World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
You say that like it's a bad thing. What else am I to do when someone asks for sources? I've read similar research in the past and went to find it again.
That's whataboutism.
Correction, you've googled similar studies before. I'm pretty sure you haven't read them. There's literally nothing there except sampling bias and weak correlations.
You can do that for literally anything
No, it isn't. It's not "what about alcohol" as in "let's not talk about cannabis, but talk about alcohol instead".
It's a "you don't understand the actual risks involved, you don't understand that you're linking things you think they prove something (even without reading them) that confirms the bias that has been programmed into you, so here's some context to make it more understandable"
The context being objective science not having found any causality with mental health disorders and cannabis, and honestly, not even proper correlations.
If this was about the dangers to mental health, then those dangers would be objectified, and alcohol would be considered more dangerous and prohibited. If for some reason the prohibition of cannabis doesn't come from objective science, but pure political shitcanery, then it wouldn't care at all about the objective facts of any of the risks, but it would pretend to — even going so far as to completely make shit up
Which is exactly what is happening here, and you're perpetuating it. Probably without realising it, but you are.
There's clearly no convincing you. By all means, continue to spread the myth that cannabis can do no harm to anyone, and eventually the wrong person will believe you.
Remember when you were talking about whataboutism, trying to discredit my entire comment?
Well, now you're doing what's called "a strawman." At no point have I said or even implied that cannabis is literally harmless.
That's probably because I'm trying to defend my initial statement, and I didn't realize you were only taking issue with the sources I presented.
In light of that, excuse my accidental strawman. But also, I don't really care to argue about the veracity of the research presented by the NIH.
Aaand that's sort of my point.
Yes, we should take the harms of any substances seriously, but to be frank, the risks in cannabis are comparable to caffeine, and on an objective level, even smaller. So my deeper point is that people should realise that attitudes can be deeply "programmed" by our environment (and I'm not talking about some malicious and purposeful propaganda, except at the very start of it, after which society just sort of did it's thing), and we should realise to readjust our attitudes towards cannabis to be more like our attitudes towards coffee. For example, it's not often you need to worry about someone's caffeine consumption, but that too is a thing sometimes. The worst example I can think of is a middle-aged woman I worked with who made coffee 4x stronger than anyone else, no-one else would drink it (except for me as well, but with a lot of cream and sugar, and much much less than her). She was so caffeinated, it really did show up on her skin and definitely on her behaviour. She was very, very mildly psychotic, and I use that not in the colloquial, but clinical sense. In the sense that she was very mildly hypomanic and slightly confused at times, making a lot of mistakes in our work, to the point that she was prohibited from taking any of the orders that came from the government, because they didn't want to pay for her constant fuck-ups. Other times it's perhaps a young-ish person who is doing too many energy drinks, or it's my 93-year old grandma who has anxiety and who's hands shake, but who says she won't stop drinking coffee. I'd say my worry for someone using too much cannabis has been much on the same level. It used to be bigger, when I was younger, and somehow believed the studies that only talk of these correlations, until I understood that none of them had any substance, always just "analysing" previous work and when you look into those, they're more questionable than the newer ones.
We've accepted a work culture in which you can make jokes about how you "can't even function before my first cup of coffee", and that's completely fine. But if I say "oh damn, I just can't get to sleep without a good bowl full of indica", a lot of people would instantly consider me an addict of some sort, while the other perhaps a not-so-funny character in an office sitcom.
Thank you for the apology, but there really was no need. Still, very mature of you, rare on online forums. tips fedora
edit Oh here, have an image as well.
OK maybe? I think it depends on the user. Excuse my falling back on anecdotes now, but I don't think I've met anyone whose had a panic attack from drinking coffee (though I would not be surprised). However I know several people who have had panic attacks from ingesting THC.
I agree that we are too blase as a culture about the relative risks of caffeine and alcohol dependence. I just get frustrated when people parrot the notion that cannabis has never hurt anyone. I even support the cause to at least decriminalize it and even legalize it for adults, though we need better education about the potential risks. I've only ever seen warning labels about the habit-forming nature.
Yeah, anecdotes aren't science.
Especially when we've established how biased society's view of cannabis is.
Caffeine can actually kill you of an overdose. It's not even that rare, medically. Not compared to zero cannabis overdose deaths.
Caffeine can even cause auditory hallucinations on a fairly small dosage. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/caffeine-linked-to-hallucinations-51161154/
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2016/04/20/cannabis-vs-caffeine-which-is-safer-a-cup-of-coffee-or-a-puff-of-weed/
Yes the site is "cannabisculture", but they give sources to actual science outlets and specific publications
And this isn't to say that caffeine is really that dangerous, as it isn't. You can abuse it and get problems, but most don't. It's more addictive and more dangerous and more used, and less worried about. They hypocrisy around coffee is expecially high here in Finland.
It's honestly crazy, I've had to strip down and take a piss in front of a guy who's lips were packed with snus and who was on his 12th cup of strong coffee for the day. As in he had to visually confirm I didn't have any gadgets or anything on my dick.
All this because I got a fine for smoking cannabis. And I had to do that every week, on random days, for six months. Beyond humiliating, especially done by people who were clearly sorely addicted themselves, which I wasn't. (At the time I didn't use caffeine or nicotine — even going so far as to not eat chocolate because of it's caffeine content.)
Yes you have. Go to literally any high school, and like a third of the kids are so high on energy drinks that they'd get a low score of mania on clinical tests. Just because you've not associated someone's behaviour with caffeine doesn't mean it didn't cause it as much as cannabis the anxiety attacks of the people you talk of.
And caffeine is actually regulated, formally. Cannabis isn't. So you'd get way stronger strains than what you might if it were legal, ans definitely strains with more CBD, which counteracts the psychotic effects of THC.
You literally couldn't give the equivalent of that in caffeine, because it'd be like 8 large energy drinks and would literally kill a person, whereas with a cannabis overdose, you'll get anxiety instead of a coronary and death. Also, the anxiety is very strongly connected to the legality of cannabis as well. In places whereby cannabis is legal, those sorts of anxiety attacks are far fewer.
Video games are habit forming. Do you think they should have labels on them? Literally anything can be addictive. What causes the "cannabis isn't addictive" myth is that cannabis doesn't cause dependence. As in you could smoke insane amounts for several years daily, then quit cold turkey, ans only suffer a few days of insomnia if that.
With alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, you'll get actual physical withdrawal symptoms. With alcohol so bad that you can die.