Rule 4: Do not promote or put drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants in a positive light.
Some comrades mentioned in private channels that weed is not addictive, I’m not going to argue on this point because this is a fundamental divide between China and some western countries.
My view is that whether you’re addicted to them or not, you shouldn’t promote these substances or put them in a positive light. It’s fine if you don’t agree with me, but anyone who leaves a comment here arguing the opposite will be banned from the community (30 days for now).
If a lot of people oppose this rule, either by downvotes and/or number of comments, I will willingly step down as moderator of this community.
Clarification: Comments or posts that violate rules in this community will either be deleted or be given a warning, the violating user would not be banned unless there’s a need to. The 30-day ban mentioned in the post is for people who come into this post and argue for substance abuse, not for people who simply disagree with anti-promotion.
Suggestions for improvements to this rule are welcome, here’s one:
Do not promote the use of drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants (for non-medicinal purposes).
So where exactly is the line between morphine and opium? As a native American, i can say that my people have used many drugs traditionally for the betterment of our people, as have many cultures around the world. Medicine is distinct and separate from abuse in our culture, as even staples can be abused (eg too much food makes one fat). Is there a specific historic reason for these drugs to be specifically banned or are you just following the popular modern sentiments?
Where in the post and my comments have I said to ban these substances? I find it frustrating that people come to me and mention so-and-so substance can have medicinal properties, because I understand this concept, but I’m assuming this type of medicine is prescribed by a certified doctor or therapist, and not by random people on the internet just because they use it in their culture or country.
You made the mistake of assumption. Your post specifically bans discussion around these substances in a positive light, which is why I specifically brought up morphine. Nobody is going to argue that morphine isnt an incredibly valuable medical discovery in the context of modern medicine, but that discovery came from opium, which definitely has some extremely negative implications where China is concerned. For all that tobacco causes cancer, it also reduces stress and provides a mild stimulant. Sometimes, that’s important. Further, medicine is constantly evolving. People in Berkeley, CA seem to think that even psychotropic mushrooms have medical value. While that’s not my cultures approach to the subject, we still believe some of the same things, even if we got there by very different paths.
Idk overall you seem too emotionally invested in this argument to handle this topic with any kind of impartiality.
Why did you bring up morphine, to prove that we should be able to discuss morphine or related substances outside the context of medical use or research?
So anything that’s psychoactive is banned? How about caffeine? That’s got a higher effective dose to lethal dose ratio than substances you’ll ban me for mentioning. Will you ban people for mentioning therapeutic applications of these substances? This is an ignorant proposition.
I’d be glad to include caffeine in the list of substances too, this anti-promotion rule is not a ban on mentioning them. As many others have pointed out, certain substances have positive effects, in fact I’d say all of them have positive effects one way or another, whether medically or not. That’s why I think having positive effects is not a reason to exclude a substance from the list.
