gummy
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 days ago* (17 children)

When, precisely, did I say anything about "marijuana will kill you"? That strawman's got his stick so far up his own ass that even Tankie logic can't compare.

Your bar is "it isn't toxic enough to kill you"? Really? That's not why we regulate drugs. At all. Anxiety medications and SSRIs are regulated because they are mind-altering, and they're all required to come with warnings that fucking with the brain chemistry of children has a proven tendency of causing suicidal ideation. The reason we regulate alcohol isn't because drinking a gallon of everclear will kill you, it's because it's mind-altering, seriously affects your judgement, is highly addictive, habit-forming, and has long-lasting deleterious effects on the brains of children. Even amphetamines, which are prescribed to children for ADHD, are regulated because while they have medicinal properties for certain brain chemistries, but in others lead to addiction and other deleterious effects. Psilocybin and LSD are regulated because they are hallucinogenic. Fuck off with that "if it doesn't kill you" bullshit. If something's regulated or banned, the reason is far more likely to have fuck all to do with its LD50 than it does with the fact that "it fucks with brain chemistry in ways that are unpredictable and can have long-lasting effects from overuse".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago (16 children)

    Don't care, didn't ask, fuck your DARE program preaching

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (15 children)

    > says "try again"

    > someone responds

    > claims "didn't ask"

    > iamveryintelligent.bmp

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago (14 children)

    The comment you're responding to does not contain the words "try again", learn to read. Keeping people from dying absolutely is a major reason for regulating drugs, claiming otherwise is extremely stupid on your part. Bringing up other drugs that all have far worse short and long term effects when we're discussing the only recreational substance on earth that can't possibly kill you is disingenuous cowardly bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (13 children)

    Did they change in a way where people suddenly didn't know what the fuck ingesting it will do? No, not at any point in history has that happened. Try again.

    This you? Your love for the halflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (12 children)

    That was the previous comment, and you failed entirely to address the actual thing I told you to try doing again you fucking moron. Marijuana has been an intoxicant the entire time, everyone knows what it does, no excuses for ignorance. Goddamn you're dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

    God save me from people who lose all conversational context with only one level of abstraction. Your own first comment's claim was, and I quote: "the expectation for you to know exactly what will happen when you ingest it is completely reasonable.".

    Weevil made a counterpoint, which I thought was poor.

    You pointed out that their counterpoint was poor. "Try again"

    I said "I'll try for them". I gave a counterpoint demonstrating that your original assertion was unfounded and the expectation is not reasonable, because each person's neurochemistry is different, and psychoactive drugs are renowned for having unpredictable effects for that reason.

    Then, you pulled a non-sequitur strawman out of your ass about "kill rates"

    I made the mistake of engaging with someone clearly responding in bad faith (or at least total confusion), and pointed out why the kill rate angle is also bullshit.

    You claimed not to care, and that you didn't ask for any of this.

    I pointed out that, in fact, you did ask for this.

    Clearly you are so baked out of your gourd that you don't even remember why you commented in the first place, though I suppose I should have expected as much from your username. We done?

    (If not, I am happy to provide you with the original context of why I talked about "googling it", which seemed to confuse you as well.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago* (10 children)

    Wordy+still failed=embarassing

    Your challenge was to name any way in which marijuana has changed regarding its status as an intoxicant at any point in human history, you can't do that and you know it so you're deflecting desperately to avoid admitting you're wrong. Everyone everywhere knows what marijuana does, and what it does is fuck you up without any possibility of lethal overdose or permanent damage. Other drugs are not relevant at all, every single one of them can kill you, marijuana cannot, they are entirely separate categories. Have some fucking dignity and take the L.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (9 children)

    So, to be clear, your only complaint is that I replied to the comment where you said "try again", rather than directly to your original comment? OK, then go back and read them as if I was responding to your original comment. You said something, a person responded, and you correctly pointed out they were wrong. Told them to try again to refute your original statement. I refuted tour original statement, and if you thought I was responding directly to your rebuttal, rather than to "try again" to refute your original claim, consider that I am now informing you that my whole intent was, and always has been, to refute your original claim. I don't give a fuck about the cultivation history of hemp, and it's not where the problem lies in your original assertion. No further additions are necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    My complaint is that morons like you exist, and that the war on drugs was allowed to happen at all. Not entirely unrelated issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

    So, nothing but worthless ad hominem, then. Right. Carry on

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    An ad hominem is when the argument is an insult, in this case my arguments are merely accompanied by insults, you fucking moron

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (5 children)

    "My complaint is that morons like you exist"

    If that is your complaint, then your complaint lacks any argument other than that you don't like it, plus an ad hominem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago* (4 children)

    Complaint == argument, the argument is that marijuana is unchanged in all of human history in regard to being an intoxicant and completely unique in being impossible to OD on, complaint is that you're so fucking dumb that I have to explain that shit to you and explain the difference between the two. Swing and a miss halfwit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

    No, you inarticulate potato. Did you never take a secondary science course? The supposedly unchanged nature of hemp is the evidence you used to support your central claim: that it is reasonable to expect every member of the human species of any age to know precisely how marijuana will affect them. This claim is belied by the inarguable fact that mind-altering drugs (e.g. hallucinogens, psychotropics, narcotics, anxiolytics and stimulants) all have wildly varying effects on different people due to the vastly different neurochemistry of individuals, and thus you cannot predict how it will affect you until you try it, no matter how long your cultural antecedents have been toking, as I stated in my original comment. Even cannabis, which you claim has no lasting side effects, can cause long-term psychosis and significantly worsen pre-existing mental health disorders. Not often, but that it is a documented effect with even a 0.5% incidence rate is sufficient for some basic modicum of caution. You cannot know whether you will be affected until you actually try it, and while long-term use and high dosage are risk factors for the above, they are not prerequisites. Pretending like cannabis is some fucking panacea is dangerously irresponsible, and accusing anyone who points out the illogic of your repeated exaggerations and leaps of reasoning of being with DARE is so pitifully childish. Ultimately, though, I've been responding to you ever since your kill count strawman not because I think I will convince you, who have demonstrated roughly the neuroplasticity of a chunk of granite, but because if someone makes the mistake of reading this far, then they will see the complete argument, and I leave it to them to decide for themselves.

    So, to put those big, scary words in simpler terms for you:

    You say all people know what weed do to them.

    I say people different. I say some people happy drunk or sad drunk. I say some people kill selves when on prozac. Others don't kill selves BECAUSE on prozac. Some people eat big weed gummy, enjoy. Other people eat little weed gummy, big sad, trap in body. Vomit brains out. Maybe go crazy for a couple months. No can predict.

    You is wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    That's a whole lot of words to avoid saying "you're completely right, marijuana has been an intoxicant forever and nobody has ever died from it"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    If anyone reading this had any remaining doubt as to the precise intellectual capacity (or lack thereof) of the prior commenter, let the utter lack of reading comprehension, demonstrated perfectly in the response above, speak for itself. I have nothing further to say to this imbecile that has not already been said, and am content with simply tagging them "inarticulate potato", and recommend that the masochistic readers who have made it this far should do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment