Will we have to ration weed under communism?

Will we have to ration weed under communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
archive.fo/qKkL4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Under a leftist president in Uruguay it was 1g/1$

...

...

In communism every man, woman and child will have their own crop of weed.

W-what are their stances on hentai, guns and NEETbux?

In NK they smoke everyday.

It's dogshit weed that hardly gets you high (according to reports) but yeah.

...

Under communism possession of Marijuana will be punishable by 15 years in state labor camp

ftfy

Under communism, being this stupid will be punishable by burning at the stake

...

Why would weed be rationed? It's the best drug that is. It's just plant it, watch it grow, cut and dry in the sun…there's no science about it, anyone can grow weed.

They call it weed for a reason. that shit'll grow anywhere.

Probably shit weed though.


No. People who want weed will grow it in their yards and share it with their friends. We will not grow it collectively because recreational use of marijuana will be (mildly) socially discouraged behavior.

dude
have you never heard the phrase "grows like a weed"? It may not be great quality but you can grow the shit in your closet.

I don't know about that, but the whole "no hangovers, no comedowns, no overdoses, no dependence" thing going for it is pretty nice. It's a comfy, safe harbor. Alcohol and stims have far larger drawbacks than they're worth, but NMDA antagonists are pretty baller.

Good heavens no. Free weed for everyone.

Uhh, that phrase is referring to literal weed, not weed as in slang for marijuana. You do know what weed means, right?

Weed litterally grows everywhere.

Its litterally called fucking weed. It grows like weed.

...

Its called weed in other languages too.

...

That weed which grow everywhere have very few of narcotic substances so you will feel almost nothing. You need some technologies to grow fine weed. Btw it will cost much less than illegal while weed is criminalized

Marijuana is a pretty American slang term for cannabis. It was deliberately chosen by the government to associate it with Mexicans.

Eh, it's called marihuana in my (non-Romance language speaking) country.

I'll Romance you in a minute.

l-lewd

All weed should be organically grown. Who would be dumb enough to smoke or eat weed that has poisonous chemicals on it?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why would you want artificially grown weed?

what, like the artificial selection that was done to produce everything you ate today?
wew

Such a great intellectual argument How do you do it?

I don't want your genetically engineered weed. Who knows what the side effects could be?

Humanity has been tampering with the natural order of things ever since we invented agriculture and domesticated lifestock. This fetishization of organic produce is a dumb middle class meme. So we can spend ten thousand years breeding plants and animals in a specific way to get some positive attributes and remove some negative attributes and that's great, but the moment we start doing it in a lab we're suddenly "playing God"? Pure reactionary ludditism.

a>>1726>>1726730
I remember like fifteen years ago, when cellphones started becoming really mainstream, there were a bunch of people who were scared and worried about "radiation" and how carrying cellphones with you might make you infertile and other hippie bullshit like that.

A year ago, I ran into a article that talked about how like over a hundred years ago when they first brought electricity here and started putting in those overheard power lines, some people were so worried this new unnatural thing might make them sick that they would literally tear them down. Pretty funny, huh?

That's the point, retard. You don't need chemical pesticides.

Hm, someone should make a little addition to that sign for it to be correct:

I thought it was a joke, like this:

Oh, you'll grow three dicks and two foreheads on your lower back.
No, the precautionary principle doesn't work like that. Stuff this "muh a trolley is headed down the tracks towards five people tied up, adjacent to another track with one person tied up, and nearby there is a lever that may switch the tracks, may do nothing, or may do something else entirely, and so the only way you can be sure you don't make the situation worse somehow is by not pulling the lever" bullcrap
If there was any difference between the health effects of a transgenically bred crop and a conventionally bred crop which have the same genetic sequence and are chemically indistinguishable, there could be no possible mechanism to account for it. Breeding method simply isn't reflected in any material changes to the object. You have to talk about the effects of specific traits and gene sequences, rather than "of genetic modification."

All pesticides are chemical.

Don't waste your time with semantics as your only argument and making strawman arguments. Organic just means free of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilisers. It still uses pesticides if needed. No one said anything about natural pesticides being bad.

Haha what
Did you understand any of what I just said?

mate

Im drunk and possibly misread something. But really though not all pesticides are lab created. You can actually achieve similar results with things you could actually grow yourself to be made into a pesticide. The only down side is shorter lifespan of effect but it's less toxic. Pesticides can over time build up in the soil to more dangerous levels which can get into water supplies in some cases. There may be some lab produced pesticides that arent that toxic but it still could fuck up the taste of your weed id imagine.

That's what human test subjects are for

This.


Lifestylista esci.


Semantics are important. I we aren't using common semantics then we can't have a successful conversation. All fertilizers are chemical. Salt and water are also chemicals.

Lees un libro por favor.

Ex-college-dropout-because-of-weed-comrade here.

I know that 420 memes are edgy when you still a teen, and that's ok. I've done all the shit: LSD, LSA, shrooms, weed, exstasy, speed, laughing gas, sniffin glue, 5 different designer shits, and so on. The main conclusion I got from all of this: my intakes would not have been possibly motivated if it not were for capitalism. With Zizek: the opium of the masses today is opium itself. You literally don't learn anything from these substances. Reading a book is infinitely more substantial and life-changing than taking LSD.

Join a collective, preferably a party, and achieve some actual shit instead.

A lot of cannabis sold in shops in NL has pesticides, you decide if breathing it in is harmful or not.
There are safer alternatives to professional pesticides, like a mixture of green soap and methylated spirit for a certain specific pest or maintaining proper air circulation and healthy plants, and keeping any pests from spreading in the first place, but weed by itself occasionally needs help growing properly.

Also, often metal salts are used for fertilizer. Some people say it makes it taste worse, but in general this is an unsustainable solution that will just turn open waters toxic and deplete our mineral supply.
Preferably, you run a so-called "circular economy", where you don't waste minerals like that.
This just means we ferment crap and piss until it's a safe and effective fertilizer.
Maybe nice to make "super soil", which don't need no fertilizer after fermenting, because micro-organisms in the soil handle that stuff.
Also easier for new growers because you don't have to fuck around with proper dosages of metal salts.

Drugs could influence perception or improve focus of reading.

Are you trolling, too?
It's not possible/ethical to design an effectively controlled feeding study with humans


Whether a pesticide is "natural" or "man-made" doesn't help us predict its harm to humans, pets, or the environment.


Coke is a surprisingly mellow, relaxing, cerebral headspace, and nicotine definitely helps me think more quickly and rigorously, but "drugs for studying" sounds like kind of a waste to me. But I think he was saying how all the talk about "oh man, acid makes you so introspective, you'll figure out everything" really only applies to people who can't already manage introspection in their daily lives.

This. I almost dropped out of high school because I did nothing but take and sell shrooms. They were fun and edgy at the time, but I ultimately learned nothing from them. Read a book instead.

I'm waiting to try LSD microdosing or ketamine for depression. Fingers crossed they will help.

Commies will ban weed for sure, State will distribute chemical analogue in secure pharmacies. Will be monitored, dosed out. Definitely no free cultivation of marijuana crops.

Don't try those things until you've tried exercising and eating 6 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

not him but south american weed is pretty shit

I do think hallucinogens have some potential to stimulate critical thought, and weed is harmless just too expensive to make a habit of. But otherwise yeah I agree

S. American weed is garbage. West Coast N. America is god tier

LSD actually helped me realize things about myself I didn't know or was trying to run away from. Your post smells like bullshit.

LSD microdosing to treat depression sounds kind of spurious to me, but I'll check if there are any papers on it when I get back to my computer.
I know that ketamine and NMDA antagonists in general (a good legal option is nitrous oxide, just make sure you supplement enough vitamin B12) have surprising efficacy against depression, I can link some literature reviews on this later.


Look, complaints like depression ultimately all have mechanistic bases. Just because the complaints themselves are vague and difficult to pin down as such doesn't mean that the equally vague, impressionistic notion of "doing more 'healthy' shit" is necessarily a more sound recommendation.

Good Goy. Buy more pharmaceuticals! You are just depressed because of your white brain. You can't possibly be happier if your body doesn't feel like a prison.

right, and when we used unshielded, really high-energy X-ray machines in shoe stores to let people look at the bones of their feet, or started insulating our homes and filtering our cigarettes with fireproof asbestos all those kooks who thought those were bad sure were wrong too :^)


Assuming we were in charge of anything, why not just experiment with GM crops, let test animals consume them, make sure they don't screw up the ground they're grown on, and let volunteers consume those that seem safe from the animal testing? That wouldn't impede progress too much, and it'd be reasonably unlikely to accidentally the entire ecosystem.

tbh I think 'depression' is too broad a term the way it's used now to sell pills, as it can indicate a chemical imbalance in the brain, psychological baggage or somebody making an honest assesment of their shitty situation and feeling reasonably and proportionately shitty about it. Treatment probably would vary depending on the person and situation.

Is this true? I don't even know where my weed comes from but it's good as hell. Why wouldn't someone just transport some sour d seeds down there?

I mean, "reducing everything to isolated cases of faulty neurology risks ignoring any social malaise among depression and related conditions' causative factors" is more of a leftist position (see Fisher's Capitalist Realism,often posted here,) and seeing as Holla Forums would be the first to admit academia is hostile to race realism, I just can't see pharma claiming depression comes fundamentally from "genetic whiteness."
I don't mean to suggest that the mechanistic basis of psychological conditions exists in a vacuum. Certainly there are social influences. Seeing as you guys like evolutionary psychology, take a look at the Rank Theory of Depression which I believe is a fairly strong one supported by what we know, mechanistically, about SSRI treatment (that intersynaptic serotonin concentrations reach their final levels within days of starting treatment while therapeutic efficacy is delayed 3-6 weeks certainly suggests that it is 5-HT receptor regulation, and thus a weighted average of chemical phenomena over time, each dependent on executive interactions with the environment, that is "to blame.")
But still, for some phenomenon to exist in the real world, it has to have some mechanistic basis. Every successful intervention must alter this mechanism, whether directly on the chemical level, as with pharmaceuticals, or indirectly through environmental changes which alter it on the level of changing one's chemical response to the environment in a relevant way.


This is the "people thought Galileo was wrong too" gambit. The problem with this argument is that it certainly doesn't follow from "people have reached incorrect conclusions before" that conclusions based on the best available evidence which reserve doubt and seek out more evidence when something is inconclusive will necessarily lead us to harmful mistakes. Yes, shouting down opponents as quacks isn't a valid argument, and I've seen it used in various contexts both against people who are unresponsive to evidence and against those with actual, valid concerns, so people shouldn't base their conclusions on that rhetoric but rather principled analysis of the real evidence.
Sure. Here's a large meta-review of recent research into various aspects and considerations of transgenic crop safety, with about a third of the included studies independent of industry interests: geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
It's certainly natural to point out that an essential feature of capitalism is the divergence of private profit and social need, and that as a result porkies do a lot of destructive things, but this area is comparatively well-studied and the consensus is rather strong. Though a more substantial body of highly qualified researchers independent of capital will be one of the most significant assets of socialism and technological development under it, I feel, as well as a key element of establishing warranted public trust, which is what "scientific ethics" is all about. You can see this huge amount of "get into STEM" propagnda pushed by government and industry, too, which is creating an oversupply of candidates for the grants/jobs they're meant/structurally allowed to take with the effect of slashed wages and overcompetition to further stretch tax dollars. But we do need scientists, as an integral part of civilization, and socialism will be able to allocate them much more effectively.
As to "let volunteers consume those that seem safe from the animal testing," though, we reach problems when, for example, two volunteers vomit after eating something and we cannot conclude whether it was caused by the test crop, or by food poisoning from the divey restaurant they ate at last night. Properly controlling the experiment so as to isolate the effect of one specific crop and get valid results would entail an unfeasible control on the subjects' lives for many years (since we'd be interested in the "long-term," longitudinal effects in such a study.) We're pretty much limited to epidemiological investigations, and those dealing with the specific gene segment we want to introduce and its expression (its associated protein, that protein's role in the plant's biochemistry, and the ultimate material changes to the plant itself.) Which isn't really all that bad - as I said before, breeding method itself isn't reflected by any material changes to the organism. The only material changes are those that the breeding method is used to accomplish, and so we study those.

Definitely. I'd actually go a step further and mention that the very existence of "treatment-resistant depression" attests to the fact that we have not fully elucidated the mechanistic basis of (what we call) depression, and this fact goes hand in hand with the fact that we have, at this moment, somewhat poorly characterized/defined boundaries on the set of conditions we call "depression." The role of the NMDA and kappa-opioid receptors suggested by the successful treatments which have targeted them kind of shatter the "classical" monoamine picture, and so on.
I think this is an important point as well. We don't often ask "to what extent is this person justified in feeling this way?" or attempt to characterize physical mechanisms behind "unjustified" vs "justified" depression and how they relate to the "perseverance and mental toughness," so lauded in bourgeois ideology, of people who "unjustifiably" feel fine with their shitty circumstances. But that is another confounding variable in the problem, and trying to solve similar issues is the entire reason for differential diagnosis in mental health. For instance, we require the experience of a single, highly traumatic event for a diagnosis of PTSD, even if the symptoms are the same, to try and gain a "finer grain picture" of the two in distinction to one another rather than as "the same condition."

I've been liftan' for a year and a half now, tho I admit that my diet is far from optimal. Regardless, I've never felt that rush that some people seen to feel after about half an hour of heavy exercise. I figure it's related to my anhedonia in the first place, tho it's probably a genetic factor.


LSD microdosing is virtually harmless, so it'll be my first option. Last I checked there weren't any papers about microdosing drugs.

Now here's the funny thing about K: it turns out it's not K itself that has the antidepressant effect, it's a metabolite called HNK, which has little effect on NMDA.

Incidentally, I talked in another thread about why the fuck isn't HNK even being tested right now:

this is your mind-brain on Newton's Mind-Forged-Manacles. fucking insect hive consciousness

>if a phenomenon which exists in the real world is acted upon or altered in its specific character by other things, than that really-existing phenomenon need not have a mechanistic basis at all, even though a material basis is otherwise understood to be a condition of material existence
weak/10
Is this like being called a "Darwinist"?


>However, HNK does still show biological activity, having been found to act as a potent and selective negative allosteric modulator of the α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (IC50 < 1 µM).[4] Moreover, (2S,6S)-HNK was tested and was found to increase the function of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a marker of the antidepressant activity of ketamine, far more potently than ketamine itself (0.05 nM for (2S,6S)-HNK, 10 nM for (S)-norketamine, and 1,000 nM for (S)-ketamine (esketamine), respectively), an action that was observed to correlate closely with their ability to inhibit the α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor.[5][6][7] This finding has led to a call of reassessment of the understanding of the rapid antidepressant effects of ketamine and their mechanisms.[8] However, subsequent research has found that dehydronorketamine, which is a potent and selective antagonist of the α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor similarly to HNK, is inactive in the forced swim test at doses up to 50 mg/kg in mice, and this is in contrast to ketamine and norketamine, which are effective at doses of 10 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg, respectively.[9]
Looks like quite a mess. Still, lot of conclusions we can probably draw from poking around in here. I wish I was studying this, let me tell you.
I could've sworn I saw a paper finding similar antidepressant effects in nitrous oxide. If not, my mistake, but if so, that's just even more baffling. Provided it wasn't some asshole inventing data

You should work on nutrition first. Also there are several herbs that help depression over time that are legal and probably cheaper. Depends on what you want to do. If you go for illegal (but its legal some places) I think ibogain has potential for depression but it's a little dangerous if youre not being monitored for blood pressure drops and I don't think it's studied for this use. I have heard of a scizophrenic using it before to balance their brain out.

HA
Killed him

Ditto. I'm still looking into it, and I've been thinking of starting some sort of NGOs to distribute it, provided it works, because I can't believe not a single lab is working with it. I mean I know capitalism is shit, but it looks to me like they're keeping a "cure" for depression away for the sake of profit, and that's unforgivable.


Welp that's a no-go for me then.

I once made a list with a shitload of herbs and supplements, but never sent it to my shrink for him to see what's okay and what's not.

They probably won't know beyond drug interaction if they are a psychiatrist but if it's a therapist they probably dont know unless theyre into reading about that stuff. A doctor might be more in the know about health effects but even they don't always know. As long as you arent on meds and check what negative effects something has you and if you arent taking doses beyond what you saw in studies likely wont run into trouble.

I'm a Communist now.

Perhaps, but pharma isn't usually able to collude that tightly despite the immense regulation (hence, barriers to entry) it pushes for. When your choices are purely between bringing a new more effective drug to the market and making money off it while losing even more on earlier drugs, or allowing someone else to do so and just losing that same money on earlier drugs, the former is incentivized.
If anything it's the potential for new uses of old, off-patent drugs which cost a pittance that remains relatively unexplored because it's unprofitable, not any new, secret knowledge locked away in the corporate vault. The immense financial overhead for developing, testing, and bringing a new drug to market also practically limits this activity to a very small number of giant firms, and many very promising, otherwise effective drug candidates are pushed to the wayside and forgotten because they could not satisfy an overly-rigorous and convoluted regulatory system, in part specifically designed to be anti-competitive.
NGOs face the exact same shitshow - if it was legally possible for a non-profit to cheaply produce and distribute a useful drug to the masses, it's porky's bottom line that suffers. So rent-seeking primarily takes the form of over-regulation, strong intellectual property laws, and controlled substance scheduling, rather than hidden knowledge divined by a controlled caste of chosen mystics with skills unavailable to mere mortals.

DUDE

Of course, not to minimize the resource-intensiveness of research that naturally increases along with specialization and division of labor. The fact that essentially no proles could possibly have a NMR machine at their disposal outside of their relationship, if any, to industry or academia is huge

WEED

LMAO

You're right, I figured that simple class interest is more likely than collusion. But I think you'll agree with me that it's still unforgivable.

Very apropos of our conversation, look what I found: a drug even older than HNK can be a "cure" for autism of all things. It seems to be the exact same situation of HNK and depression. Let's see how labs go with this. I found it weird to see this article in a relatively big site like RT because this is sure to make interested groups put pressure on the medical establishment, while HNK remains largely unknown. I've seen articles about ketamine's effect on the MSM, but none about HNK.

archive.fo/qKkL4

Also check out that last paragraph. Capitalism!