I can definitely understand peoples’ issues with it being consumed, especially in a political context, but how do yall feel about “weed”? I won’t hide my feelings, I am very much pro-weed, it’s not great that I started in my mid-teens but in my area it’s FAR from uncommon. I don’t smoke daily or anything, I’m not addicted to it (people say it’s non-habit forming but any drug can be addictive with enough frequent usage) but I do smoke and dab w/ friends often. That’s not why I believe in legalization tho, my main thing is you shouldn’t make a naturally occurring plant an illegal substance. I’d point to the DEA’s destructive (legal) burning of thousands of naturally occurring marijuana plants found in nature; This seems eco-fascist to me and to deny the uses of hemp as a production material seems dogmatic to me. The USSR used hemp for industrial purposes during the war and it helped in a major way. I’m sure most of us are familiar with the badge given for Hemp growers. If you have any criticisms, I’m more than open to it, but I feel that marijuana won’t be easy to get rid of in future society and would probably be put to use in different more productive ways.

  • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    1 year ago

    Yes, they also have access to better healthcare in general and their jobs are lighter but it’s not argument to drop health and job safeties for the workers.

    I’m happy to discuss our differences of opinions in good faith, but please don’t try and trick me into defending a position that I never took. This is a common tactic that liberals use and we have to be better than that.

    I think that this idea that drugs are only harmful for society comes from either:

    1. Bourgeois ideology that’s taught to us both subliminally and directly through our education systems and then internalized by us throughout our lives
    2. Generational trauma like in the case of China and its history with it being used as a weapon to harm their society

    Yes certainly, drugs can be harmful, but to outright dismiss them as only harmful (except in medicine as you stated) is not scientific.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      11·
      1 year ago

      I’m happy to discuss our differences of opinions in good faith, but please don’t try and trick me into defending a position that I never took. This is a common tactic that liberals use and we have to be better than that.

      I’m not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.

      Yes certainly, drugs can be harmful, but to outright dismiss them as only harmful (except in medicine as you stated) is not scientific.

      It precisely is scientific, there is tons upon tons of research about the adverse effect of drugs, coming from both capitalist and socialist researchers. Numbers of which greatly outweights the research about positive non-medical effects. Not to mention basically every article about positive effect of drugs i ever read comes from bourgeois background. Which is yet another thing to consider that the recreational drug advocates do appear to be overwhelmingly bourgeois.

      • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        I’m not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.

        I never advocated for dropping health and safety protections for workers. This is what your comment conveys even if it was done unintentionally.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          11·
          1 year ago

          You wrote:

          They’re one of many, sure. The bourgeoisie use drugs too btw. They just have access to education, clean supply, and support for addiction.

          You used this as argument for legalisation of drugs. I responded that the bourgeoisie generally have better healthcare and safeties yet nobody would use this as argument for liberalisation the safety regulations for workers, yet it is for some reason argument for liberalising the drugs regulation?

          Also i couldn’t care less of burgies poisoning themselves.