It’s hard to believe that each cell membrane of your body produces cannabinoids and that the cannabinoid system of your body is responsible for homeostasis, where there are more cannabinoid receptors in your brain than any other receptor type and where mothers’ breast milk is chock-full of cannabinoids. It’s hard to believe, as well, that cannabis, in its natural state, is endogenous to the human body. It is supposed that endocannabinoid system deficiency is the primary cause of of dis-ease. In this way, leftover racist government policy has long effectively killed two birds with one stone.
The utility of cannabis, or aspects of cannabinoids, are an aside from the simple fact that there's no justification for prohibition in a free society. The government has no right to tell me what I can eat, drink, or inhale, as long as I don't infringe on others' rights, even if my choices are harmful to me.
“When "hate speech" became a thing, many moons ago, who among us predicted that it'd go wrong, that it'd expand beyond the N-word and similarly blatant epithets? Yes, it was the libertarians, and while misgendering is not (yet) a crime in America, there are way too many people who would flush the First Amendment down the toilet so that they can grant a few the power to punish anyone who doesn't speak as they demand. Stanford's flying monkeys may see their list as "suggestions," or something that should be voluntarily complied with by good people, but we've seen, time and again, how "suggestions" often result in punishment for those who do not go along. If not by the monkeys themselves, then by the people who see the enormous utility in leveraging, exploiting, and corrupting the social justice movement to advance their power-grabs and socialistic dreams.
As for “submit,” at first I figured they outwitted themselves. But, if the concept is removed from the language, how are we to act otherwise? If the behavior is conditioned as default without naming it, those of us who’d argue against it will have that much harder a time explaining what it is.
It’s hard to believe that each cell membrane of your body produces cannabinoids and that the cannabinoid system of your body is responsible for homeostasis, where there are more cannabinoid receptors in your brain than any other receptor type and where mothers’ breast milk is chock-full of cannabinoids. It’s hard to believe, as well, that cannabis, in its natural state, is endogenous to the human body. It is supposed that endocannabinoid system deficiency is the primary cause of of dis-ease. In this way, leftover racist government policy has long effectively killed two birds with one stone.
The utility of cannabis, or aspects of cannabinoids, are an aside from the simple fact that there's no justification for prohibition in a free society. The government has no right to tell me what I can eat, drink, or inhale, as long as I don't infringe on others' rights, even if my choices are harmful to me.
This is a thought provoking piece… I enjoyed reading it.
“When "hate speech" became a thing, many moons ago, who among us predicted that it'd go wrong, that it'd expand beyond the N-word and similarly blatant epithets? Yes, it was the libertarians, and while misgendering is not (yet) a crime in America, there are way too many people who would flush the First Amendment down the toilet so that they can grant a few the power to punish anyone who doesn't speak as they demand. Stanford's flying monkeys may see their list as "suggestions," or something that should be voluntarily complied with by good people, but we've seen, time and again, how "suggestions" often result in punishment for those who do not go along. If not by the monkeys themselves, then by the people who see the enormous utility in leveraging, exploiting, and corrupting the social justice movement to advance their power-grabs and socialistic dreams.
As for “submit,” at first I figured they outwitted themselves. But, if the concept is removed from the language, how are we to act otherwise? If the behavior is conditioned as default without naming it, those of us who’d argue against it will have that much harder a time explaining what it is.