This might be silly to ask, but have you tried high CBD strains instead of “purely recreational” ones (which often have high THC and abysmally low CBD)?

CBD attenuates some effecs of THC. I very much doubt it would change the behaviour of THC completely for you, but there’s still a lot we need to learn about cannabis so, I wouldn’t say anything for certain.

I think it’s also likely that it’s very hard to amass billions unless you already have some sort of brain rot.

Fucking again. Why do you keep doing this?

When people read this thread, who do you think they will think is serious about having a conversation; the guy actually recapping the essence of the conversation, and trying to continue it, or the asshat who keeps trying extremely juvenile “tactics” like yelling “fallacy”, saying “you haven’t answered my (bad faith) questions” (which I have) and absolutely refusing to address the subject.

You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.

You said stupid shit and now you’re too ashamed to back it up because you know you can’t, but you’re also afraid of “not getting the last word.”

You can’t address the book and literature I mentioned, despite asking for them.

You conflated wars FOR opium to The War ON Drugs. All these silly things you ignore, because you’re not a big enough person to admit to mistakes, even on a pseudonymous forum. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m really not. Kids like you are a dime a dozen.

I probably honestly might have killed myself a few years back if it weren’t for him.

Say what you will about the author of Harry Potter, but the audiobooks narrated by Stephen helped a metric fuckton.

Fry’s own books are super worth as well, but Mythos and Heroes are less personal narratives than HP and I had fond memories.

“This too, shall pass.”

The Fry Chronicles audiobook is also fantastic.

In that a lot of doctor’s almost blindly rely on pretty much Googling shit. Not exactly, but it’s not far. Missing things which would be obvious to doctors who actually examine the patient and remember shit and then apply that knowledge.

I’m not saying it’s all doctors, but it’s definite some of them.

The last 8 years have gone by in what feels like months.

Also something I hear very rarely.

your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too

Oh I don’t deny that for a second. I’m very fed up with people who get snarky like that over the drug war. It’s because of the drug propaganda. Even people who use them themselves, have this inbuilt aversion to even thinking about drug legalisation. Genuinely, I’ve had the conversation with hundreds of people in real life, and it’s just something… insidious. So I fight it whenever I can, and there’s no irl social repercussions for being a dick on Lemmy, so if he’s being a dick and defending the prohibition of drugs — even if they actually oppose it, as they admit — I am going to respond with the same measure.

This is an exaggeration, but I genuinely believe that a complete reform of drug laws is essential to the entire planet. Basically all crime funds itself through illegal drugs, so we’d basically take out drug cartels by legalising drugs, and through that, all the other shit that’s adjacent. A metric fuckton of crime would just up and vanish, basically. As the drug trade will exist, legal or not, but if it’s legal, there’s legal ways to go about it, so deals can be made, contracts drawn up, and if people break them or don’t pay, one can use the legal system to get one’s dues. When it’s illegal, you just have to hammer a guy’s knees, because you can’t put the drug debt into an official system, but you can’t let a guy go either, nor can you go to the police and say he’s stolen from you.

And that’s just the first part.

Because have you ever been in any event that people mainly used ecstasy in? Just… no-one is angry. No violence. Complete opposite of a regular Saturday night in a Finnish bar which is full of implied threats and menacing looks.

I’m not saying everyone should do ecstasy, but I am saying that when given a choice, a lot of people I know would prefer ecstasy if it was socially acceptable (they use maybe 1-2 times a year, go to an event of some sort, so as to not be in the local clubs). And going by the literature in psychiatric and psychological treatments which use psychedelics/mdma, they could be amazingly helpful to the global community. I once actually made a video called “make Trump do LSD”. I stand by the sentiment, but the video was shit.

Anyway, even those mates who go to some ecstasy gigs a few times a year, they got really upset one time when we started talking about it. Which to me is just crazy. They know. They use the drugs. But when I asked why, it was a plethora of the same indirect, vague prohibition supporting bullshit, which comes through the shitty drug war propaganda.

Well, if you don’t think you’re “debating”, why did you answer by quoting something I said and then just writing “fallacious”? I’ll tell you. Because first off, you don’t know philosophy and thought pointing out a fallacy means you “win” the conversation.

I haven’t refused to answer any of your questions, buddy boy, you just keep shifting your goalposts. Maybe you’ve heard of that expression when larping a philosopher?

You asked for books. That was the first question you had, after I said I can provide literature. You then arbitrarily asked for ten books, supposing I haven’t read ten books on the subject. (If narratives are included, I definitely have.) I then provided a lot of literature, emphasising the book “Good Cop, Bad War”, which highlights how the drug war has worked and what is has done, and why it is that it exists in the first place. You can read a lot of that from Noam Chomsky as well, as the “War ON drugs” (not war for drugs, like the opium wars you referred to) began in the States, and Chomsky is really good at breaking down internal US politics of the time.

But you’re not looking to discuss the subject, because you know you’re wrong, so you can’t address it, because you’re not a big enough person to actually admit when someone else makes a good point or proves you wrong. Perhaps you got too much of that in real life and now thought that you wouldn’t have to take any online. Well, you know, if you keep being wrong so stubbornly, and using “fallacies” to “debate” then, you’re gonna have to learn to accept people calling you out on it.

The Man from Earth

It’s a small budget indie movie, and if you don’t like people talking and prefer action, then maybe this isn’t for you. Buut, for me, it was a great movie. It only uses one set, a room or two, for the entire movie. And it’s still great.

Huh, I need ti actually rewatch I’ve been suggesting it so much lol

Edit “Timecrimes” was a good one imo as well iirc https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/

It’s crazy, really, reading about it.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/16/fact-check-tipping-kept-wages-low-formerly-enslaved-black-workers/3896620001/

-98?

How?

Mobile data connections were dogshit even here in Finland up until late 00’s.

You know what’s another really edgelord (not “edge lord”) thing?

To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.

Perhaps it’s because you literally can’t answer any of those questions, because they show what a bad faith actor you are.

No answers about the books, after having asked for them. Have you read the list of books you linked? Ofc you haven’t. You yourself admit you asked for books I had read, then somehow think a list of books from an Amazon search is related?

The wars for drugs weren’t wars on drugs, but for them, silly.

All in all, you need to up your game. (Thinking you “win” a debate by loudly yelling "fallacy! Hahahah, so good)

A “war ON drugs” is a bit different from “a war FOR drugs”. Perhaps you don’t speak English?

The opioid wars weren’t wars ON drugs.

Genuinely I wonder how people like you aren’t ashamed to post. Genuinely baffles me.

You don’t even read the comments you reply to. Vice laws have been tried several times in history.

You just don’t know your fucking history, yet you’re childish enough to argue me without even having a fucking point. It’s pathetic.

It’s generally accepted the war on drugs “really” began in the 70’s, in the form it is today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

The term “war on drugs” was popularized by the media after a press conference, given on June 17, 1971, during which President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one”. He stated, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. … This will be a worldwide offensive.

This is evident from a whole lot of historic facts — all of which you’re unaware of, obviously.

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century

Show me a single piece of drug propaganda earlier than the 20th century.

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I do, you don’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

That’s usually the opposite of what they say.

Your doctors don’t know shit they just managed thorough med school with the help of the internet.

Not a future scenario btw, already the case.

a day or so about drug liberalisation.

But you’re pretending we’re not arguing over drug “liberalisation”, so which is it? Am I arguing with you over that, or something else?

The only point of disagreement is

So you get to ignore all the stupid mistakes you made, and say what the conversation is about? Seems like you haven’t had any conversations in real life…

I think you need to work on your persuasive writing and debating skills

Oh God, more of this. It’s so clear what you value and what you pretend to be. Like when you thought that you’d win an argument by yelling out “fallacy”, as if that meant that another person has to be wrong. Showing so clearly that you think that is an incredibly clear sign of how immature you are, philosophically.

You’re pretending you don’t know what an implication is (while still arguing based on what you think I implied), you’re pretending like drug wars didn’t start in the 20th century, and you’re pretending you didn’t say all the stupid shit you did. So, what do you think of the book? (Which you haven’t read, like you’ve not read any others on the subject either.)

Quite frankly, I thank you for the entertainment.

You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.

And what exactly does this prove? That you know what Google is? Are you pretending you weren’t asking for 10 books I had read on the subject? But, you just admitted you asked for it because you wanted to know what I’d read, so you obviously didn’t want a googled list of books, which you then provided yourself? Continuing with your asinine prescriptive bullshit, but not applying it to yourself? Seeing as how I never said “unrestricted access to any drug.”

Oh look! More projection!

Oh look, a kid pretending he understands psychology!

and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

Pretending like you don’t understand what an implication is. Very mature, indeed.

You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments.

Oh no, I made a typo! Nothing screams “chronically online edgelord” (that’s how you spell “edgelord”) just like thinking that editing a comment is somehow bad.

You try all the most edgelord things, like screaming “fallacy” to win a debate. Remember that? Remember when you tried winning an argument by calling it fallacious, like the edgelord you are, who has never picked up a book on philosophy, yet wants to pretend online he understands rhetoric.

All in all you need to up your game.

I haven’t laughed that hard in months

See, but you are wrong, and now you’re trying to pretend you’re not, because you’re a ~20 something male who can’t accept when they make a mistake, and they always have to learn through being humiliated, than being ashamed for a few weeks, and then not doing that same mistake publicly again.

Remember the time you actually linked “that’s a fallacy” , thinking naming a fallacy means you “win” a debate, when you presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong, when obviously, that’s not the case.