> In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of [...]
> The translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 men in all, most of whom were leading biblical scholars in England) who had the work divided up between them: the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin.
And they translated Hebrew "Kaneh Bosm" as "Calamus", a sweet cane that's not an active ingredient; and then copyrighted their work of men.
> "The only way to handle danger is to face it. If you start getting frightened of it, then you make it worse; because you project onto it all kinds of bogeys and threats that don't exist at all.
> [...]
> The rule for all terrors is head straight into them. When you are sailing in a storm, you don't let a wave hit your boat on the side. You go bow into the wave and ride it. So in the same way, old folklore says, whenever you meet a ghost don't run away, because the ghost will capture the substance of your fear and will materialize itself out of your own substance and will kill you eventually, because it will take over all your own vitality. So then, whenever confronted with a ghost, walk straight into it and it will disappear."
The top two sources (flax and hemp) are plant based and thus have ALA but not the DHA or EPA that some animal sources have.
Fish don't produce Omega-3: they eat algae and then the PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) are stored in fat.
Fish and cheap fish oil may have other contaminants due to pollution in our lakes, streams, and oceans.
It's important to eat a balanced diet. Eating anti-inflammatory (and anti-oxidant) foods is one way to regulate hyperinflammation.
Any form of combustion (burning carbon matter) produces carbon monoxide. CO is terrible for most living things in part because the unbound oxygen binds to whatever it finds (oxidization).
>> America (and a few other places) actually did have a War On Booze, they just gave up because it's too socially normalised
> They might've given up because alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.
> They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal ("de jure discriminatory")
They might've repealed the Amendment authorizing alcohol prohibition when they realized they were unintentionally ensuring tax-free funding for organized crime. The whole Gangsters vs G-men thing was a direct product of prohibition.
Where US Marshalls (Justice branch) and Secret Service (Executive branch) had been more or less sufficient, we then needed another new 'bureau' to handle interstate organized crime headed up by a German guy; amidst Irish Rabbis (during prohibition)
Where we had had men drinking in saloons and not going home to their families, we then had men and women drinking in illegal literally underground speakeasies (on like every other corner of New York) breathing leaded gasoline (which, apparently, noone ever went to jail for)
There's strict liability (without legal regulated supply we have essentially zero liability) and there's near-genocide.
"Scorched Earth", "erased as the war criminals and pestilence on humanity they are", further abused, forced into same-sex incarcerated relationships. We've tried this. It hasn't solved yet.
"Just kill them" for climbing without a rope? For risking their long-term health for short-term relief from physical and mental trauma and subsequent addiction, for not violating anyone else's rights but their own, you think you have the right (and moral obligation!) to violate their rights? Because they're inferior. They're an eyesore. "Eliminate the weak!" (who aren't violating the rights of others). Can you think of groups of people in human history who have taken that approach, violated the rights of others, and been cured by subsequent prison?
With the savings from not paying $50,000 a year for learn-to-silently-move-tax-free-contraband-in-cool-school incarceration and attempted concurrent rehabilitation (while the right to address personal health matters is denied), there should be plenty of money to prosecute property crime and littering and biohazards. Let me just reward you with food, a place to stay, gangs, and zero need for personal financial responsibility.
You litter in the street, the park, an alleyway, where f'ing kids play, you spend some of your time cleaning that s' up. For free. Because that's violating the rights of other people.
Longitudinal studies may or may not be able to identify causative relations amidst confounding variables like e.g. air pollution.
Lung cancer incidence from low to high according to one observational study: NS, MS, MTS, TS.
"Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature." (2008)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19004418/
Is that the case for vaping or edibles? Nobody has any idea yet.
> Cannabis listed 62 times as medicine in 1899 Merck Manual"
Ask a physician today whether cannabis should be recommended for anything and the probably most likely answer is "we just don't have enough good studies to know yet".
But in 1937 and 1970, they were really sure about it; they claimed "cannabis is not medically useful for any person with any condition" and nobody successfully argued the medical utility or liberty arguments! They've held that position while curing people with prison: people who are exercising their liberty to risk self-harm in pursuit of happiness. So, now, people in States that haven't yet pursued legalization and automated expungement don't sue suppliers who have insufficient quality control due to prohibition (and tax-free margin inflation) instead of regulation in the interest of public health that upholds our highest values: Equality, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
How different might things have been had we required evidence-based justification for universal quantifications like "not medically useful for any person with any condition" to be kept on file with the Library of Congress for further review.
An observation-based study that couldn't have been a Randomized Controlled Trial (the "gold standard" for clinical research):
"Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature." (2008) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19004418/
This meta-analysis considered 10,700 studies, threw most out for not meeting the inclusion criteria, and concluded that there is sufficient evidence to recommend cannabis for a number of conditions: “The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research” (McCormick et al. 2017) http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects...
If you're at -3 due to symptoms, whichever treatment minimizes those symptoms like +3, but the given treatment(s) have short and/or long term adverse effects that are -1, that's a net gain.
But different people assign unnamed different constants with different magnitudes to different things.
> Do you still smoke, are you able to go without it? Do studies showing decreased IQ and memory retention concern you? Why do you smoke or why not? I feel as though most of the projects posted on this site are not by daily tokers.
You can eat foods that boost the endocannabinoid system (e.g. containing Omega-3)
Short-term memory loss ("give me 10 minutes and I'll remember") is an effect of THC use (which also apparently stimulates hippocampal neurogeneration) and also of head injury (which results in neuroinflammation, which THC does reduce) which is sometimes the result of contact and collision sports.
Pain can also be distracting. Just numbing pain can be counterproductive. Some inflammation is good: the body responds to injury with inflammation; but hyperinflammation is not good. The endocannabinoid system uses Omega-3 to produce endocannabinoids which help regulate inflammation. Most American diets have more Omega-3 than Omega-6. High Omega-6 to 3 ratios are apparently not advantageous for endocannabinoid production.
What strategies have you written down for minimizing the impact of that potential detrimental adverse effect? (E.g. productivity systems like GTD and 43Folders, task lists, I'll just add it to the list so I'll remember it later but if it's only going to take 2 minutes or less just do it now (GTD))
> This is my personal story:
> Throughout university, I smoked daily. It was what we did, and got to the point where I smoked to get homework done.
There are apps for recording strain names, their observed effects, and cannabinoid and terpene content.
Some people have identified certain terpenes as resulting in "intelligence". Bronchodilative (more oxygen), anxiolytic, and eating enough food to get nutrients effects may be linked to "intelligence" as a measured effect.
A crutch is a tool. And sometimes people steal your f crutch or it's not helpful when in certain stressful or anxiety-producing situations (such as talking to some professors and VC sweater vests)
Walking in the woods apparently exposes a person to alpha-pinene (which is bronchodilative)
There are hemp flower (low to no THC) strains that also have terpene content, that can make sleep easier than high-THC strains.
Scientists still aren't clear about how much REM sleep is desirable for optimal cognitive and motor performance.
> I slowly became a lite drug addict. When I graduated, I quit for 4 months, got a job, continued use for a good 4 months then quit again. It's been nearly 5 months since my last break. I no longer have to quit for a career, and I'm pretty tempted to give back. However, I worry about the effect it will have on my work ethics, social abilities, and consistency in personal care.
I think it's cool that you have personal values that you're concerned about upholding. That you have a standard that you hold yourself to, regardless
> On the other side, without it, I find I drink more, so I really dont know what to do. I found physical activity helped obviously, and I have been slacking lately.
Cannabis and alcohol are both anxiolytic vasodilators. Excessive vasodilation ("dangerously low blood pressure") can cause lightheadedness, the spins, etc. THC and alcohol are both paradoxical anxiolytics: at higher doses they increase anxiety ("anxiogenic"; "does anyone in this bar even love me for me anymore?")
Cardiovascular exercise and orgasm both apparently result in release of endocannabinoids.
Like anything else, you can write down a problem and/or symptoms and list and compare solutions (maybe even in consultation with a physician who can recommend things like hemp flower or even actually medically useful medicine or even diet, regular exercise, and a mental health regimen)
> All five major cannabinoids (cannabidiol (1b), cannabichromene (2), cannabigerol (3b), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (4b), and cannabinol (5)) showed potent activity against a variety of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains of current clinical relevance.
Biodegradable bioplastics. Soybean + hemp is carbon-negative if the carbon is sequestered, there's a clean production process, and transport uses clean energy.
> The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court.
> The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law
> The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.
If the 9th Amendment recognizes any unenumerated rights of the people (with Supremacy, regardless of selective incorporation), it certainly recognizes those of the Declaration of Independence ((secession from the king ('CSA')), Equality, Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness), our non-binding charter which frames the entirety of the Constitutional convention
Speaking of liberty to take risk and live TV, the film "Hot Rod" (2007) may provide some insight into what's going on in the mind of a person who is taking unnecessary risks for: acceptance (oxytocin) and excitement (adrenaline); though it doesn't provide any guidance as to how to avoid counterproductively reinforcing risky behaviors.
Keep in mind that these are all paid actors just following orders.
Is substance abuse intentional self-harm (suicide is legal) or a maybe-misguided attempt to pursue Happiness and end suffering?
How would you help Rod make better decisions? If Rod is not infringing rights, is Rod committing a crime by performing dangerous stunts?
I guess people don't want to review data that could help solve the optimization problem (maximize Constitutional compliance,
minimize crime, minimize unintentional self harm, minimize loss, minimize suffering, maximize Liberty and pursuit of Happiness; with no particular ranking) amidst emotional rhetoric.
Strict Scrutiny requires a law which violates equality to be the absolute minimum necessary policy which achieves the public interest objective(s).
We tend to have issues with Equal rights/protections: slavery, voting rights, [school] segregation. Please help us understand how to do this Equally:
> Furthermore, (1) write a function to determine whether a given Person has a (natural inalienable) right: what information may you require? (2) write a function to determine whether any two Persons have equal rights.
The government has no obligation to protect people from themselves; only to resolve disputes and determine whether a party actually violated the rights of another or the state.
Public health is a worthwhile expenditure intended to help people make good decisions about their health and safety
As a community, we require standards with which to resolve disputes brought before the court: trade disputes, liability disputes; disputes over loss and infringed rights. In the status quo, such disputes involving illicit substances are resolved by the parties themselves: in the streets. Consumers are very unlikely to implicate themselves or their suppliers in order to bring safety to the market: child-safe packaging and labelling, liability insurance.
Should we require (1) legislation-justifying research to be held and made available for further review; (2) bills which intend to achieve a particular objective to be achieving that objective within a predefined amount of time according to an agreed-upon set of criteria before we continue to throw money at a failing approach?
Does Strict Scrutiny - developed to resolve 14th Amendment Equal Protection cases - implicitly require a bill which is transgressing literally our highest law ("Equal Justice Under Law") to be achieving the public safety interest it intended to solve?
For precedent, In Korematsu (1944) the court ruled that Equal Protection could be set aside in order to send Japanese-looking people to internment camps.
The age-old claim that CBD is not medically useful for any person with any condition is now disproven by the FDA's clearance to market Epidiolex; we should be asking how such an invalid assertion remained on the books; and whether it's ever been legal to differentially prosecute on the basis of disability.
THC is already recognized as on-label medically useful for AIDS and Cancer wasting. THC and other cannabinoids and terpenes may counteract some of the side-effects of just CBD.
> America (and a few other places) actually did have a War On Booze, they just gave up because it's too socially normalised
They might've given up because alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.
They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal ("de jure discriminatory")
> The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one.
The Controlled Substances Act has multiple flaws. For one, the CSA explicitly grants different rights to different people on the basis of disability; which is not equal. "Equal Justice Under Law" is etched across the US Federal Supreme Court Building.
The US (and now Vietnam) Declarations of Independence read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The Controlled Substances Act is predicated upon flawed logic: in order to prove a universal quantification ("it doesn't help anyone") one must show that for person in all_people: for condition in all_conditions: doesnt_help_with(x, person, condition;
which is impossible when you're not an agency that funds drug research on all people with all conditions.
A single counterexample (an existential quantification) disproves a universal quantification.
Maybe computers and radar required logic skills that would've gone into law.
Furthermore, (1) write a function to determine whether a given Person has a (natural inalienable) right: what information may you require? (2) write a function to determine whether any two Persons have equal rights.
Furthermore, does the Constitution grant legislators the right to grant right-granting privileges to non-legislators?
> Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every 1-3 years to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list.
One epidemiological statistic which could be used as a threshold is called "Margin of Exposure" (MOE). If alcohol sets that standard for legal dangerousness, most other substances are not too dangerous for persons with rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.
> We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one.
Alcohol Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; the Commerce Clause was already in place at the time and yet they felt that the Constitution did not enumerate the power to ban alcohol.
Regarding a person's liberty over their own body and mind: liberty is a natural inalienable right. As is pursuit of happiness.
A person can go buy, say, a chainsaw, and on their own property intentionally remove a limb while holding an apple in their mouth to be shot with flaming arrows on live television, and the government claims no loss; indeed the government has no right to claim loss due to dangerous acts entered into by citizens which do not infringe the rights of others.
More notes on the substance abuse problem and the other problems (e.g. human trafficking) it's complicitly creating:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version :
> In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of [...]
> The translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 men in all, most of whom were leading biblical scholars in England) who had the work divided up between them: the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin.
And they translated Hebrew "Kaneh Bosm" as "Calamus", a sweet cane that's not an active ingredient; and then copyrighted their work of men.