Your correction has been corrected.

Lol no. You’re just angry I corrected you. “Nuh-uh, I’m actually right, also go and do your own research.”

I have. I’ve also been using the terms for like 30 years in several languages.

Addiction is a brain disorder. Even in common vernacular. Dependence is different. Usually with SUD they overlap, but for instance cannabis doesn’t cause dependency (because there’s really no physical withdrawal) which is why you hear a lot of addicted teenager weeders saying “weed isn’t addictive, man”, because they don’t understand the difference between those two words.

Just because they are using a word prescriptively wrong because they don’t understand what it means doesn’t make it wrong for them to use in that context, descriptively. And no, not everyone who knows the difference of “addiction” and “dependence” is speaking in ‘a medical context’. They’re really not that challenging as concepts.

Feel free to consult a dictionary for what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” mean. ;> Perhaps you should also check what “vernacular” means?

Out of literally any people ever, anywhere, how many do you think waited until they were 18-21 to start smoking? And how many do you think started when it was literally illegal for them to buy cigarettes?

exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization

Drug cartel propaganda

Legalise and regulate everything so the industry isn’t controlled by violent criminal organisations. Decriminalisation is their wet dream

Let the children smoke - Lindybeige rants

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.

Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.

When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.

So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.

I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.

You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.

Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.

Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.

I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf

Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:

https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702

He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)

As far as i understand male people can only experience it anally, but even that requires training. Because it is so difficult to achieve, it feels impossible.

I’d suggest you look into it.

There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.

Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?

Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.

We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.

Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.

Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)

It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.

They tried in NZ.

This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.

It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.

Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.

This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers.

Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70’s can become drug abusers.

Prohibitions don’t work. People aren’t arguing for “big tobacco”, lol, they’re using common sense.

Regulation works, prohibition doesn’t. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.

Incorrect

Jesus, before the last couple of years it used to be “get a therapist” now it’s all “lol you use LLM’s” to write your comments. Sure I do buddy. Because… … Why exactly? Genuinely? I see about the same amount of reason as using hacks in gaming (only LLM’s would make any non-developmentally challenged persons comments shittier, not better). You wouldn’t be able to repeat the performance in real life so you’d never impress anyone so why would you bother?

Do you want photos of my grows? Can’t really be arsed to go on PC to retrieve older ones but let’s see

Oh and the supreme court thing

https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html

Ofc I get high on my own supply. That’s why I grow it, dumbo. Can I please have some more platitudes as bad jokes?

The article’s about Singapore.

Yes, I know. I can read the title just as I can read your comment saying “pretty much anywhere” and afterwards incredulously pointing out Singapore. Meaning your “anywhere” means actually anywhere, and not just “anywhere in Singapore.” Last I checked “anywhere” did indeed contain Finland as well.

nd a kilo is not a small amount (unless you’re a murican troll)

No I’m a person who’s been growing weed for the past 20 years. I once had three large tents, hundreds of grams and more than two dozen plants taken from me. They didn’t even try accusing me of a “felony”, but the basic non-aggravated version of the crime. The production capability I had was about 400-500g/m2 and I had 2.49m2 of growing room plus my balcony. Kilo is a medium amount. It’s not a small amount, no, but it’s by no means a huge amount. It’s one good harvest, grown in a couple of tents (or one really large one but I’ve never liked >1.2m tents) in an apartment building.

Are you aware of the distinction of de jure and de facto?

Because de jure we have quite draconian drug laws, but de facto you never go to prison for drugs unless you’re dealing “harder” stuff and there’s also violence/properly organised crime (which we don’t have a lot of in the first place.)

For instance de jure I have all sorts of rights as a person. But de facto, I was literally tortured by the cops in a jail when they took my plants away. And they didn’t even have a reason to put me in jail in the first place. None of my friends who’ve been caught growing have been taken to jail and the other time I got caught I didn’t either.

Yet the cops kept me in an isolation cell with the lights constantly on while denying me my prescription medication while I went psychotic over three days and drew on the walls with my blood. And that mattress and blanket weren’t there, they took them away and only put them back for the photo.

My point being ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS, even if some laws in other places are harsher than some.

But you said a kilo is “traffficking” almost anywhere. That’s just not true. Especially in a lot of places you actually have to prove the trafficking or intent to traffic. For instance the cops asked me about my small plastic baggies, told them they’re for freezing food. He laughed, obviously. They missed my scale, despite the fact it was literally right on the table next to my keyboard. But… if you look at the colour scheme it’s not entirely unreasonable they missed it.

(and yes I need to clean ik)

But to add to that, they also missed a massive glass jar sitting on my kitchen table with almost a hecto of bud in it. Which was a nice surprise once I got home.

I ended up influencing Finnish law since the cops prevented me from filming them and I got that part on video (them taking my phone away saying “youre not allowed to film the police when they work”) and it went all the way to the supremely court.

Anyways, I ramble, I’m aware. I’m not sorry about it though it’s all related I just know most people can’t handle lots of language and prefer shorter comments.

Anytime someone compares those two, you can just point out that people aren’t dependent on porn or gaming. That their bodies won’t shock themselves to death if they go cold turkey.

The keyword being dependency. People use those interchangeably, but they’re two medically distinct things and you usually have both to a drug, but not necessarily. You can be addicted and not dependent or dependent without addiction. The first one would be someone who still wants to use and dreams about it despite having had no substance for years, and the second one is for instance a long term pain patient who didn’t even know what medication they were on but start shivering and getting nauseous as they forget to take their meds, despite them not having any psychological need to take them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence

It’s somewhat okay to use them interchangeably but it would be super rude to talk about how addicted to one’s phone one is while someone is talking about having gone through actual substance use disorder, addiction, dependency and all.

Good job on pulling through man!

addiction" used to mean physical withdrawals

No it didn’t. That’s dependency. They’re two medically distinct things. Addiction is a brain disorder, dependency isn’t.

If stupid people didn’t exist and the world wasn’t as unjust as it is, I wouldn’t get any withdrawal from quitting weed. As it is, I get quite irate, but I think that’s just my default setting nowadays, not a withdrawal symptom.

A single kilo?

That’s literally barely the limit of a “severe” drug crime in Finland, and if you had exactly 1kg you wouldn’t get sentenced for a severe/serious/aggravated (“felony” as the Americans would say) drug crime.

Having to go to prison for an amount like this wouldn’t even happen in Finland. Our justice system sucks in lots of places, yeah, and the attitudes towards drugs are verifiably archaic, especially on a social level, but you wouldn’t have to actually go to prison unless you managed to get caught with a kilo at least once a year for a few years in a row, and the chances are that they still wouldn’t put you in as a non-violent offender.

Drugs are everywhere. The severity of the laws only affects the price and quality, not availability. (Case in point, there’s a booming drug industry inside prisons, everywhere.)

Idk man do you live where hares do? They all constantly look like they’re on meth

De facto there is a minimum wage, de jure no. But just know there is. It’s a bit different for different industries.

Yeah I’d agree with most of that.

But honey is a pretty traditional additive to lots of foods, even savoury ones. More common with pork perhaps than beef but still.

And the berries, while being also quite high in sugar, aren’t exactly unhealthy either.

Idk man I just feel like American always has something processed or at least fat dripping off or like bread that’s soaked in fat. This hasn’t got anything processed.

In B&W you played a god essentially, and you’d have a sort of pet. Not your avatar, but something independent that you had to sort of slightly motivate to do things.

It probably had some “AI” in it and the author is now trying to assert his ideas led to AI, despite him probably copying as much for his code as any coder today.

I genuinely don’t know I can’t be arsed to open it but I’m guessing something something those lines. Someone will come along and tell me how wrong I was.

Vegetables are edible parts of plants that are consumed by humans or other animals as food. This original meaning is still commonly used, and is applied to plants collectively to refer to all edible plant matter, including flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds.

Seems to me that grains are plants and edible.