You will be sorely missed with your worthless commentary… and your unwarranted arrogance… sorely missed the people weep the loss…

You’ve had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it’s not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don’t use your shitty lessons.

“Then we can talk”

You already admitted that you don’t understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you’re going to talk about? How you still don’t understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?

No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don’t even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.

Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.

“the past 30 days”

So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.

“Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”

Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).

Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.

Nope. It’s been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.

You’re confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.

Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.

“The justification”

They don’t legally need a justification. The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees. If a company actually needs employees they won’t do them, or lower the standards so low that anyone that isn’t actively injecting or murdering someone would pass.

I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it’s no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.

Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.

You realise that’s not an actual agreement to do anything right?

I’m not a total buffoon.

Never talked to a shroom-head before?

“there is no other precedent for supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another”

Yes, there is. Even a legal precedent, it’s called abandonment, you cannot legally abandon a dependent (especially if it leads to imminent death) without transferring actual custody to another responsible party (e.g not a murderer).

If you are in a circumstance where you cannot transfer the custody to another party, you cannot leave the dependent to die.

The rest of your statement is irrelevant garbage, but I think it’s important to refute that point.

That’s mostly just a bunch of different people using different definitions of “natural rights”.

Many people seem to think that natural rights are ones granted by nature, but in actual philosophy nobody cares about this. Clearly wild animals or inanimate objects don’t grant humans rights, it’s what basis humans consider to be the source of a right. A natural right would be a right granted to you by another human based on the nature of your existence. It is a special consideration towards you on the basis that you are a human.

And the “divine right of kings” origin story is ridiculous, the concept of natural rights was not invented to justify monarchy or God.

Well no. The problem with all the comments here is that they all presuppose that whatever the commenter likes is a human right.

Someone against abortion would not say “I oppose human rights” they would say “abortion is not a human right” and more than likely “abortion violates human rights”.

“Since human rights are international agreements”

No they’re not. Not in philosophy and not even in international law.

Sure but what degree of influence is actually “radicalising” or a point of concern?

We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can’t just force people to accept them.

I think a good example of this was the “fall” of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn’t care because they never cared about him.

“A deradicalising effect”

I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.

If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren’t the radicals you need to be concerned about.

“And those people diffuse back into the general population”

Because that doesn’t happen to a greater degree when exposed to the “general population” on the same website?

You’re literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical, you’re not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

Zelensky never saw combat, he’s an actor who wore a helmet for pictures.

If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.

How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.

The actual argument I made, that MycoBro’s personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.

I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.

“putting a foot on the ground”

You mean a ground invasion? Which they’ve already started. The bombing is just to minimise Israeli casualities.