SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
64% of Americans now support the legalization of cannabis, an all-time high since Gallup first asked the question in 1969. Also for the first time, a majority of Republicans (51%) support legalization, up from 42% last year:
As efforts to legalize marijuana at the state level continue to yield successes, public opinion, too, has shifted toward greater support. The Department of Justice under the current Republican administration has been perceived as hostile to state-level legalization. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions could find himself out of step with his own party if the current trends continue. Rank-and-file Republicans' views on the issue have evolved just as Democrats' and independents' have, though Republicans remain least likely to support legalizing pot.
Also at NPR, The Hill, NORML, and Reason.
Related: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:47AM (12 children)
Americans have supported cannabis for decades. For most of my life, actually. The sixties flower children didn't spring out of a vacuum, after all.
Today's support is getting close to unanimous. (Given that no decision will ever be really unanimous in a population larger than a dozen or so.)
All that is happening today is, those more gullible people who were easily swayed by nonsense propaganda are dying off. Facts are facts, and the facts are cannabis has killed almost no one in the past hundred years. If a person crawls inside of a two ton joint before lighting it, it will probably kill him. That two ton joint might kill a couple people if it's rolled down a hill, into traffic. Otherwise, cannabis is pretty damned safe. Almost everyone understands that today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by a262 on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:40AM (7 children)
And yet, in a democratic country where the majority agrees it should be legal, it is still not legal. How does that make sense?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:55AM
The War on Drugs has been a long national nightmare. Don't forget the experiment with alcohol Prohibition.
Added the following to tomorrow's opioid story:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:01AM (5 children)
And, I must point out an error on your part. We don't live in a democracy. Public schools indoctrinate us to believe that we do, but we do not. We live in a republic. We have democratically elected representatives, but that doesn't make it a democracy. The republic has it's own agenda, which seems to be selling influence to the highest bidders. With respect to cannabis, the highest bidders seem to be the pharmaceuticals.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Saturday October 28 2017, @06:01AM (3 children)
I wonder what that would be.
Nope, that's not it. I wonder what it is?
The Republic of the USA is a type of democracy. So, we do live in a democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.0cc3eefaade0 [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:43AM (2 children)
From your link, "The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote."
That puts paid to the Democrat's complaint that Hillary won the "popular vote", however they wish to define "popular vote". And, it most certainly ruins the idea that "we live in a democracy". In a real democracy, every vote is equally valued, and equally valuable. In a real democracy, whatever is popular becomes law. We live in a republic, in which the popular vote is kind of important, but the vote doesn't decide what law is. Even if a majority of residents in your town decide that a huge vacant lot should become an amusement park, they don't get that park unless a whole bunch of other hoops are jumped through. And, even then, the vote can be trumped by city council, because business and/or industry will likely generate more revenue for the city, than an amusement park.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)
Did I claim we live in a direct democracy?
You keep adding your own qualifiers to the definition of democracy and then say the the USA doesn't meet your definition. But it's your definition. It's not a definition of democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:02PM
dude, first try to have clean elections. Only after that you can shout about how great your democracy is
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:03AM
And if you look historically you will see this has been true since the founding of the country.
Most people go 'oh the supreme court was the founding father's invention!!!' It was not. The original system only had the Executive and the Legislative branches. The addition of the supreme court was done by the federalists as a new enforcement/filibuster mechanism for laws when the next party took over as Federalist influence was waning (as had Whig influence prior to it.)
American politics has however always revolved around two parties. If one of the parties sufficiently incensed the population or otherwise weaked its support a third party might spring up and wash it away (As in fact happened with the Democratic Republicans which in turn eventually split into the Democrats and Republicans before the civil war, along with the short lived Warhawks and a few other parties whose names I forgot.) Then the Democrats and Republicans to a certain degree flipped stances during the 20th century as each tried to cater to a different audience. The Democrats to Unionists, Blacks, Bankers/Brokers and eventually Hollywood, and the Republicans focusing on Big Oil, an ever broadening range of religious groups, many of whom might have offended the religious supporters of the Republican party from the past, and businesspeople, both large and small, but over time more to the large players, while throwing the small guys rhetoric and a bone here and there (Democrats do the same, but this is already twice as long as I was expecting and I don't feel like backtracking in my stream of thought.)
If people decide that a representative democracy is no longer for them, or that the electoral college is no longer providing the benefits that it was claimed to provide for the stability of the country, then it is time to draft up measures, exert political pressure on your representatives, and get the system changed. American politics have changed, the old ways have begun failing us, even if most of the Constitution itself hasn't (although the 2nd, 4th, and 9th may have, and the 5th is certainly being strained under the level of deep data mining and informational recording going on at the corporate and national level...) It is really time for more Americans to stop taking others words for it and start doing the research themselves, even if they can only spare a few minutes each day between their other obligations, because the America of Tommorrow is being decided today and far too many people are treating it as somebody else's problem. And hint for them: those somebodies might not have their collective best interests at heart.
(Score: 5, Touché) by chromas on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:47AM
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:58AM (2 children)
But now we have the Elite via the media telling us that democracy is bad (populism!), because the Wrong People can get elected, while the Right People know what's good for us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:06AM (1 child)
Their claws are on SN as well, we've had a few people try and propose that democracy is dead. Maroons.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:49AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8GGpYFmkYI [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:47AM (11 children)
But people are sending a mixed message, saying one thing to the press and doing just the opposite in the voting booth.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:52AM (1 child)
Maybe true, but is Gallup "the press"?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:10AM
Gallup, Gollum, the press, what's the difference?
Everyone and their orange dog tries to muddle the difference between opinion, greed and the truth, how's one of the people to know what to believe?
The school only taught the one how to pass a grid test, thinking is so deprecated one can't remember when it happened the last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:56AM (1 child)
Apparently not.
When cannabis bills fail (rarely) it is because some absurd power grab was welded on.
The entire west coast of the US has approved cannabis, which by some standards makes it inevitable.
As you approach 30 some states approving cannabis, (I forget the exact number) Congress will have the power to tell the Feds to butt out, remove it from the schedule, criminalize Federal DEA operations against it, and tell dinosaurs like Sessions and Steven A Smith to shut up and sit down.
Even Cops have come to realize that pot heads drive safer than drunks.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:03AM
Here's is an example for others who read your comment:
Why Ohio voted against legal marijuana — and what it means for the future of the pot debate [washingtonpost.com] (archive [archive.is])
Ohio’s Marijuana Oligopoly Concerns [uclawreview.org]
Marijuana and the Ohio Oligopoly [cannabispatientsalliance.org]
Ohio's Legal Weed Proposal Could Create the World’s First 'Pot Grower Oligarchy' [vice.com]
What about Arizona? [phoenixnewtimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:44PM (6 children)
538.com went further in to the data. No large group feels steongly enough about the issue to cast a vote based solely on it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:53PM (5 children)
That is why all laws need to have an expiration date.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:00PM (4 children)
Excellent. Come talk to me after the law against murder has expired...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:31PM (3 children)
Well, your congress better be ready with a new one when it does, just like they do with the budget.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:50PM (2 children)
If your hopes for a long life are pinned on the US Congress being ready ahead of a deadline, you may not want to put off shopping for a nice plot.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:20PM (1 child)
No, I pin my hopes on the civility of the people around me. Not everybody needs an act of congress to act courteously and respectably. Those that do aren't going to change anyway.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:38PM
Interesting that you expect civility from "the people around you" when you lie like a rug. [soylentnews.org] Even if you merely perceived in your own mind as having given answers to the questions you'd claimed to have answered, a simple link to your "answer" is supremely easy to do. That you didn't is evidence of your malice.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:33AM (14 children)
I can accept the idea that it isn't good to have SWAT team raids to keep people from their vices, but...
This stuff is still bad. Heck, ignore the drug aspect. Suppose it was sawdust from oak trees. When you smoke, you fill your lungs with tar. You are breathing carbon monoxide, particulates, and all sorts of kinds of cancer-causing lung-obstructing crap.
It is 100% certain that large corporations will engage in sophisticated lifestyle marketing to push the product. There will be brands for women, brands for hipsters, brands for gay people (separately for tops and bottoms), brands for hispanics, brands for business executives (or those who aspire to be such), brands for athletes...
It's like with tobacco: Virginia Slims for women, Newports for blacks, etc. We see it with soda too (extreme sports for one brand, tradition for another...) and with beer and with vodka and with cars...
Business will push this hard, using every psychological trick to make people buy more and be brand-loyal.
Meanwhile, any regulations will be toast. Business will lobby the regulatory agency and the politicians controlling it. Friendly people will get appointed. It will be easiest to pass regulations that show up already written, supplied by the businesses that want to sell this product.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by a262 on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:38AM (3 children)
The most important thing that has to happen for *true* legalization is the right to grow one's own supply. Without that, we're still restricted. Give me the right to grow my own plants and do with them as I choose, and I'll be just fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:26AM
I consider it a mildly poisonous plant. It's not for human consumption.
It's pretty. It's resistant to bugs. It would be perfect growing under the windows in front of my house.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:39AM (1 child)
In what states is it legal to purchase for recreational use, but illegal to grow your own? (Its a real question, I really have no idea).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:48AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]
Sort by the second column (the colors - get green to the top).
For Washington state, it says "The state allows licensed growers to cultivate marijuana, but does not permit personal growing in one's home except for medical use." For Nevada there is no info in that column.
Everywhere else with legal recreational has allowed plants, usually six, to be grown in one's home. And if you can grow six legally, you can probably get away with 50 with nobody caring.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:42AM (7 children)
Vaping might reduce that, and is considered superior to smoking, although the science is not settled on vaping:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/vaping-health-problems-smoking-e-cigarettes-north-carolina-study-danger-lung-conditions-disease-a8016861.html [independent.co.uk]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:43AM (2 children)
Vaping with e-gigs is a completely different thing, and more likely to be bad for you as well. Dry-herb vaping just boils the THC and other compounds off. No tar, no smoke, no strong smell.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
I think there are e-cigs specifically designed to vape weed. Or more accurately, a vape in pen/e-cig form rather than a tabletop device like the Volcano.
Either way, there is an allegedly safer alternative to smoking cannabis (other than edibles).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by t-3 on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:30PM
Other than burnt herb and edibles, there's sublingual drops, oils which can be used topically or for cooking, varied concentrates which can be smoked or vaporized, and there are also pills available worth synthetic or extracted THC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:37PM (3 children)
I don't think people remember Dr Donald Tashkin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html [washingtonpost.com]
" "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought."
https://youtu.be/GJmQ16cGBHU [youtu.be]
Interview of Dr Tashkin with Lanny Swerdlow of Marijuana News
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:46PM (2 children)
Everyone can tell that medical science with low sample sizes, p-value hacking, and lots of unknown variables is going to produce contradictory results. That's why I said the science isn't settled.
You just admitted that the same guy has found evidence in both directions, believes cannabis is potentially harmful, and that it has "cancer-causing effects" (of variable/unknown concern). And you're calling me forgetful? Put down the reefer!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:54PM (1 child)
"Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood."
so 2240 people is a low sample size? OK
thanks. I'm not a previous anon. I lurk and I've read SN.
You are just being rude and obtuse.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:20PM
Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States). [nih.gov] (64,855)
Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study. [nih.gov] (49,321, 5,156 used cannabis)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5072387/ [nih.gov]
I will agree that more research is needed and that Dr. Donald Tashkin is not certain if cannabis causes lung cancer or not.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:43AM
Smoking it isn’t the only way to consume it. You can extract the psychoactive ingredients and the possibilities are pretty broad there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:54PM
That only implies that we should restrict smoking cannabis to the same level we restrict tobacco, it does not support the current policies, nor does it support restricting other applications of hemp.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by a262 on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:33AM (14 children)
First off, let me say that I am for legalization of cannabis, as well as most any other substance. It is absurd to live in a "free" country that bans certain subsets of chemistry. The right to Pursuit of Happiness is written in our Constitution, yet we find ourselves unable to pursue happiness through chemistry.
That being said, I have found that prolonged cannabis use deprives the user of certain aspects of their humanity. The greatest loss being that of self-reflection. In my experience, long-term cannabis users fail to see the effects that their habit has on their own lives and those around them. Any criticism of such use is met with wrath and incredulity. As a former friend said, "smoking pot changes the alignment of your internal compass - you begin to believe that you are on track, no matter what it is that you're actually doing."
Short-term, or sporadic cannabis use, can be incredibly enjoyable and rewarding. It's the long-term, "smoke two joints" mindset that is truly damaging. Sporadic use grants one the true potential of cannabis: a sudden, dramatic shift in perception of both oneself and the world in which one lives. Once that shifts to long-term use, that contrast between normal and stoned no longer exists! A constant state of any mindset does not provide the useful contrast in perception.
Of course, one should be free to consume any substance, or participate in any lifestyle one chooses, with the disclaimer that said lifestyle does not significantly affect anyone else. If you want to sit around your house and smoke yourself silly every day, go for it! If you're going to smoke yourself silly every damn day, while collecting welfare, or working alongside me as a coworker... well, you should fucking grow up and put the bong down. It comes down to a matter of personal honor, not law. Can you honestly be proud of your life when you're smoking a gram of wax a day?
What ever happened to honor, anyways?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:19AM (9 children)
Cannabis isn't the problem, substance abuse is. For example, UK guidelines say that you shouldn't have more than 14 units of alcohol [bbc.com] (6 pints of beer) per week, and some say even that is high. Plenty of people will chug that much on a single Saturday (believe it or not, the guidelines recommend against that), and the ABVs of craft brews have skyrocketed. That 6 pints of beer? 4% ABV to hit 14 units. So it's also the equivalent of roughly 2.5 10% ABV pints.
This fun study [ias.org.uk] quantifies the "harm" caused by various drugs, and found that alcohol is far worse than cannabis or even heroin. If you look at Figure 4, you can see that most of that harm is a result of car crashes, so if you take that out of the equation then heroin is worse to an individual under a bridge than a bottle of MD 20/20 [bumwine.com]. The study also found that cannabis is "worse" than stuff like ketamine, butane, "khat" [wikipedia.org], goddamn anabolic steroids, LSD, and mushrooms.
Most societies recognize that there is a responsible level of alcohol use (although close to zero or very few units for heart benefits is recommended). Officially, cannabis is still an evil and incredibly harmful psychoactive gateway drug with no responsible level of use, but people see through that bullshit. On the flip side, some people have blinders on with respect to cannabis use, believing it will cure their cancer or doesn't do any damage ever. Maybe a study or two found an association with a lower chance of cancer but we all know how accurate and precise medical studies tend to be. Put down that coffee!
As for honor, many people are deeply nihilistic and pleasure-seeking. They just don't care, and why should they? Just reading the slow SoylentNews feed can cause
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:20AM
{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:15AM (6 children)
"Cannabis isn't the problem, substance abuse is."
That, exactly. You mention alcohol. So very many studies, over the course of my life, have demonstrated that a single drink every day leads to the healthiest and longest lives. There is some debate about which drinks are best, with wine and beer being the leading contendors, and strong spirits trailing way behind. But, some health organizations want us to believe that a drink a month might be detrimental. A lot of more recent studies claim that if a woman drinks even a single drink while pregnant, she is guilty of destroying her baby.
So, with all these crazy agendas being advanced through "studies", how do we even decide what "abuse" is?
My view is, the average working person who gets a buzz on a Saturday night probably isn't being abusive. Waking up with a hangover is a pretty damned good indication that you're abusing the stuff. Of course, those who wait for the doctor to explain why their livers no longer function probably never shared the same zip code with a clue . . .
(Score: 2) by lx on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:28AM (3 children)
Those figures were skewed due to faulty methodology [medicaldaily.com]. Turns out that many non-drinkers in those studies were either ex-alcoholics or people with serious unrelated health problems.
But don't let the progress of scientific insight keep you from indulging in a little solvent abuse [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:48PM
The other faulty methodology is not separating out by quality of the beverage. I homebrew my own beers and meads and know exactly what's in them and more to the point what is not.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
From that page, "It seems the verdict is still out on the health effects of moderate drinking."
Their charts show a reduced health benefit for low and moderate volume drinkers - but the apparent benefit is still in the chart. They go on to show high volume drinkers, who we all know increase the risks for all manner of health problems. Medium volume drinkers (3-4 drinks per day) have moved from just below the line, to just over the line. But, personally, I don't consider 3-4 drinks per day as "medium" or "moderate". One or two drinks per day is what I call "moderate", and if a moderate drinker doesn't bother to drink anything for a day or six, it's no big deal to him. A lot of those who drink 3-4 per day will get cranky if he misses a day. And, that's the whole point of "moderation". Drink a little alcohol, it's good for you. Routinely drinking more than one or two per day indicates some kind of a problem - emotional, psychological, or maybe even physical.
I wonder why the U of Victoria didn't "adjust" all those studies to separate relatively healthy moderate and heavy drinkers, from said drinkers who have unrelated and/or related serious health problems? Making that distinction would probably move all groups of drinkers (except unhealthy drinkers+) downward on that graph, just a little.
If U of Vic wants to use only healthy abstainers, then they should seek a similar group of only healthy drinkers to compare them to.
(Score: 2) by lx on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:12AM
Lesson learned: Never come between a man and his drink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:29AM
>what "abuse" is?
abuse in this context is equivalent to 'uses it to hide interior difficulties based on the emotions of fear and shame about one's primal negativities, helplessness regarding subjective and irrational inner/interpersonal dynamics and plain old fear of venturing out.' any and all of these can be true, but not all of them need to be true for the cover-up/abuse to become a habit.
on another level, its a response to the obvious-to-some lies and deception channeled through this thing called culture. there, its desired as a means of social shaping amongst other things.
but we should really include video-games here and be a bit less materialistic about the concepts if we wanted to look at it as a simple refuge from violence and other people's incompetence/ignorance about life as well.
realize that anything producing dopamine is incapable of yielding happiness and explore more!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:37PM
So far, I have been unable to find risk statistics for drinking neat Ukrainian Tractor Fuel, so I will continue to assume it is safe if mixed with diet coke.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:23AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Post-Nihilist on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:03AM (1 child)
Yes, yes you can... I use to smoke that much but stopped only cause my lung capacity shrunk and I am not bullish on emphysema...
When I am sober for more than a week I become a competitive scheming narcicist that use people as if they are things made to be exploited for my benefits but I have an highly paid unionized¹ job in higher education that comme with a fat retirement plan, I don't need to participate in that competitive rat race
And cannabis makes me a better person.
When I am in my stoned mindset I am helpful, compassionate and I dont engage in workplace politics... i am pretty certain that my coworker preferred me when I smoked a few grams of buds each night than they do now that I am sober and don't give a fuck about them unless I have something to gain by giving a fuck.
I will probably start using edibles cause I am not proud of my sober self... And I am pretty sure that my wife will soon ask me to drug myself again ... she already did a few years ago after about 6 month of sobriety she says that I got mean and manipulative.
Sure I could drink to forget that deep inside I am a borderline sociopath (only borderline cause a true sociopath would not be bothered by his narcissism) and let my wife leave me cause she loves my stoner self (yet she hate to take cannabis but love it when I do) or I can use cannabis to be a more "normal" and lovable person....
1- you can be easily fired in your first 6 years after that I think that I would need to do something outrageous like harassing a student to get fired
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:10AM
so higher-ed dude is self-medicating instead of using his urges against himself by way of some self-encounter therapy. rationalized to no end, likely mistakes pleasure for happiness, delusional, alienated in his tower. why am i reading this?? oh ya, to point-out that the things he seeks to repress will find a 3rd and a 4th and a 5th way out cause the impulses rejected will out. and they always do. so.. use the control you claim to have to overcome your nonsense. just go and trade your cover-up and self-diagnosing for dealing with your fears. go sane man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:16AM
> What ever happened to honor, anyways?
I think the word you're looking for is Integrity. It was traded for idiotic hippy lore by your parents and grand-parents. Its commercially extracted by robotized culture and made into aphrodisiacs for evil-doers everywhere nowadays. If you've got any left, and it sounds like you do because you know the H-word, keep sharp and watch your stash!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:20PM
What ever happened to honor, anyways?
Best answered by the good colonel: "...We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline..."