@President Sanders📍🇺🇸 Fringe cases aren't a good way of setting policy

For the vast majority of people, weed causes permeant IQ lowerage

It's also been proven to be addictive

Anything can be addictive. Psychological addiction isn't physical addiction though

Also, just want to thank you for keeping it civil so many people just rant "REEE FUCK YOY BIGOT SUSUAMAH UR WRONG"

Cheese and caffeine are more addictive than weed lol

Bottom line is with weed people will push for stronger substances that are without a doubt dangerous to be legalized, alongside the fact it causes lower IQ which will see them wanting more legalization as they aren't thinking intelligently

well

yes

Which study exactly?

cigs can lead to weed and shit for example

No, marijuana use doesn’t lower your IQ
https://wapo.st/1sPawZ5

@President Sanders📍🇺🇸https://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657

@President Sanders📍🇺🇸 There is no exact consensus among scientists on if it does, this doesn't rule out that it does tho and when setting policy it is always best to opt for worst case scenario, and until a absolute concrete consensus is reached we could be harming millions with irreversible lower intelligence - there just isn't enough research yet to say it's safe to legalize it

We have to wait

And in the case it is legalized, for some reason, it should be regulated as alcohol and tabbaco are, no public usage, can't make your own without a proper permit, regulations to ensure no street chemicals are introduced to make it more addictive or harmful, etc

The reason research isn't done enough is because it's illegal at the federal lebel, making it difficult. It was fine for everyone to use it throughout human history until just recently.

If it was legalized, it could be regulated and make profit. It would also allow more rigorous studies to be done.
But most studies either say there's little change in IQ or just a minimal change, which likely wouldn't drastically affect anything important.

The IQ change is usually associated in *heavy users*.
That isn't even the majority of marijuana users.

And the medical benefits outweigh any negative I've seen thus far. If a future study were to reveal something jawdropping, then maybe I'd reconsider.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned with the kids and people being prescribed things like SSRIs, which we *really* don't understand the effects of

Most studies do not say there is no or minimal IQ loss, it is a heated debate back and forth as there literally isn't enough research to say either or. Furthermore, medical benefits are only to people with specific conditions, *not* your average Joe.

What are SSRI's? I'd like to know more

True true. More studies needed. Medical benefits could include for stress and pain relief, in my opinion. Instead of taking morphine or Tylenol, just light a joint.

And SSRIs are ntidepressants. Serotonin.

They prescribe it for depression and hope it works, even though the side effects can be scary and can make mental health worse. I was put on Celexa for a month when I was a teenager, which is crazy to me now thinking back.
Serotonin (supposedly) helps by balancing out the chemical imbalance in brain. We can't even measure serotonin in the brain though.
It's a lot of guess and checking, trying different meds/different doses till you feel "normal".
Millions are prescribed them.

I do agree there, antidepressants are horrid imo. Completely volatile and unreliable and best, dangerous and permanent at worst

I flushed mine down the toilet tbh.
They made my stomach feel like it was melting one night. (Idk what was going on)

Depression is solved by your own will

Not by medication

Benefit of hitting rock bottom? You can only go up from there - of course it's up to you to make the climb up

I've heard promising results on studies involving psilocybin mushrooms and possibly LSD for depression.
Are you against those?

From a moral perspective, absolutely.

"You were so obsessed with wether you could, you didn't stop and think wether you should"

The usage of shrooms and LSD to aid depression are unnecessary at best

Science shows what makes someone happy is a sense of purpose and community

We should focus on this not on drugs

I've been moving towards a similar position.
It feels more like the government is giving drugs to people who are dissatisfied with a monotonous, impoverished, etc. life.
A sense of purpose would likely do wonders for many of those people.

And I just realized I'm typing in qotd chat lmao

@President Sanders📍🇺🇸 it pertains in part to the question so it's fine

Now, how would we solve the issue of a lack of purpose

Again the science shows there are 3 main roots from which to derive purpose, but all 3 can be used synonymously. They are 1. Religion 2. Community and 3. Work

I think all 3 should be expanded upon

Some will say that "but religion is just fake ;(".

You may think that, I'm not here to change your mind on that - but assuming you are an athiest, you should in fact support religion (it is not necessary that you specifically need to be involved in it, just support it) this is because religion fulfills both factors of purpose, religion and community as religion is one of if not *the best* creator of communities that are happy. Religious people give more to charity, are more involved in their community, are happier, have larger social groups and discourage the use of drugs which benefits society as a whole

So even if you don't personally subscribe to a religion, supporting it's expansion to people will create a better society even if it is just in your view a placebo

@President Sanders📍🇺🇸

As for work, I would encourage the abolition of all welfare except for people who genuinely can not work, replace it with a massive jobs program. We have more empty jobs than we do homeless people, we can put every single able bodied person to work if we wanted to. Wages should also be raised to match with inflation, and should always match inflation. Back in the day a family could have just the dad working and it could be enough to buy a house and support the family on a comfortable life. This left the woman to take care of the children because.. well she didn't need to work everything was free for her. If you look at the data the years when wages stop matching inflation is when the women's rights movement gained traction, because now a man could no longer alone sustain a family comfortably and the women had to work. This isn't the only factor, but is a factor

Women were statistically happier during that era, it isn't some sexist trope to say women are better suited to take care of children and families in general.

Women *can* work if they want, but they shouldn't have to, to keep a family life comfortable