i love how their analysis uses phenotypes as if they've got that classification system all worked out. yes, UN, everybody can be classified into this box or that box, oh wait. they can't be. it doesn't work like that. this things smells of bullshit.

let's not forget that this plant has been successfully used for thousands of years and its effects are about as well known as any other. yeah. okey dokey then.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

yeah, but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. that would be pointless. we improve in steps. make mistakes, observe mistakes, change, try again, and so forth. i don't think anything is monolithic and incapable of change. it's the will to change that's required. if the will driving these organizations isn't in the right place, then you won't get the best result.

there has been this habit by the people who have stuff to lose sight of the possibilities of things, and to only see what they want to see. to those types, they'll get what they want. it's unfortunate that they're too unwilling to conceive past their narrow lens, or they'd understand that what they want weakens them. i dunno what else to say about that.

let's make a better world, mkay?

Sounds like a sequal to "Reefer Madness"

every group in the world that wants to tell you what to do and doesn't know what they're talking about is "your enemy", whatever that even means. you have to build your own trust networks, build your own capacity, and provide for yourself. that's really what it comes down to. listen to stupid bureaucrats at your own risk.

What phenotype I wonder? Wish they. Could just say white cunts or what ever

Idk it works good on my tumor but it is addictive but so are all good things . Africa is fucked from drought, corporate exploitation and over fishing, not to mention religious extremism caused conflicts but tbh I can't remember a time when Africa wasn't fucked in some way. I doubt growing smoko is a major cause of their problems and I have never met a person of African decent with smoko addiction they seem to be into uppers and the drink more , I met plenty of white cunts with major smoko addiction, been thr few times myself.

alcohol users have alcohol use disorder

I follow your posts and comments with interest so don't take this the wrong way (not that it should matter, because anybody who makes a statement should be prepared to explain or prove it without becoming enraged), but I don't see where they apparently say we need to be drugged.

What I do see is them saying they found a potential treatment.

If you replace "THC addiction" with "carcinoma," you can see that they are not implying that anyone needs to be treated; rather that here is a possible solution. They even have the integrity to state that they are not sure about the drug.

I read it. It says the opposite. It says most people are naturally resistant to addition whereas a minority amount are vulnerable to heavy addiction.

Also, that doesn't address my question. My question was, where does it say they believe we NEED to be treated? As I pointed out, they don't say that at all. They simply say that there is a tool they have found and don't yet understand fully.

Again, you're not supporting your claims. I asked where it says 1/3 but you keep avoiding it. I also asked where it says we need to be treated but you keep avoiding that.

Let's say for the sake of argument that their goal is to eradicate something. When they state - as they did - that they have found a tool and also state that they don't yet know the health effects of it, that does not imply that we need to be treated with it. It is simply them saying "hey, we found this, but we don't yet understand whether it's safe or not."

It's no different than if you had a goal to eliminate ants from your home, and said "hey, honey, I found this mystery chemical under the sink that seems to kill ants, but I don't yet know whether it's safe or not" and someone else claiming "He said his family needs to use that!"

As you can see, your claims are wrong. They did not claim or even imply that we need to be treated. Nor did they say 1/3 of us as you claimed.

If you want to make people aware of something, then be honest. Don't lie. That looks like is "I believe they want to treat us with a drug that seems to have negative health effects" and "I believe they view cannabis consumption as an incredibly bad problem."

You're making statements that are true. They are not treating cannabis use as the most dangerous thing any human ever did. They are discussing data. Measurements.

I asked for where it says what you claim: 1/3 of us. And I asked where it says we need to be treated.

I also noticed that you cut and paste their number about 40%. I think you don't understand what that means. 40% increased risk of psychosis means you take the existing risk of psychosis and increase it by 40%. Risk of psychosis is extremely small. So for example, if there is a one in 1000 chance of being hit by lightning in certain area during a storm, then a 40% increase means the risk becomes 1.4 in 1000. Still very small.

You keep avoiding backing up your claims. No where have you shown where they said need to be treated, nor have you shown where they said anything about 1/3 of us.

You didn't show it to anyone, because it's not there. I checked the entire document. So you are spreading lies. If your argument were so strong, you would have no need for that. You could simply point to the facts. But instead you claim to be pointing out the facts while actually lying.

Look at you stooping to new lows.

You made claims about the content of a UN document. I checked and saw that your claims were false. I asked you to back up your claims and show me where the UN actually says what you claim it does.

You made a few posts avoiding my question and trying to talk your way around it, and now are stooping to insults because you got caught in your lies. That's pretty pathetic.

It's easy to find reality: just read the document that you made false claims about.

Sorry to burst holes in your conspiracy theory to which you cling so pathetically. Just curious, how does it feel to know that your idea is so incorrect that you have to actually make up lies about it?

I didn't have any tantrum. But you sort of did. How dreadfully predictable and pathetic that you try to put it on me.

You claimed that the UN made claims and linked to your source. But your source proved you wrong. No dominatrix stuff is necessary. simply comparing your claims to your source exposes your bullshit and your paranoia.

And you're lying again about "Maybe I know more about this than you do."

Just the fact that you made flat out claims and then danced around in your responses instead of saying "right here on page 30" says it all. You are a fraud, and a conspiracy nut.

It's easy to find reality: just read the document that you made false claims about.

Sorry to burst holes in your conspiracy theory to which you cling so pathetically. Just curious, how does it feel to know that your idea is so incorrect that you have to actually make up lies about it?