Crohn's Disease is one of those things where, if you do not suffer from it personally, you have absolutely no business telling someone who does what they may or may not do to treat it - or rather its symptoms. I have a friend with Crohn's, and based on his reserved description (not far past PG-13) as to what he goes through on a daily basis, I would not DARE tell him that he cannot use marijuana, opioids, or anything else. I don't care what he needs to help him get through his day; he deserves quite literally anything that chemistry has to offer that he is willing to take. Nobody - absolutely nobody - has the right tell him differently.
People are ignorant and frankly downright... disgusting/pathetic/opinionated (I can't find the words to describe how far beyond unacceptable some people's positions are)... with their attempts to regulate others, when it comes to issues that do not affect them personally. If you don't have a clue, shut your mouth and let those who have to deal with the situation dictate for themselves how they will manage or cope.
But letting people do what they want with their own body is an attack on those opinions and so they must be stopped.
Psychology, with differing opinions and such you react the same way as if it were a physical attack. The brain simply can't tell the difference. Hence people do this. People can't just agree to disagree and move on. People will pick at the differing opinions like a chicken. Doesn't matter how many people they hurt as long as they get what they want. Whine, nag, violence, etc. Suddenly I started thinking of feminism.
Human is a disgusting egoistical selfish animal. Expecting any kind of standard is naive and foolish.
Related but off topic:
The legal-system is filled with laws that reflect certain peoples opinion.
The government act as if they own our bodies yet we don't see a penny for the rental and when we try and say "no" they use brute force to enforce its will. Quite barbaric. If you don't have brute force backing you up than you aren't recognized as a country for example. I can say I own the moon but if I don't have brute force backing me up then I'm just a joke. Hence as a person you have no say what so ever, you're irrelevant. So why do we have a comment section? Just to distract us from actually doing something productive and affect the world? Conspiracy?
Sorry my mind wanders. Never could get the leash to work.
> Nobody - absolutely nobody - has the right tell him differently.
> People are ignorant and frankly downright... disgusting/pathetic/opinionated
Those are some very strong claims. You can be sympathetic without being hyperbolic, or assuming that the reason that other don't share your views is that they're bad people who don't share your perfect reasoning.
They are strong claims because current drug laws cost people their lives in large numbers. If there wasn't plenty of evidence to support that, I could accept that it might be excusable, but the evidence is there to the point that I have taken to at the very least consider politicians that oppose drug reform (who we should be able to expect to inform themselves) to be morally no better than murderers.
In fact, for the most part they are worse - most murderers do not cause further harm after a single death (it is exceedingly rare for people to commit more than one murder); most politicians who oppose drug law reforms continue to cause harm.
Sometimes we reach inflection points where certain views become so outdated by the availability of evidence that they become repugnant. Consider slavery (yes, I am making that comparison).
Our eras drug laws will come to be remembered as the same kind of barbaric oppression of - and violence against - weaker members of society.
You'll find people get heated about the subject. When strangers & governments stop normal people taking a herb or whatever for their chronically painful & destructive illness it can be frustrating. His friend could end up with cancer due to increased inflammation of the intestinal tract.
Certain groups & governments ignore science for their own agenda. Or they just don't like the sound of it. I mean, when that's the case, fuck them! Really. They're disgusting.
While I understand your sentiment, unmitigated access to treatment modalities is generally not a good thing. People, often children with no real informed consent, die every year because they forsake science-based medicine for quackery.
The efficacy and safety of a treatment are not something we want left to personal anecdote.
The efficacy and safety of the treatments are not the issue. The issue is when government uses the threat of violence to prevent people from accessing substances that cause no harm to others.
I agree that people should not use it as treatment without seeking help, but there are far more dangerous substances you can buy over the counter.
E.g. acetaminophen/paracetamol causes a range of deaths via liver failure every year, yet not only do we allow it to be sold, in many countries it is now allowed to be sold mixed with codeine - a highly addictive opoid, creating an incentive for addicts to push the limits of their intake of highly toxic compound.
And yet people worry about cannabis - a substance where the LD50 is so high we don't know what it is, or if there is one (short of choking on it...)
Attack quackery, sure. But if you are to go after quackery, then go after current drug laws too, because they are not based on a concern over science, efficacy or safety.
It makes you wonder what The Goverment's agenda is, does it not? I mean, either you base you actions on science or you base it on something other than science. It's a shame politics so often lead to uninformed decisions. To me, these days, politics seems like a grown-up version of the high-school game you used to play when you wanted to become popular. But of course, the real issue here money. Everyone wants it. Need it. Live for it.
Bingo. Just follow the money and see who profits from cannabis being illegal.
1. Can't put a patent on it and can literally grow it in your backyard - pharmaceutical industry is going to lose a large chunk of cash inflow from anti-nausea and opioids. Not to mention the fact a large portion of opioid/herion addicts started out on prescription medicine, which leads into my other points.
2. The entire law enforcement procedures will have to rethink the status quo. Smelling cannabis was a great way to have "reasonable suspicion" for violating privacy, and going after cannabis dealers were incredibly easy targets to bust. Don't forget RICO that gives LE a nice cash bonus from drug dealer assets.
3. Prison industry will have a hard time filling in the since a large majority of the prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. Perhaps with less opioid addicts that sought cannabis instead would cause some extra vacancy as well.
4. The Cartel and several other underground organizations that I have a hard time believing would not have ties to politicians and decision makers on the subject.
Is the government the ultimate arbiter of science? Is it not possible to have access to medicines and have relevant scientific information without being subjugated by bureaucratic proxies for big pharma[1]?
>People, often children with no real informed consent, die every year because they forsake science-based medicine for quackery.
People, often children, die every year due to "science-based medicine" as well. Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids have quadrupled since 1999, and so have sales of these prescription drugs[2].
People are ignorant and frankly downright... disgusting/pathetic/opinionated (I can't find the words to describe how far beyond unacceptable some people's positions are)... with their attempts to regulate others, when it comes to issues that do not affect them personally. If you don't have a clue, shut your mouth and let those who have to deal with the situation dictate for themselves how they will manage or cope.