People die because of my attitude of asking a harmless question regarding CBD oil? You seem a very strange person linking the two.
You seem to use a lot of fancy words and long replies in this thread so you seem intelligent. This does not mean you better than others. Please don't judge me, you have no idea who I am.
I'm not sure why I am replying to your quote, people die? Come off it.
People die because of the huge degree of false appeal to authority given to "natural". You were (and are) contributing to that fallacy. Your question was not harmless.
I "use a lot of fancy words and long replies" because I have a basic competence in English. The words I use are not actually "fancy" and the posts I make are not actually "long". The words I use are ordinary for anyone with a reasonable working vocabulary and the posts I make are short for anyone with a reasonable ability to read. I don't care how fashionable it is to reduce all writing to a couple of short sentences of very simple words.
It's not because of the scale of their use at all, their physical harm is unparalleled by most illegal drugs. Their carcinogenicity is unmatched, and alcohols hepatotoxity, cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity results in harm you just don't get with most illegal drugs.
It's a weak, hypocritical, half measure which I find laughable.
That's a reasonable counter-argument, but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the scale of use of harmful drugs has no relevance at all to the scale of harm done by them. More users means more people harmed to whatever extent of harm is done by the drug.
Using the recreational drugs and drug delivery systems that cause the most harm to the most people as an argument in favour of legalising other recreational drugs is a flawed argument. It lends itself more strongly to arguing against legalising more recreational drugs than in favour of it. We don't know how much harm would be caused by, for example, making cocaine legally available as cheaply and widely as alcohol is now. But we can be sure there would be some harm from doing so.
If you're arguing that making a wider variety of recreational drugs legally, cheaply and widely available would change usage patterns towards less harmful recreational drugs without increasing the overall amount of usage of recreational drugs, well, that would be consistent with the position that doing so would reduce the amount of harm done. If that is your line of argument, what evidence do you have to support it? I think it makes sense and might be true, but I'd like to see evidence about it.
It's much harder to make a legal and widely used recreational drug illegal than it is to legalise a recreational drug, so it's not accurate to call opposing legalisation of more recreational drugs hypocritical just because some recreational drugs are already legal. Look what happened when the USA made the recreational use of alcohol illegal. That made things much worse for the USA, not better.
Are there any good points to alcohol and tobacco? None. Yet because you use them you skim over it. [..]
No I don't and no I don't. Try again.
I use alcohol rarely and in small doses because it has two good points for me. Firstly, I enjoy it. Which is the sole point of a recreational drug. Secondly, it reduces the amount of pain I feel.
I don't use tobacco and I would support an immediate ban on it. Not because it's a recreational drug. Not even because of the harm it does to users. But because of the harm it does to other people.
I don't skim over the harm done by either alcohol or tobacco. In the very post you "replied" to, I stated that alcohol and tobacco "the most harmful drugs". You quoted that in your "reply". I would be interested in how you interpreted describing alcohol and tobacco as the most harmful drugs as skimming over the harm done by them.
I'd legalise cannabis for recreational use for a drug delivery system other than smoking. Eating, drinking, topical, powdered and snorted if that would work, even vaping (which does intrude on other people and is therefore wrong). But not smoking. I'd legalise it with heavy regulation and with a view to changing that regulation in response to the results of research into dosage levels, the importance of proportions of the various cannabinoids and whatever other information is relevant because I would be trying to allow it while minimising the harm done. Which cannabis advocates don't care about. But I do.
