This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
9 submissions to whatever
3 submissions to news
2 submissions to politics
1 submissions to introductions
1 submissions to music
This user has so far shared a total of 12 links, started a total of 6 discussions and submitted a total of 966 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 4738 and downvoted 22 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 6696 and downvoted 123 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
Wife and I just figured out we're getting ~ $200/month more thanks to Trump tax cuts, submitted: 2/2/2018 2:59:53 PM, 117 points (+119|-2)
White privilege is..., submitted: 3/19/2016 4:29:32 AM, 116 points (+125|-9)
Twitter Hashtag #WhichHillary Goes Viral, Disappears, submitted: 2/28/2016 4:06:11 PM, 111 points (+112|-1)
Haven't read them all yet, but so far so good, submitted: 5/10/2016 2:19:00 PM, 77 points (+89|-12)
TIL HIV is racist and homophobic, submitted: 2/24/2016 10:18:40 PM, 21 points (+28|-7)
5 lowest rated submissions:
I don't think the sentence on Brock Turner (Stanford "rapist") is too lenient. You?, submitted: 6/9/2016 9:08:41 PM, 1 points (+2|-1)
Just going to leave this here to see if some (((Jew Media))) nutjobs' heads explode, submitted: 11/8/2016 2:40:32 PM, 1 points (+3|-2)
Wtf is this based HuffPo piece?, submitted: 6/2/2017 5:34:12 PM, 1 points (+3|-2)
Who's really behind slavery?, submitted: 7/27/2017 3:42:14 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Seriously, ARE there any successful matriarchical societies throughout history?, submitted: 1/19/2017 11:51:24 PM, 3 points (+3|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
InyourfaceNancyGrace 0 points 99 points 99 points (+99|-0) ago
If you have to fake a problem to fight a problem, then
there really isn't a problem to begin with.you are the problem.
InyourfaceNancyGrace 0 points 89 points 89 points (+89|-0) ago
Fucking white guilt is the only thing that embarrasses me about being white. I don't suffer from it personally, but I die a little inside every time a white person is apologizing for shit they have nothing to do with. Maybe it's a byproduct of the extreme narcissism we're seeing - by apologizing for something they had nothing to do with, they increase their illusion of self importance. As if their feelings have any bearing on the situation whatsoever.
InyourfaceNancyGrace 0 points 45 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago
I'm a little tired so I skimmed what you wrote, but I think you missed the implication that it also forces mentally-ill people to reconsider getting treatment because they don't want their rights trampled on in the process. I want to be able to conceal carry; you think I'm ever going to tell the doctor I feel anything but 100% A-OK now? So what if I'm having suicidal thoughts and/or hearing voices? I can manage, I don't need treatment. Treatment requires diagnosis, and diagnosis means I give up my rights as a citizen. Nope, I think I'm good with self-counsel.
3 lowest rated comments:
InyourfaceNancyGrace 7 points -6 points 1 points (+1|-7) ago
There's a lot of fuckin Jews man, and they do things. Just because they interact with non-Jews doesn't mean they're controlling them. I mean, Saudi's do a lot of crazy shit, start a lot of movements, fund Islamic terror. They're not Jewish. Putin invades sovereign nations, where are the Jews pulling the strings there? China's building more land off their coast to expand their border, is that some Jewish scheme? Bill Gates does/has done a lot of shit, is he a Jewlord in disguise? What about Eric Schmidt, the Alphabet CEO who now suspiciously works with the Pentagon?
I've never understood blind, indiscriminate Jew hate.
InyourfaceNancyGrace 8 points -5 points 3 points (+3|-8) ago
Wait, I thought it was that "big paper" outlawed hemp because it was better than wood. Or "big oil" outlawed it because hemp oil is better than everything. Or was it "big cotton" oppressing hemp because hemp fibers are stronger than steel.
I think the obvious truth is similar to alcohol prohibition: pot fucks you up, so there was concern that it was bad for your health. Alcohol was/is more popular, ubiquitous, and historically significant than pot, so prohibition caused a larger uproar and didn't last as long. Pot isn't as popular, so repealing prohibition takes longer. It's not a conspiracy, it's not big pharma or big wood or whoever. It's a principle of basic demand.
Should it have been outlawed for so long? Probably (bordering on "of course") not, but we couldn't possibly have known the benefits before recently, so all we had to go on is: "It [generally] decreases motivation, motor skills, reaction time, and short-term memory. It's probably bad for you." Not really difficult to see how that conclusion was reached. Much more difficult to construct an elaborate conspiracy with multiple parties pulling the strings. I think Occam's Razor handles this one pretty well.
InyourfaceNancyGrace 4 points -3 points 1 points (+1|-4) ago
My good buddy with ALS needs it to simply deal with the terrible experience and pain he is going through. There have been medicinal benefits to cannabis that virtually the entire medical and healing community has known for millennia. Denying this is absolute nonsense.
Anecdote and conjecture do not established medical science and treatment make. I mean fuck if I told you ecstasy cured my PTSD, it shouldn't be schedule I, would that make a shit of difference to meeting the "approved medical treatment in the US?" No. Or if I told you "peyote has been shown to snap people out of depression ever since it was used in early Mayan ceremonies" would it make a shit of difference to the medical community at large? No, not unless those Mayan shaman published in The Lancet (they didn't).
I realize in the past 10 years there have been significant medical advances in cannabis research (which is why I said "Until very recently, and even now there are loopholes to the 'medical' classification"), but saying "it is known" isn't going to fly. Opium, ginseng, ephedra sinica, peyote, et al have "medicinal benefits that [cultures] have known about for millenia," which means exactly dick with regards to "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." There certainly weren't accepted medical benefits it was outlawed in the 70's. Currently, "medical marijuana" is also very difficult to regulate given the vast variety of strains and potencies. THC, which is legal to prescribe, is much easier (just as any distilled active ingredient). You have specific, regulated doses and regimens to dole out depending on symptoms. Plant matter can vary widely from batch to batch, part of the plant, method of administration (deep inhale or successive small hits), etc. That's why doctors prescribe you an opiate pill or a morphine drip rather than having you smoke some opium. Concentrates are much more consistent, predictable, and manageable than plants.
To be sure, I'm not the one denying any of this. I've read the research, I think it's all fine and great. But I am explaining the FDA's position on the matter. I personally think they're a bunch of retard bureaucrats that have no business regulating anything more complicated than tying their own shoes, but they're in charge.
Bahahahahahahahaha! Alcohol which is legal causes actual death, thousands of drunk driving deaths, ruins families, liver cancer, etc etc etc etc.
Alcohol actually has an established, accepted (legally and medically) safe amount to be used. But alcohol is not on trial. Tobacco would be a better scapegoat along that line of thinking anyway. Obesity causes actual death and cancer, but there is an established safe level of intake of food. Until recently, there has been little research in the US on accepted safe levels of marijuana consumption, and even now there is extreme difficulty in establishing tests to assess safe levels of consumption, particularly in regards to impairment and ability to operate machinery. For all your concern about driving deaths and alcohol, impaired driving while high should be just as much of a concern. Additionally just because "you don't die" doesn't mean it's safe (again, see cigarettes).
Objective conversations on this topic are always so much trouble I probably shouldn't bother. Marijuana isn't a panacea, there are risks in consuming it. They just tend to be overblown on the "anti" side and underplayed on the "pro" side.