Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exactly. Now why is it so difficult to accept that a specific drug is classified incorrectly?
So it was a pointless statement then. This is what we call a red herring.
None of the above. Would you like to go through every method with me so we can finish filtering me out of your narrative?
I used to smoke pot. I was pretty young at the time.
I think that is because or society just does not approach drugs in an honest or healthy manner. Caffeine is very widely abused and addiction runs rampant throughout society, and it's not even thought of as a drug. Alcohol abuse is tolerated, accepted, and even encouraged on certain occasions, it's rather addictive, but yet we put it in its own category when say "drugs and alcohol." We also think of nicotine addiction as its own separate category, and call them "smokers" who may or may not "quit," and seldom do we accept and embrace they too have a drug addiction. A few OTC drugs in large enough doses can cause recreational highs. But you'll never be shamed for taking Benedryl for your allergies or cough syrup when you have a nasty cold. They can get you really high though - I've heard Benedryl can even really make your mind flip with very vivid hallucinations, and descriptions often revolve around the idea that one is living in a horror film. I've never used it for such an effect, but I'll sure take a couple pills when my allergies are flared up.
"Evolution at work" made us social animals and care for people, and even us who are empathy-impaired still care about others and are concerned with how people are doing. And in many cultures, drug addicts (real addicts/junkies, not the average occasional user) do not receive this "you piece of ****" attitude, but rather they are cared for, helped, and tend to find themselves in much better position for recovery. Whether you like it or not, we are social animals--apes to be specific--and we survive as a group, not as individuals. Mutual cooperation evolved us, not everyone for themselves.
Apparently loosely paraphrasing from research documents and publications makes you an addict according to some.
When I went to Colorado, it made me a stronger supporter of medical use, because when it's fresh and hasn't been vacuum sealed and not handled with care, you don't need to use as much, and you don't need to get stoned to get the medical benefits. Do some people just want to get stoned? Sure. Does everyone who drinks wine or beer abuse them and get drunk? No.
Why this hyper obsession with dismissing sweeping all drug users into this huge lump of addicts? Do you think when these topics are formally studied researchers aren't watching out for signs of addiction? It may be hard to accept this, but even advocates such as myself sometimes look at people who bring up driving under the influence like they've just asked something very bizarre, because it's kind of a "no duh" thing like driving drunk.
Because people just don't want THC free cannabis. So it's not hard to determine where the argument lay.
IMO, as long as people are keeping their business to themselves, and better taught about drugs, the entire classification schedule thingy needs to go. Most drugs do have some medical benefit, rendering it inaccurate from the start anyways. And making drugs illegal has just been an abysmal failure, and the fallout from it just is not worth it. Personally, if someone is going to use meth, I'd rather them just be able to go to the store and buy meth that has been made in a real lab by real chemists (sort of like what we would give to someone with ADHD) than having them put entire city blocks and apartment buildings at risk because of the risk of fire and the high toxicity of the byproducts from the production of street meth. And if they get addicted, it would be so much easier to study addiction and addiction treatment. And to top it all off, those violent cartels that revolve around drugs would be out of a job, and even the ones that could survive would still take a very hefty and massive blow having such a massive income source evaporate before their eyes.
Merinol is synthetic THC. But that's all it is. Because of that, it won't work the same as regular cannabis will, because cannabis has all the different cannabonoids that give different health benefits. Unlike it's psychoactive usage, medically there is no "this one is it that does it" cannabonoid. All them combined work for various things.
Never mind what all those scientific studies say. We'll go with your anecdote instead, even if it's actually less harmful than alcohol (which is legal).
Of course you aren't buying it. I've already stated why you aren't.
Never mind what all those scientific studies say. We'll go with your anecdote instead, even if it's actually less harmful than alcohol (which is legal).
Of course you aren't buying it. I've already stated why you aren't.
Although I will point out that I have tried some drugs. I used to drink a lot of alcohol. I occasionally have some caffeine too.
The only thing that succeeded in doing was creating alcoholics, women as a group began to abuse alcohol, and some gangsters got very rich and powerful. Other than that, it failed so miserably the prohibition against alcohol was repealed.
True but ironically, I think deaths by gangsters fall far short from death caused by drunk people who don't care and always repeat their stupidity.
I don't call turning non-violent people into criminals and making violent criminals prosperously wealthy to be a success. And while it did reduce the amount of alcohol available to the public, the rate of alcoholism also increased. The Temperance Movement was far more successful in reducing the amount of alcohol consumption (and not creating alcoholics in the process), and all they did was preach.
I'm pretty sure that the death rate at the hands of Cental/South American drug cartels far exceeds the deaths caused by the drugs they deal.
Apparently some people do. Nevertheless, cannabidiol has simply not been shown to be effective in achieving those results found in the studies cited in the OP. I realize that you would rather people swallow ineffective pills than experience a psychological change due to THC. But all manner of commonly prescribed drugs have, and are only effective because they have, psychoactive effects. It's just your hang-up that makes you imagine horrible things happening when someone smokes or vapes cannabis. The thought produces anxiety, doesn't it?
Actually it isn't pills, it's an oil placed under the tongue. Please research before responding, because it pretty much blows your arguement out of the water. You clearly don't read posts as much as you should because I mentioned it was oil earlier. Too much weed?
Cannabidiol pills: https://healthyhempoil.com/shop/dixie-botanicals/cannabidiol-pills/