You asked for books. That was the first question you had,

From the top:

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

First question asked.

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Second.

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Third.

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

Fourth.

Then you said this:

If you’re honestly interested, you can find tons of literature.

and I said, without posing a question:

Name 10 books on the subject including the authors.

A strong reader would notice the lack of “?” at the end of that sentence, meaning it wasn’t a “question”.

Do you understand how punctuation works?

Did you forget that I said I would be ignoring you moving forward? Which to clarify doesn’t mean I won’t respond. It means I will ignore what you are saying and respond to whatever catches my fancy. Which is obviously making you big mad.

I find it quite funny, which is the only reason I am choosing to continue. You are a joke to me and as long as you keep delivering the punchlines, I will keep coming back with responses that fire you up.

You say all of this like it is impossible to scroll back up the thread and see exactly what happened.

It is funny that you think I am debating you, or that I owe you an answer to any of your questions when you refuse to answer mine.

You really have to get over the book thing. I get it, you don’t read as much as you claim but that is no reason to behave this way.

Take a breather bud. This is no good for you.

I really think you should lay down for that nap, or perhaps, get your bottle. Anything to help this tantrum you are throwing.

Why did you ask for me to mention ten books when you can’t address a single one that I name?

1. You never named 10 books, while I provided a source for over 200.

2. The purpose was to see what you are reading so I can know what you know. It is not a “gotcha”. You claimed to be well read so it shouldn’t be hard to list off a few books on a topic you also claim to know a lot about.

Perhaps because you’re a sort of silly little boy who’s pretending to know a lot about something they don’t, thinking that because they’ve smoked weed, they’re not “against the prohibition”, while actively fighting it.

Oh look! More projection! I do have to say your one trick pony show is beginning to get boring.

Anyone supporting the prohibition of drugs is acting against the well-being of society in general. That’s an indisputable fact I can and have backed with peer-reviewed studies.

So you keep saying, and yet I have never made a claim otherwise.

edit oh that’s a fun comment about “projection” from some teen who thinks he “wins” debates by saying “that’s a fallacy” as if you’ve ever opened a philosophy book :DD let alone understood the first thing about psychology. you’ve tried your teenage gotchas several times and i’ve shown you how much of a tit you were being and wow, you instantly stop with the argument I made you feel stupid about.

You should probably stop serial editing everyone of your comments. Nothing screams “Chronically online edge lord” quite like constant edits. (As well as commenting on every other comment in this thread, whether it was directed at you or not.)

All in all you need to up your game. Go back to your echo chamber and complain about all the stupid people who just “don’t get it” so you can tucker yourself out for a little nap. I think you need it.

What criticism?

Under the original lane for 100x the cost?

I am not sure if you meant it as such, but that was a great burn. haha

I absolutely empathize with the “Bullheaded, everyone is wrong but me” teenage mentality as well. Especially that mentality mixed with unfettered access to the internet.

Age sure does wear it thin though. haha

More time than effort on my part. You know you have nothing going on when interacting with a person like that is a reasonable way to kill time. lol

I’m not sure they ever will realize that. We probably wound up being posted on some anti drug prohibition forum with a “see what I have to deal with?” title and a lot of circle jerking. haha

It is not that he doesn’t get it, it is that he doesn’t care.

I honestly don’t see why he would care either because he has no reason to care. No matter what he does, he keeps getting elected. He probably feels more bullet proof than Superman right now, which is likely why he is running his mouth far more than usual.

As long as he is Premier, the same old song and dance is going to keep happening.

It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.

I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.

To quote you, to you.

You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

I will pose my questions one more time.

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.

Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?

You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.

That’s a bit like saying “I can’t be racist, I’m black”. I know there are people who believe it, but it doesn’t make it true, does it?

Actually it is a bit like saying you threw a tantrum over questions you couldn’t answer and assumed I was pro drug prohibition because of it.

You know what they say about assuming right?

I answered your points, but all you keep doing is larping an intellectual. Why did you ask for 10 books on the subject? Because you wanted to know if the situation is as I say it is. I link a book saying it definitely is. You have a tantrum.

You haven’t answered my questions, as I wasn’t making points.

That is another failure of perception based on your defensive demeanor, caused by the aforementioned tantrum and assumptions. The amount of projection and mental gymnastics you are doing to make me out to be you is humorous.

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society. Just like I do not agree that prohibition of all drugs must be in place for the good of society. Both statements are equally asinine.

What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.

Edit this thread is a case in point. Not one single explanation, just people absolutely terrified out of their minds, parroting bad propaganda and even worse rhetoric. “I don’t want my surgeon tripping when he’s operating on me.” And I don’t want my surgeon drunk, and alcohol is legal, and I’ve never had the issue, because surgeons don’t come to work drunk.

Genuinely, I’m tired of answering these “arguments” and no-one will accept how afraid they are, even when not a single soul can explain why.

This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.

You got an answer to your question "Why is society so afraid of people purposefully altering their mental state? (In terms of cannabis, psychedelics, anything “mind-expanding.)”, and me asking you questions.

Not once was a pro prohibition argument made against you, yet you keep hammering that nail like everyone is against you.

You should address the victim mentality, need to attack and demean others to make points, and inability to listen to another persons point if you want to have more success communicating with others.

I am high as Giraffe pussy right now.

Your argument is invalid.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter, because you didn’t ask in good faith, and are just a thrashy pseudointellectual kid who’s pretending to argue a thing they know nothing about, while thinking writing “fallacy” means something, while pretending their implications don’t exist.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

You’re not aware of prohibitions and now surrendered your whole “do you think there weren’t any drug prohibitions before the 20th century” point, because I actually know the topic, and you don’t.

Logical Fallacy.

… unless I actually did it systemically and collected results, which I have done. Amateurish, yes, but still not casual. Would you like to see my files? They’re in Finnish, with my own notation about what people respond with. It’s honestly baffling how small the options are for people, and how they all think they’re actually making a point, with some idiotic bullshit like “I don’t want my doctor operating on me while they’re on drugs” or some other completely ridiculous propaganda bullshit from some “Just Say No” campaign. I could draw a flowchart on an A4, wouldn’t even need an A3, lol.

Oh look more logical fallacy with a heavy sprinkle of personal attack. I have a purple unicorn, but I cannot show it to you. Just trust me.

First let me say that everyone knows you’re trying to set impossible goals, because you know you don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate, so you think a number you pull out your arse means anything, but I will give you literature on the subject, as requested, because I’ve actually fucking studied this for probably longer than you’ve been alive, despite you thinking I haven’t and am some random druggie — something which is all too common when you bring up the subject. People like you get what are essentially panic attacks when asked to question the propaganda programmed into their heads. It must be a horrible feeling, when being asked a question you’ve just claimed to be 100% sure about, to realise that you don’t actually have any reasons to believe what you believe and that you have no idea why you believe it, but you do know that you MUST NOT QUESTION IT.

Everyone knows I am setting impossible goals?

https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=drug+prohibition&i=stripbooks&crid=2FSM60LK4GVDJ&sprefix=drug+prohibition%2Cstripbooks%2C185&ref=nb_sb_noss

Here are 254 results for books regarding “Drug prohibition”.

People like me? You don’t know anything about me. It would help if you responded in good faith by answering the questions posed, and maybe asking some of your own.

Honestly the logical fallacy and personal attacks have become quite tiresome.

If you’re defending the prohibition of drugs, you’re either ignorant on the subject, or you’re actively supporting organized crime / making money off the situation. Literally. There is no other alternative. You’re in the group which is ignorant of it, because you’re brainwashed to even avoid information on the subject.

Show me where I said I support drug prohibition. Also, more logical fallacy.

Now, since I’ve more or less done what you’ve asked and answered your points, how about you stop ignoring my rhetoric and extend me the same courtesy? So… ANY science at all that says that drug prohibition is actually doing what it’s supposed to? Any science at all saying decriminalisation/legalisation is bad for society? ANY at all? Oh there isn’t? Not ONE? Wow, I’m so shocked, if only I could’ve seen this coming, eh?

I think I have explicitly demonstrated how you have not answered a single question, and fell back on logical fallacy and personal attacks numerous times. I never made a claim in support of drug prohibition.

You are not worth any further time. Feel free to write another novel in the comments.

Fair warning, it will be ignored.

People were playing around with electricity in ancient Greece as well. (Electricity coming from the word for amber, even). But if you asked someone “when electricity was invented”, I’m sure you wouldn’t even think of anything before 1600.

“The word comes from the Greek elektron (“amber”); the Greeks discovered that amber rubbed with fur attracted light objects such as feathers. Such effects due to stationary charges, or static electricity, were the first electrical phenomena to be studied.”

https://www.britannica.com/summary/electricity

Here is something to help you in understanding more about the topic of magnetism, static electricity, and what the ancient Greeks were talking about regarding both.

https://worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789813223776_0001

I am curious why you believe any of that is relevant to a discussion about Anti-drug propaganda.

I’ve spoken to thousand of people about this. That isn’t anecdotal

Yes it is. Literally the definition of “anecdotal”.

anecdotal, Adjective, “Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.”

You are free to provide your study about the thousand individuals you interviewed with the same questions regarding anti-drug propaganda to demonstrate it is in fact not anecdotal.

If you’re honestly interested, you can find tons of literature.

Name 10 books on the subject including the authors.

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

Feel free to actually answer my questions, and try to keep personal attacks like this

And are you a bit thick if you’re saying that these attitudes have always been with humans

out of it.

They found their way inside around the time Poilievre became party leader.

Watching question period was always a show but now it is a straight up circus and it is irritating as hell to watch the Speaker of the House let these things slide regularly.

I didn’t realize there was a difference between “Hero of the Right” and a raving lunatic. haha

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

r/Canada is full of bots, not people, just like the rest of Reddit.

c/Canada isn’t much better regarding racists, trolls, conspiracy theorists, hateful bigots, and the like. The biggest difference, outside of the aforementioned bot issue, is which side of the political spectrum exists as a majority in the forum.

Ask on the other side and they will have just as many kind words as you do for them, making you no better.