Honestly I love taxes. I don’t love that billionaires don’t pay enough taxes and the unequal tax burden across different social groups but I love taxes and I love the idea of taxes. My dream would be a society where I work for basically pocket money and everything else - quality staple food and fresh food, education, healthcare, adequate housing, transportation, communication, childcare - is provided to me.
I 100% agree with everything you said. I am very much pro legalisation of weed and decriminalization of all drugs. Unless you are cooking up tons and tons of fentanyl you shouldn’t be in jail.
To me, education and awareness includes not equating marijuana and oregano.
I am making the argument for both, that is exactly the point I am making. I see too many people demonising alcohol and calling marijuana not dangerous in the same sentence, comparing it to oregano. Both substances are dangerous. And of course marijuana is addictive, what are you talking about? You can absolutely become both physically and mentally addicted to it. You can develop a tolerance, and you can trigger psychosis in predisposed younger people. I’ve seen all three cases in university and it wasn’t pretty.
Again, I am not advocating for the criminalisation of possession or consumption. I am only advocating for not downplaying that mj is a drug. Right now, the narrative parallels that “a glass of wine or two won’t hurt”, “let’s have a beer with friends”, “let’s get the champagne to celebrate”, “alcohol is fine at social events” that we used to hear some decades ago about alcohol. It didn’t end well. Why are we doing this again with weed now?
While I absolutely don’t agree with atzanteol, this statement is also utterly ridiculous. You own both marijuana and oregano with the intention of consumption. One of them is addictive, can cause psychosis, and can destroy lives.
All drugs should be decriminalized. So should weed. Maybe it even should be legal. But let’s try to not repeat the same mistakes we did with alcohol. Nowadays I think most people would agree that alcohol can be consumed in moderation, but its overall effect on public health is devastating and alcoholism is a real problem that affects way too many people, also people you wouldn’t think of. Science revised its guidelines of claiming a little drink a day is fine or even healthy to the best choice is no drink at all.
Its dangers were downplayed for so, so long. And now that we are legalizing weed I see the exact same sentiments about it that alcohol used to have. Marijuana is not an innocent, harmless substance. It can easily be abused and cause damage to individual lives, families, and friends.
That’s true, there isn’t much sadness going around. It reminds me a bit of the reaction to the healthcare CEO shooting.
I remember the take that resonated with me the most was in a piece by Josh Johnson at that time. He first told a story about a friend named Marty that had died from disease. “Brian Thompson was a human being. He was a husband, a father. Ok. So was Marty.” It feels the same this time around.
It is sad that a person died. It is sad that kids are now left without a father. But you can simultaneously acknowledge that the person who has died has actively helped to create more people who lost their loved ones. And once you do that, it is hard to hold up the general sympathy.
It’s not my thing to celebrate the death of a person. No matter how evil. I cannot wholeheartedly yell out good riddance. But weighing one against the other, I can’t force a tear.
Well, this is the worse scenario. If he goes down the “FASD route” it will be rather easy to debunk. An “increased risk” route will be much vaguer, more believable, and harder to disprove.
This might also go down the route of “if it wasn’t safe in the womb we should think twice about giving it to my baby who has a high fever” resulting in brain damage and death. (For the record: Fever is good, but high fever in babies is dangerous.)
This, then, adds up to “I didn’t give my baby tylenol when it had a fever, then it was hospitalized, they gave tylenol after all, now the kid has XYZ, it was the tylenol”.
Slip slap slop seek slide.
Just an umbrella won’t protect you from UV rays, let alone if you spend a lot of time outdoors and the umbrella doesn’t have a UPF. Even then, you’ll have rays reflecting from surfaces. Do you wear long clothes? Do they have a UPF? And where do you live? (Rhetorical question, I don’t need to know that of course)
If you are worried about chemicals, try mineral sunscreens. Non nano. They look and perform like shit but this is literally just zinc oxide sitting on top of your skin, reflecting the rays back like a mirror. Nothing is penetrating your skin, nothing is turning photons into heat. Zinc oxide is a compound you can get in a baby cream and a lot of pharmaceutical creams and it is reducing inflammation.
I like the umbrella, don’t get me wrong, but depending on what exactly you do it might just be not enough. I’m worried it provides you with a false sense of security. Trust me, Japanese people don’t rely on their umbrellas only.
Not really. A link doesn’t mean a necessary causation. It doesn’t have to be exclusively caused by tylenol. Skin cancer is linked to excessive sun exposure, but it can occur without it, and likewise, not everyone who is experiencing increased UV exposure gets skin cancer. Not every smoker gets lung cancer, not every lung cancer is caused by smoking (IIRC only 50% of lung cancer patients are smokers - it’s just that not 50% of people are smokers). But a certain risk factor increases the occurence of a disease.
I guess what you are thinking of would be comparable with FASD, a mother who has a child with fetal alcohol syndrome but never drank any alcohol during pregnancy would disprove the causation. My guess would be that this isn’t what they are going for but a vague “it increases the likelihood of the child developing autism”.
Looks around confused in German
It’s an interesting overall take still! But I am wondering now how income is handled in other European countries, I actually don’t know.