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
Why though?
The same reason abstinence only sex ed doesn't work.
And alcohol prohibition
I mean (most) humans are naturally driven to have sex, but no such instinct exists for weed.
I'd argue an instinct for getting high does exist.
Which may have scientific or medical reasons that the user isn't even aware of. Which can be just fine, too. Enjoy! Not everyone has to become a scientist. Just if it's important enough to you, or because you have to defend from the army of "Just Say No" types. They aren't speaking about any of the benefits of marijuana. Pure ignorance or worse.
I'm more thinking socialism evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, than a personal preference.
I mean, I believe that where my personal preference came from, to be accurate.
I contend that Neanderthals were smarter, but didn't get high, and due to hominids at that time (and still) being rather easily aggravated into (even mortal) fights, I dare say getting high while meeting up with new people would definitely be an advantage to a species. Which the Neanderthals didn't have, and thus dies out while the h sapienses were out getting high and fucking
I mean, sure. Really! I've never thought of that. Interesting stuff.
A psychiatrist once asked if I have Eastern European Jewish ancestry. He said it explains the lack chemicals. 🤷♂️
That just feels like lazy racism, but if we're going lazy racism, then I'd point out there's groups of humans in Africa who don't have any Neanderthal DNA. Sooo... IF my supposition was correct and we'd like humiliate arrogant white racists, we could point out that it's only some sub-saharan populations which are "purely human" or something as idiotic.
But we shouldn't, because with humans it's obviously not just a genetic thing. (And the idea of "purity" is super dumb and dangerous anyway.) It's a cultural thing. Because we're not animals.
So that also explains neanderthals mixing with humans. Some humans may have been like "fuck all that jazz" and settled with a neanderthal tribe, but some neanderthals were like "twice a year a rave and get high? Fuck yes" and then also taught us dummy humans some neanderthal stone tech. Or smth
You've put some thought into this! Nice. Thanks for the read 👍
More than a decade, easily.
I could write a book about it, I just don't want to spoil it all on Lemmy so some AI chatbot makes the book and then I'll get no money.
I fear I've given away too much of my theory.
Although I do think it's very counterproductive to try to hoard ideas. (as in "patents", "copyrights")
This is fantastic! I hope you finish it one day.
I've been fantasising about an AA grade movie, depicting early homo sapiens, but with culture. Just with very different culture than we're used to.
Two very short sentences that I'm sure anyone can feed to AI, but they won't have my ideas on what it's like.
thank you, honestly. Most support I've gotten. Lol. My family sucks.
I've never heard or seen anything like it. I'm sorry to hear about your family though. Stay strong.
There's no such instinct for weed in particular, but almost everyone seeks out psychoactive substances in one form or another.
Uh... What?
From a Medical Marijuana Educational Guide (full disclosure, it's connected to a dispensary):
*Also note: it uses "Medical Marijuana" language because it's from a state where only medical is legal, not recreational.
Medical Marijuana works by impacting the Endocannabinoid System we all have in our bodies.
"Your body already makes Medical Marijuana-like chemicals that affect pain, inflammation, sleep and many other processes. It mimics those naturally occurring compounds in the body, and can produce therapeutic effects." -Laura Borgelt, PharmD, University of Colorado
Based on what exactly?
Humans have found creative ways to get fucked up for millennia.
And that in no way implies that they're all good for us. In fact, we know many that aren't.
Alcohol, then. Prohibition didn't work and a lot of people died making and selling their own moonshine.
I mean part of that was because of how idiotic the application of prohibition was, because on the other hand I can think of one very successful prohibition campaign.
Instinct for pleasure does.
History proves this correct. It's never worked. They've even gone so far as to jail people. Maybe others should learn something from this instead of constantly beating the marijuana bad drum.
Jailing people is the whole point
Okay let's be clear that no matter where you ultimately stand on abstinence the war on drugs was a massively idiotic affair. Also given global downward trends in smoking I'd say there's merit to the idea of anti-drug education/propaganda, with hopefully fewer bullets than the war on drugs.
I'm having trouble following some of the last parts of your comment. Are you saying that it's worth it for the anti-smoking angle, like for health benefits? There are other methods for taking marijuana that have nothing to do with inhalation. Additionally, children can be prescribed CBD, to be taken through digestion or sublingually. This is a proven treatment for controlling seizures.
If you want to address smoking, I think there's much to be said. But making it all about smoking is a distortion. And until others prove otherwise, to me it's deliberate. Vaping isn't seen today as harmful like combustion is. I'm sure there's more to learn there, but all of these things are positive developments, that should be spoken about along with the negatives folks simply want to focus on.
I'm trying to say that if there turn out to be significant health issues caused by cannabis (which seems likely given the data in the article), then an anti-cannabis campaign should be viable and at least partially successful, in the same way anti-tobacco campaigns have been successful in reducing tobacco use. Drug use isn't some force of nature that can't be stopped if we have a good reason to stop it; the war on drugs failed to stop it because the war on drugs was stupid.
Right, only if you are speaking about children. The proof I use is the massive demand for it, along with the no massive damage to people or society over all these years. And, this is in the face of illegality and jail time. So other than some focused study on the effects of youth that result in an appropriate response, you can get out of here with your junk science and reefer madness. Alcohol is much more damaging on the brain. Look it up!
Well that just got a lot less coherent. Mind rewording the first half so I can understand what you're talking about?
What makes you think I have anything other than disdain for alcohol?
You've come in here with a preconceived notion that there's no value whatsoever to marijuana. Questioning why anyone would use it, but you do not accept anyone's answers. You obviously don't believe in people's freedom either, to make the best choice for their own mental health or any other reason they choose. You have nothing to offer but junk science and anecdotes, and a prescription for others to suffer more.
You... Uh... Sure you're talking about me? Because I literally never said that.