for all parties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent