This is why I was taught to never stop s theft. This person was not trained to deal with this and look what happen. The fucking stuff wasn’t worth his life, and stores are insured.
Exactly! What is being stolen is not yours, you aren’t law enforcement, you aren’t trained, and you don’t know what the thief is going through or willing to do to you.
Store clerks are being paid at the bottom. Absolutely no reason to protect merch.
There are jobs that make twice to 10 times as much as them. So why throw yourself in danger for $12 an hour when there are people making $200 an hour who get to sit around behind a desk all day?
Even the people making $200 an hour don’t want this guy risking himself for the merch. Most stores prohibit their staff from interfering with thieves. No one wants this, and it’s saying something if all levels of a company are aligned on something.
Between 1985 and 1988, while serving as postdoctoral fellow at Temple University in Philadelphia and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD, (88–89) Karikó participated in a clinical trial in which patients with AIDS, hematologic diseases, and chronic fatigue syndrome were treated with double stranded RNA (dsRNA). At the time, this was considered groundbreaking research, as the molecular mechanism of interferon induction by dsRNA was not known, although the antiviral and antineoplastic effects of interferon were well documented.[18]
If tobacco/nicotine itself isn’t banned then this could potentially get a lot of chainsmokers to switch to a relatively healthier form of smoking like dry herb vaporizers.
No problem fellow earth born human. May all your bowls be vaped!
Seriously, vaping is much better for cannabis. Dry herb vaping tobacco if you’re trying to quit (or vaping) is a losing bet. But it’s still less likely to give you cancer.
Personally I’m struggling to find reliable research on the addictive properties of THC especially regarding vaping so unless they mean the quality of hits real good idk, buuut
It will be less carcinogenic and more pleasant on your lungs since it’s vaporizing the THC rather than burning the whole herb. Unless you burn it at max heat anyways…? Visuals: youtu.be/VR3j1MJiPd8?si=_JyroHJYy_xQgNDL
I’ve also heard the remains can be used for edibles but idk how that holds…
It was the best method I’ve used for smoking for sure. My double perforated bong doesn’t even come close.
That’s an interesting video. I’m glad to see that the combustion/vaping difference is as wide as I assumed it would be.
On the addiction side, I feel like it’s something you can get addicted to in the same way that you could get addicted to gaming or potato chips. You can mess your life up by having bad priorities when it comes to anything fun.
As far as chemical dependency, I think it’s pretty well known that it’s nothing close to harder drugs. The little leaflets they give out with the medical cannabis here do warn of withdrawals after stopping, along with side effects etc. it can certainly be “habit forming” for me just in the sense that it helps me feel so much better and I want to keep that going. But I have also just stopped using it for weeks (travel) or months (job search) and there were no issues at all.
The addictive properties of THC are worth questioning wether it’s actually addictive or if certain people are susceptible to patterns of behaviour.
Someone with ADHD could latch onto it as a behavioural pattern because it’s helping them focus and relax. Like caffeine in that sense, but caf’ is actually addictive.
I enjoy the habbit as well, but I’ve also never experienced withdrawal or issues while stopping weed and I’ve managed to stop abruptly as a documented experiment.
The point you made about ADHD rings true to me. It’s definitely a behavioral pattern for me, but one that’s kind of nice.
I have also stopped for extended periods without issue. Maybe I feel a little worse for a day or two if I’ve gotten used to daily usage. The only issue I watch is that even though it helps me relax and get to sleep, it either affects my quality of sleep or just makes me need more of it. I can feel a bit hung over from it at times. But it’s really not that bad and I only sometimes avoid it late in the day.
Cannabis is great for getting to sleep, but there can be conflicts of interest per say. I like the sources on this for understanding: [www.sleepfoundation.org/…/cannabis-and-sleep]
I highly recommend a deep dive into cannabis, it’s a fascinating rabbit hole of information that reveals more about us than the chems. Especially the lore!
I am definitely going to start reading this link immediately. Cannabis is helpful enough that it’s worth learning to use it in the most positive/productive ways possible.
I have not heard of this before ever, I do have a theory though. Combustion is very high heat thousands of degrees F and at this temp range many chemicals get broken down before entering your body. Vaporizing is only a couple hundred degrees and most likely preserves the chemical compounds better. Its not that vaping makes it more addictive, it makes the extraction of the chemicals that interact with your brain more efficent. You are effectively getting more juice per squeeze thus increasing extraction potency.
Maybe to people who don’t know anything about smoking. Some substances are less addictive than others to smoke thus theres less compulsion to put smoke into your lungs constantly. Dry herb vaporization smoke is also absolutely measurably safer than traditional combustion smoke as its far less hot and no ash, carbon tar, burned fuel byproducts from lighter or wick, none of that is getting in the smoke only the low vapor point plant oils and terpenes you actually want in there. Thus making it much cleaner and less full of carcinogens. You can really feel the difference on the lungs. Also the smell isn’t nearly as bad either almost unnoticable which is a win for non-smokers in the area.
The idea that a chain smoker who goes through 2 packs a day will suffer the exact same degree of health issues as someone who vaporizes half a gram of weed once or twice a day is silly.
Nope. Theres always going to be health affects from putting any kind of smoke into your lungs, no matter what. But on a relative scale of health its definitely much more safe in the long term than chain smoking cigs with all their carcinogens and addatives. Smoking is not a healthy pass time, but some people enjoy it/ do it for medical reasons and are willing to accept inherent risk. Just like how drinking a beer or a shot of vodka once a night after work is still not great for your health long term wise but is objectively much better than binge drinking 24/7.
would it be better if everyone magically stopped drinking and smoking? Yes absolutely. But we live in reality and not lah-lah land, people should be free to make their own decicions on what to ingest as responsible adults, and trying to stop them from doing things with prohibition just encourages them to do it underground with unregulated products from the friendly neighborhood dealer, sales which the state/government doesn’t see a cent in income tax to. At least taxing the shit out of recreational drugs helps keep social services running and keeps otherwise productive members of society out of jail.
Thats not to say legalize everything, hard addictive substances like opioids and heroin and such that have an almost certain destructive impact on anyones life after one use should not be allowed. But leave it up to the individual and tax the lighter less addictive things like tobacco, alcohol, weed, psychadelics, all of which can be used responsibly occasionally in a social setting without a huge risk of addiction and the last two of which can even provide long term psychological benefits/healing when used correctly in the right enviroment.
Keeping opiates illegal just causes the exact problems you’re discussing with the other substances, if not more. Opiates are addictive and potentially dangerous yes. So are most drugs, even the ones you mentioned. Yes it could be argued psychedelics are less harmful, there’s no real risk of overdose and minimal risk of addiction. I’d also rather live in a world where those are legalised if that’s all, rather than the one I’m in now where my country denies cancer patients cannabis but millions of tax payer’s pounds are wasted policing idiots drunk in alcohol every week. But let’s not pretend psychedelics are completely harmless.
Acting like so called “hard” drugs are some kind of black magic powders where one time trying them will have you hooked for life, ready to sell your own Mother as minced beef just to get your next hit is the same crap people used to say about the other drugs you’ve listed, including weed. Plenty of people consume them and lead productive lives.
Consenting adults shouldn’t be stopped from putting anything they want to into their own bodies. It’s called freedom.
If I start repeatedly slamming my own head into a wall, an action that could eventually kill me, as long as I own that wall or have the permission of the wall owner and I’m not getting noise complaints from the neighbours I can legally do it as much as I like.
But I can’t legally take the risk of accidentally overdosing on fentanyl. Despite the fact that legalising the drug would mean I can get my hands on product produced in labs which are licensed and vetted so I can see the strength of the substance and be fairly certain of its purity, making overdose infinitely less likely.
Dude, you’re salty that you have a bad opinion and multiple people are telling you that the real world is more complicated than your ‘just stop selling it’ idealism bullshit. Theres no need to legitimize a habit that people of most cultures throughout history have been doing for thousands of years. Counter arguments you don’t like or want to understand are not word salad. I’ve seen your other comments, ‘f-fuck your empathy bullshit, your promoting baad habiit! You do better filthy smoker!’ Quit being a close minded intolerant dick and get off your high horse.
The discussion this guy is trying to have isn’t based around smoking in the least, its about the distinction between hard and soft drugs and what should be legal and what should not. What ‘doesn’t make sense’ in this context is the arbitrary line society and individuals draw between hard and soft drugs and what should be acceptable to legally sell and tax. Not ‘silly smokers argument for smoking doesn’t make sense’ But you would know that if you bothered to actually read and try to comprehend what people are trying to say, instead of getting defensive and skimming over the ‘word salad’ you don’t like. Unlike you, the guy actually made some good points that I wanted to think on before giving him a real reply. You on the other hand, can get absolutely bent. Consider your ass blocked.
You’re welcome, thanks for taking time to write up a good counter argument. I agree alot with what you said and also do partially feel that we should legalize everything and let people reap what they sow. I just don’t really know if letting everyone buy heroin from a dispensary would result in a net negative or positive for people in the long run. While peoples lives aren’t gaurenteed to be destroyed after one or a few uses, theres many horrible stories of just that happening, again usually with heroin and some ridiculously addictive opioids. Im not talking about the over dramatized cherry picked DARE stories that you hear in school. Im talking about the very real testimony of SpontaneousH and many others will forever haunt me as an important warning. Its easy to see how something that gives people the biggest dopamine high of their entire life and is also extremely physically addictive ultimately consuming them. The homeless that need to satiate their next high usually aren’t hooked on weed.
So yeah its just a really nuanced and hard thing to be one way or the other for me. There is some arbitrary hypocracy on what constitues soft vs hard drug and I can see an argument for legalizing everything for reasons already stated, but I also think that the ready availability and societal acceptance of things like heroin might be a net negative on the long term health of a society already filled with mental illness and a crushing need for escapism. Its easy to say justify legalizing from a self-interested user perspective, but when members of your friends family and children start legally ODing? Not so much.
Should adults be allowed to do what they want with their health? Yes. But try telling that to the grieving family of a depressed 22yo that overdosed for the 6th time in a year on legal readily available stuff and finally stayed down for good.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. You can’t get everyone to just stop, so you do the less bad thing and things are better.
Pretending that abstinence is the only good solution is lazy and harmful. People are not as simple as a sudoku, and the solutions to helping them are complicated and imperfect.
And create a black market. Now people are still addicted to nicotine and have to deal with criminals to get their previously socially acceptable* fix. Good job, you made it worse.
As I said. Abstinence (and variations thereof) is a stupid and lazy solution, typically asserted by people in positions of privilege who lack the empathy to understand that it isn’t that simple or easy.
Oh fuck you with the empathy bullshit. You’re advocating for a harmful habit that has been pushed on people due to its addictive nature. You’re advocating for a harmful habit that not only affects the user but those around them regardless of “quality” ingredients. You’re advocating for the poor smokers not being able to get “safe” cigarettes like the companies that sell them now aren’t criminals in their own right.
No the issue is you smoke and don’t like being told that your addiction is objectively bad.
Way to read the comment my dude. At no point did I say that smoking was good for you or advocate for it in any way. Those are lovely words you put in my mouth.
The point you missed is that humans are complicated, addiction is complicated, and shit simple solutions fed to the suffering masses from on high help no one. And as your example lampshades, sometimes makes it worse. Have we won the war on drugs yet?
Harm reduction has value and is more effective to ultimately get you what you want. It is not the fault of me or anyone else that the (provably) better solution to a difficult problem is distasteful and too slow for your taste.
Making things illegal does not make them go away, it makes them hide. Problems don’t get solved in the shadows.
It’s increasingly rare all over. Rolling your own is cheaper but not by much these days. I always preferred the taste of self rolled when I did smoke but most smokers I’ve found, wherever you go, would prefer to smoke pre-rolled if they can
In Portugal the law forbids taking pictures of a person without consent in public places if the person is the main subject(it’s okay if you’re filming something else and the person happens to pass). I used to think it was too limiting a law, but now I think everyone will need this sort of legal protection.
Copyright is very strictly for creative works, which your likeness is not.
You might be able to stretch trademark law into applying here, but my understanding is that, at least at the federal level, there's not really much of a legal framework for dealing with this sort of stuff yet. Hopefully we'll get something soon.
When used for fraud, absolutely. But it can also be used for parody and satire, which is strongly constitutionally protected as free speech.
A case like this is pretty open and shut since it's a blatant scam, but what if it was simply a fake Tom Hanks saying political statements he disagrees with? Would someone be able to argue parody? Probably not successfully, but there is a blurry line there. What if you simply had to include a disclaimer that it's AI generated? Would all content be allowable in that case?
Likeness rights are state based and accordingly vary state to state. As usual with such things, you can just assume CA and NY is the “prevailing” law on it.
There are rules in Hollywood that they can’t use an actors likeness without permission, but obviously the people who made this ad don’t care about that. I think this is an area the law doesn’t cover yet, although it should.
Although using fake Shemps was somewhat common throughout the 20th century, Screen Actors Guild contracts ban reproducing an actor’s likeness unless the original actor gave permission to do so, largely because of a lawsuit filed by Crispin Glover — following his replacement by Jeffrey Weissman in Back to the Future Part II — that determined that the method violates the original actor’s personality rights. The method continues to be used in cases, such as Shemp’s, where the original actor is deceased and permission from the deceased actor’s estate is granted.
The GOP got their perjurous Justices confirmed, their tax cuts passed, their book bans, and the end of Toe V Wade. Seems like they are implementing just fine.
Civics education in this country is fucking pathetic.
I agree with you but there’s no reason to believe that the people proposing blatantly unconstitutional courses of action are American. In fact there’s no good reason to believe they’re even arguing for this in good faith. There’s a lot of a bad actors on the internet getting paid by various nation states to foment problems.
I tend to put commenters who won’t accept that their plan is outside the bounds of the law into that second category. They KNOW what they’re saying would cause serious problems if it was done but they keep repeating it. They act just like the Russian led MAGAts with the sole difference that they’re pretending to work for Team Blue.
I’m not American and I don’t know how your whole complicated political system works. So if I ask if something can be done a certain way and it’s not how it actually works in your system I simply MUST be a foreign bad actor trying to influence Americans to vote for Putin as international world overlord.
You’ve been instructed over and over and over in this very topic how our system works and you ignore to continue pushing a plan that would have devastating and immediate consequences.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck odds are good that it’s a duck.
pushing a plan that would have devastating and immediate consequences.
It’s some peak white moderation to think that there aren’t already devastating and immediate consequences to simply passively accepting fascism to preserve “order”. You’ll croak about civics education while people are losing their lives due to a corrupt and illegitimate court being giving cart blanche to rewrite law.
You still have zero excuse. If you think the head of state of any liberal democracy can change the judicial system by fiat you don’t have the understanding nor mental horsepower to be reading about this instead of an introduction to government textbook.
You may want to actually read the Constitution one day. It makes no mention of “life”. Here’s the text of Article III, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
While technically true it’s irrelevant as the constitution does not specify any term limits. So yeah - reddit-tier nit-picking over a detail while missing the entire point.
Technically true? Well, what the other person said was entirely false. It’s not nitpicking when someone says that the constitution says justices have lifetime appointments and it actually doesn’t say that.
It becomes relevant very quickly when you want to change the system. An act of Congress requires a majority vote and signature by the president, fairly simple. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both chambers and ratification by 3/4 of the states (or a convention by the states).
Congress cannot impose SCOTUS term limits by statute. For one, Congress lacks enumerated authority to regulate SCOTUS. For another, even if they did, SCOTUS interprets the constitution to mean life terms, which means any simple statute Congress passes is reviewed… by SCOTUS… as facially unconstitutional.
The Constitution is silent as to the number of justices, Congress has determined how many supreme Court justices there will be. That number has been changed over time by Congress. Term limits are no different.
If the supreme Court wants to go that route, it is already been established that Congress can expand the number of justices. Congress can simply expand the number of justices, seat those justices, and then change the terms for Supreme Court justices with the new members voting in favor of the constitutionality of that change.
Even impeaching every Supreme Court Justice would be quicker and easier than the constitutional amendment. Congress unquestionably has the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.
If I’m so ignorant of the American democratic system, when I’m not even American myself and was never really educated on the system, would it bother people to explain to me why what I ask is not possible instead of throwing insults?
You would do well to indicate in your posts that you know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no business discussing it then. It sounds more like a suggestion than a question.
I assumed that he could propose a bill or something. And what about executive orders? How does that work? I saw Donald Trump sign some stuff into law while he was in office.
Sorry, not American. I don’t fully understand how your system works.
He can suggest a bill, but he can’t submit it himself, someone in the House of Representatives would have to do it for him.
And as far as executive orders go they can be overturned by Congress or the next sitting president, and there are limitations as to what can and cannot be done via executive order.
Nobody wants to be the first to add justices, because that can become a game of one-upmanship where you’d could theoretically end up with a 91 person SCOTUS.
Where are you getting this idea the president can do this? When you see an article on this type of thing at least check the wikipedia page. I understand how the misunderstanding comes about due to the talk around the new deal in history classes but roosevelt only pushed for congress to act. This is something you see a lot with presidential tenures. They will push congress to act but they themselves can only do so much. It is only in recent times executive orders have been used extensively but this is still limited to what congress did not define and the constitution does not define in law.
I really don't think he should. It was not a great move by roosevelt either. It was actually about judges retiring. I actually think no one should be holding an office of any kind after 60 myself. Just adding more though is not going to help. Better to impeach them.
And yet after it the votes changed and they allowed the New Deal. Courts become less extreme when their comfortable power is threatened.
What’s your solution to a corrupt court throwing away precedent and making law from the bench? Just pat Mitch McConnel on the back and say “shucks, you got us Mitch, guess we’ll just live the rest of our lives under conservative rule”? Because waiting for 67 Democratic senators or multiple conservative justices dying under Democratic rule isn’t likely to happen.
Adding more justices may instigate a tit-for-tat, but it’s no worse than just accepting that they get to make law for the rest of your life, and the credible threat of doing it (or the actual practice) is likely to lead to real functional reform.
I don't believe the courts "allowed" the new deal because of the court packing idea. The court by its nature can't change votes whatever you meant by that. I have no solution except impeachment and indictment which I would truly love to see. Taking bribes like that should never be acceptable.
I have no solution except impeachment and indictment
You get that this is functionally no solution at all, right? Even in Obama’s first term there were only 60 Democratic-caucusing senators and a few of those were unreliable DINOs. 67 is a fairy tale. It’s only marginally more likely than just hoping they get raptured.
And if that’s the case, which do you prefer:
Living the rest of your life under a conservative court making up law as it goes.
Legally changing the size of the court as has been done before, but in the process breaking precious norms.
See the thing is you talk like changing the size of the court is realistically gonna happen any more than impeachment. Its still requires majorities which are not there. So its like your arguing that we don't have the number for what I said but we should go for the thing where we still don't have the numbers but its closer. Its not horseshoes or handgrenades.
Adding justices takes 50 votes. Impeaching takes 67. That’s a world of difference. It’s not going to happen if everyone up and down the party continually prioritizes making excuses for what can’t happen, but if Biden (and other Democrats) continue to make their case that the court has lost its legitimacy and is in need of reform (i.e., lead) there’s nothing fantastic about getting there.
the world of difference does not matter if you don't have the 50 votes. Why is it less possible to get more republicans to vote on it especially when one, like impeachment, is more legitamate?
What makes you think this is supposed to be a vote that must occur this instant with this congress? Do you think the Democrats will never have 50 solid votes ever again? And thinking that 15-17 Republicans would ever impeach a sitting Republican justice to be replaced by a Democrat is just wildly out of touch with reality. They wouldn’t impeach Trump after he had his followers storm the capital that they were actual in.
There are a few options available. Pack the court, call for ethics inquiries, draw attention to the unconfirmed justices, or literally anything at all. Go on the attack. Be a leader. Demand justice. Biden is content to shrug and say “Ah, well, you see the GOP controls too much, so only if we have all the power can we make things better.”
When asked the question directly, Biden paused for a few seconds. Then he sighed and said, “I worry.”
“Because,” he said, “I know that if the other team, the MAGA Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”
But he said, “I do think at the end of the day, this court, which has been one of the most extreme courts, I still think in the basic fundamentals of rule of law, that they would sustain the rule of law.”
His power here is to set a direction and to nominate new appointees. He could write a bill to expand the bench and/or a constitutional amendment to require a code of ethics… Hell, he could even say “ok supreme Court, you say you can self-regulate… Publish your own code of conduct publicly or I’ll lead the charge in imposing one on you”
Presidents have a lot of soft power. He can write executive orders to demand the problem be evaluated, or he can use his platform to rally support… He can even go to Thomas privately and suggest he resign with dignity while he can, even try to bluff him off the bench
There’s a lot he could do - his hard power over the supreme Court is very limited, but soft power is how most everything works
He’s doing one of the only things he can do: using his soapbox to draw attention to the issue.
The only real fix to this would be for Democrats to hold a majority in the house, a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate (or remove the filibuster with a simple majority), and the presidency.
The last time this was possible was a brief 7-month period from 2009-2010. Prior to that… 1978.
He could use his soapbox to promote remedies to the situation, instead of finally acknowledging that this is an unmitigated disaster.
Conservatives don’t wait for a supermajority to effect the change they want. You act like Democrats want to build consensus before doing anything, but Biden doesn’t even seem to have consensus on what he wants to do.
What would Biden do with an absolute majority? How would he fix things? That’s what he should be talking about, what he should be promoting.
Pointing out the problem puts it into play for public debate, and there isn’t anything Republicans can say about the issue that doesn’t make them look bad (because on this issue they are unquestionably the villains).
Getting into details about the solution, however, offers the Republicans a line of attack and a way to muddy the waters. (“They want to pack the court!”).
Nothing is gained by having Biden get into the nitty-gritty, but something is lost.
Conservatives don’t wait for a supermajority to effect the change they want.
They don’t need a supermajority. All* they want to do (cut taxes and budgets via reconciliation and stack the courts*) is possible with a simple majority.
Supreme Court does still need 60 votes to end debate and actually vote on confirming
I didn’t spend long looking for a source and what I found just said it goes from committee to floor debate then to a vote, and I assumed anything going to the floor for debate needed a cloture vote to end debate. But looking up the cloture vote for ACB does say it ways 51 to 48, so yeah looks like I was wrong.
Republican president from 1980-1992. And in 1993-1995 we hadn’t yet seen this insanity of obstruction for the sake of power, so getting rid of the fillibuster at that time would have seemed like an unprompted power grab.
Kicking the habit Efforts by authorities to curb smoking and its health hazards, not least by prohibiting puffing in restaurants and cafes and banning ads for cigarettes, have prompted sharp reductions in cigarette sales in recent years.
While I support bans in restaurants and cafes, I don't support prohibition, which is what a lot of Western nations are aiming at. We learned our lesson during the alcohol prohibition years in America, and for the last 70 years around the world with marijuana prohibition. The social effects are far worse when forcing recreational drugs underground. Educate support addiction programs, but don't ban.
Yep, all the while alcoholism is at all time highs, so much so that they had to rebrand it as social drinking. Alcohol, still allowed to advertise every where, and can sell fruit flavors, but tobacco…nope. Tobacco should be left alone at this point. The majority of people don’t smoke, like like 7% in the USA, this includes all tobacco users. Prohibition just creates blackmarkets and death.
He’s not vaping as a habit, dude is just trying to look cool. A ton of those kids vape 0mg juices, because they can’t handle the amount of nicotine you can get from vaping.
I’m sure he looked cool getting caught alone in the school bathroom vamping, and being kicked off the team. Which do you think is the coolest, being ostracized or kicked off the team? Maybe walking home by himself because his former buddies on the team think he’s a dumbass?
Actually alcohol advertising is pretty limited in Europe due to EU wide regulations and some countries have even stricter rules, ranging from “not in public spaces” to straight up “no alcohol advertising at all”
Also I would point out alcohol is a big cusine thing and has been for centuries and you’re nuts if you’re upset schnapps are a thing but not strawberry cigarettes. Also like, flavoured vapes totally exist?
It used to be restricted in Sweden. Now of days, commercials on TV are 50% for online casinos, and 50% for alcohol. On billboards, they just write “non-alcoholic” text, yet the exact same bottles are primarily sold with alcohol.
I don’t think either should be regulated like it is, but the idea with tobacco was that kids are drawn to it but somehow not alcohol with their fruity flavors. It’s a bullshit double standard. And flavored cigars are what they went after…no kid is smoking an $8 acid cigar.
Same thing: tax the hell out of both. Vice taxes are too low. It may not help current users but it should help over time by discouraging new users.
I do drink alcohol sometimes, so yes I’m advocating more pain on myself. It won’t effect me since as an occasional drinker, it just won’t add up, but lets try anyway. I have kids who will need to make such decisions
Ok. Sure, junk food is horrible for people’s health, not least because it can seem like the cheapest way to eat. If it no longer being cheap encourages people to make healthier choices, I’m all for it. As someone who would pay more in multiple of these categories, I’m still all for it
Fuck that. Vice taxes are taxes on poor people. Make healthcare actually affordable and maybe people could get help with their addictions instead of getting punished by the government.
Ban use in public in general. I don’t want to be forced to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke in front of a train station or waiting at a traffic light any more than in a restaurant. People can do what they want at home but constantly having to deal with drug addicts polluting the air around me shouldn’t be accepted.
Or to anyone who can't focus when there's a shitload of background noise, or anyone who doesn't want to have to share a one-bedroom apartment with 3 other people just to be able to afford rent, or anyone who has difficulty in large crowds...
I've lived in a city before and I fucking hated it.
Rural shitholes are MUCH worse, I spent 14 years of my life in one and I’ll never live in a small town again. 90% of them are half full of worthless drunks and losers and the rest are constantly gossiping about everyone else. Do something dumb? 99% of the town will know before you even wake up the next day.
Cities are WAY better than small town shit holes where everyone is up in everyone else’s business. Fuck small towns and the people that live in them.
Cool, I don’t live in a well planned city and I would have to immigrate out of the country to do so, or wait likely decades for reforms to make their way here. In the mean time, I’ll still need a car. I don’t need to smoke a cig in public.
When this was announced, my opinion was that only hobbyists would even be interested in gas powered cars by 2035. I have to admit I thought the transition to electric vehicles would pick up pace a little quicker more suddenly than it has so far, but there’s still time to have my prediction come true.
The main difference between cannabis and tobacco is that one is addictive and encourages you to engage in the habit ten or twenty times a day.
Setting plants on fire and inhaling the smoke causes cancer. Doesn’t matter much which plant, though there’s surely some that are worse than these two. Neither one is good for you.
Of course, cannabis is often consumed in other forms (edibles, vaping, etc.).
But it’s the ROA with these two plants that cause the most problems. And outside of frequency of use they’re both carcenoginic.
Yes, cannabis can be habit forming. But as someone who has used both extensively tobacco addiction doesn’t compare to a cannabis habit. One encourages you to light up ten or twenty times a day and smoke a whole cigarette each time, from the moment you wake up until the moment you go to bed.
I don’t think I’ve smoked ten bowls in a single day in 30 years of blazing.
If you want to argue as to rather or not the burnt carbon in cannabis is carcinogenic I’d have to dig out some research.
It’s a real disorder, but we’re just recently getting to the point where it’s even legal to study cannabis use so data is sparse. What we do know is that there’s a subset of heavy users that develop a persistent vomiting disorder and cessation of cannabinoids clears it up. My brother in law’s brother has it and he has to be careful with some chemicals in foods that mimic cannabinoids even.
I don't find it weird at all. Cannabis is less harmful, less addictive, and subjectively, I find it way more fun.
Tobacco (nicotine) is hyper addictive to the point where people gradually get chemically compelled to smoke just about all the time. Arguably maybe caffeine is similarly compelling (I certainly drink caffeine all day), but most people consider caffeine to be pretty benign. Cigarettes are one of the hardest soft drugs to quit.
The long-term health effects of cannabis probably need to be studied more, but prohibition has actually made it harder to do just that. Now that the laws around weed have relaxed a little bit, it'll be much easier for people to legitimately do the scientific studies needed to show how cannabis affects the human body, how it affects the mind and mood, how additive it is compared to other common drugs, how it is typically used, and what effects legalization has on society compared to decades of criminalization.
The thing that I find truly weird, and actually pretty upsetting, is that I can stop by one of the many dispensaries around here and pick up weed flower or a 10-pack of cannabis gummies for like 15 bucks, but in other parts of the country there are people sitting in jail for less.
But all three are addictive drugs and alcohol and tobacco are fairly comparable in harms to society.
The conversation went like this, let’s not ban addictive drugs because prohibition doesn’t work! No, let’s ban smoking because we only tried it with alcohol!
That if we banned drugs with little social benefit that would include coffee. I chose it because it, alcohol, and nicotine, all cause addiction or physical dependence.
Nobody mentioned addiction, which is irrelevant since smoking only has disadvantages. You created a strawman argument then you doubted the proven benefits of coffee and red wine, which is even part of the mediterranean diet. You argue in bad faith and you are also uneducated, make us all a favour and leave.
Nicotine has benefits and tobacco has antidepressants in it (MAOIs) beyond that.
As I said, little benefit. No benefit, as the comment I replied to had asserted, is debatable for all three of these drugs.
Yes, I added in addiction. Because the addictive nature of nicotine, coupled with the habit reinforcement of its ROA is what makes it (and alcohol) so dangerous.
Coffee isn’t great either. Tea is a much better way to get caffeine. Lower amounts of caffeine coupled with L-theanine make it much less disruptive to the organism.
As far as being uneducated, I’ve studied drugs my whole adult life and have taken college courses on addiction and drug abuse specifically. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, were all covered by the course.
The taxes collected through cigarette sales more than cover their costs on the healthcare system. Don’t act like governments actually care about the health of their citizens, either, it’s just about production maximization and writing policy to help their friends.
Ask yourself why full tobacco bans are becoming so popular now, instead of any other time in the past 50 years since we learned how harmful smoking is. It’s because big tobacco companies have pivoted and cornered the E-Cig market now, which is much more profitable than traditional cigarettes. The only difference is that small/independent farms can’t grow disposable vapes like they can with tobacco.
Ask yourself why full tobacco bans are becoming so popular now, instead of any other time in the past 50 years since we learned how harmful smoking is. It’s because big tobacco companies have pivoted and cornered the E-Cig market now, which is much more profitable than traditional cigarettes
You have the cause and effect on this backwards. More and more laws were passed restricting smoking, so number of smokers went down, so companies pivoted to vaping.
But making it very difficult and expensive to maintain an addictive habit would much better.
The same would go for alcohol. If alcohol was more regulated, more controlled, not sold in public houses or businesses (including bars) and the price increased, taxed more with taxes going towards addiction treatment, education and medical assistance for those affected by alcohol … less people would drink alcohol.
If you have a culture where you freely allow businesses to promote, sell and provide an addictive substance that provides little to no health benefit … especially if it makes high profits … companies will want to encourage a culture of making their substance widely acceptable.
Alcohol looks acceptable because it’s promoted, advertised and normalized everywhere. If it weren’t, less people would be drinking.
Advertising of smoking is highly regulated and discouraged now … smoking is no longer normalized … which is why people smoke less.
Now that would be fascinating. Britain has a deeply entrenched drinking culture. Regularly getting drunk to the point of vomiting and passing is very common. The managers where I work all live away and stay in hotels when they visit my town every other week. They all go out and get wasted on a Wednesday night (with company funds, totally legitimately) and often don’t come into work Thursday so they can drive home in the afternoon when they sober up. All totally normal.
Ban advertising, pub drinking and cheap supermarket booze. Inflate the price and run a massive anti-drinking campaign. It’d be interesting to see how long it’d take for the tide to turn. Also, if we end up going the way of America during prohibition with illicit alcohol flooding the streets, how long that would take to die down and for people to accept it.
But it’ll never happen. No politician is even going to think about limiting the availability of alcohol in this country. They’d be so unpopular it’d be political suicide for them and their party.
Those “control freaks” only exist in your imagination, look at the reality around you. Almost everyone’s up for legalization of cannabis.
Tobacco users however are a huge burden on national health programs (ok except on the US, where people are just expected to cough up all their family’s money before they die idk)
“Actual science”?! Show me one single scientific article that defends tobacco usage for depression or anxiety. I’ll be waiting.
As for prohibitionists, if you keep digging for long enough you’re bound to come up with a couple nutjobs that do support banning tobacco. The thing with these fringe extremists is that they’re irrelevant, up until the moment you go up to them and give them a loudspeaker just so that you can come back crying “see I told you they exist, they’re coming for me”.
As for cannabis, note that I brought it up to point out that the “zeitgeist” is NOT prohibition, in fact it’s the opposite. The fact that it’s still illegal in some places speaks more to how out of tune some politicians and even the courts are with the rest of society.
You drinking alcohol doesn’t affect my health. You smoking cigarettes does - even in your own 4 walls, unless you have a few hundred meters distance from every neighbor. So I do support the idea of completely forbidding smoking - but I concede it’s not very practical and can’t really be done. Forbidding it in public spaces and restaurants / bars however, and whereever smoke will be blown to people who don’t like it? Yes, at least the legislation to enforce that would be very welcome.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.