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: 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.