Well well well, I'm epileptic and take medical marijuana for it. I would have liked to have seen that commercial, in addition to ... Marijuana cannot even be compared to alcohol. How many marijuana deaths are out there? Go ahead I'll wait ...
Yes. It is an important distinction to make. The distinction of what we call “killed by...” XYZ susbstance. Marijuana, for all known intents and purposes, cannot cause toxic overdose in any remotely reassemble quantity through smoking or ingestion. However- where pre existing medical or psychological conditions exist- marijuana CAN be linked to death through those conditions. Marijuana CAN be linked to deaths when mixed with other substances as well. Additionally- we have to understand that OD is only one metric. Cigarettes (nicotine) can kill through OD but that is exceptionally rare- especially through inhalation. Alchohol likewise can kill by OD, but also relatively rare compared to primary cause of death. Both booze and smokes tend to kill through long term health impact. Most Amphetamines can kill by overdose- even caffein can. Although if someone quits meth after using it awhile in their teens and dies of heart failure in their 40’s is it still death by the substance?...
... likewise- can we say a substance causes death of while under thebeffects of it a person does something that would take their life if they were not under the effects of that drug? Surely we can’t compleely discount these deaths when discussing a substances danger- otherwise drunk driving wouldn’t be illegal because it isn’t the fault of the substance but the user right? So it gets a bit sticky. Any inhaled or smoked substance will have negative health impact and can cause cancer. That’s just a fact. But when someone dies from lung or other cancer as a smoker or inhaler of any vaporized substance- how can we accurately assign that death to a singular cause? The truth is that habitual and regular use of marijuana hasn’t been studied long term and in depth from a large enough sample for us to say for certain exactly what the impact is of such use....
... but: We know marijuana has no reason to suspect one can fatally overdose, we know that purely marijuana smoke or inhaled suspension is likely not as dangerous as smoke from nicotine containing products delivered the same method, and we know plenty drugs like ibuprofen can and do cause deaths from overdose as well as from long term health damage. So- I’m by no means arguing that marijuana is inherently more dangerous than any other susbstance when taken through the same path of administration, and we have data that strongly suggests it is less dangerous than MANY other common substances. As usage explained through de criminalization and social acceptance, we will have better statistics on its effects long term- and the methods used to define deaths from a substance are very important in understanding the statistics- however we can say at this point in time, alchohol poses a far greater individual and public health issue than marijuana.
Ty guest_ it's totally why I **edited** didn't wanna say it has never caused death but super wanted to point out the OD rate. Studies show many other substances are a ton worse. Yet Marijuana in the U.S. anyways is still on a bad leg up due to the unknown really.
Well first guest is an idiot. Even if it were true that the "stoner dipshit" just wants to get high and doesn't care about the medical benefit ( which is definitely not true, even if he doesn't need the medical benefit of it, they still care that it does good) who cares? There are legitimate health benefits to it, with very minimal negative effects, and it's still illegal in alot of places for dipshit reasons. The reason stoners use the alcohol comparison is because it's the most obvious one. Nobody can have a legitimate reason to think marijuana should be illegal if they don't also think alcohol should be illegal. Alcohol is far worse in every way with almost none of the benefits. yet it is legal almost everywhere for someone that it is old enough
Know your audience most people really into football are usually from the south or are usually very traditional and into traditional beliefs i mean sure it is the super bowl and sure there are many different things to that but im also kinda tired of this you cant please everyone so you are doing a bad job vibe like everyone wants something they agree with to be shown. It was the same super bowl as all the other years i am happy because of it. If things change people are mad and if things dont change they are still mad. Like what do you want so what they didnt show a controversial ad probably because it would piss off just as many people as it would please if not more.
Capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We can and should hold businesses to our standards. That’s how capitalism is supposed to work. As you say- a business exists to make money through serving the needs and wants of the public. We each have to look at a product, a company, and its practices and philosophies and decide if we support them or not. Now- there is a point on the vendiagram where private and public matters overlap. With many corporations having unprecedented wealth and power, with many essentially functioning as public entities, and with a scope of media that no founding American could have reasonably predicted- we do have to ask what responsibilities these companies have beyond profit. As a private franchise- the NFL can do as it likes. But should that be so? What we are essentially saying is that with enough money, a person had the freedom to circumvent essentially any principal of governance they like. At that point we establish that the principals of our system do not...
... apply equally to all, that one can buy exemptions to whatever they like, and our system based on equality falls apart. Now- it isn’t necessarily an issue for just the NFL- it’s a legislative issue. But these mega corporations have tremendous power and we have to ask if we are ok with that, if we are ok with them using that power to shape our society and to control information and media. The sheer hypocrisy of the act alone should be morally repugnant in my mind. There is a clear bias being shown and however- marijuana isn’t legal in all states, it’s medical usage has been made legal at the federal level which superceeds state laws so there is no argument on legality. In essence refusing this commercial is no different than refusing to air an ad with an interracial romance in 1970. Whatever legality one might claim is secondary to the fact that it is inherently wrong to refuse it on those grounds.
Shut up, stoner dipshit. You don't care about epileptic children, or people with cancer, or people with glaucoma. You just want to get stoned without worrying about getting arrested. At least be honest about your motivations and stop hiding behind people with real problems. You can stop with the marijuana / alcohol comparisons as well. These have been floating around since I was in junior high - mid '80's - they aren't getting you anywhere.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
While I disagree with guests rudeness, I agree that people are just looking for reasons to get high with no repercussion. I'm one of those stoner dipshits and I agree.
I have to assume guest is an alcoholic wino piece of shit with that type of defensive response. Yes there are plenty of stoners hiding behind the real medical patients but why is there a problem at all? I sure hear a lot more problems coming out of getting drunk than anything else (except maybe prescription ODs these days)
I have to disagree with guests rudeness and very much agree with nightkami. A lot of stoners do oversell weed. They try and use convoluted logic or obscure things like “I can’t sleep without it” to liken every user of the drug to a persecuted cancer patient. They often treat it like a healthy harmless vitamin or a holistic miracle. It isn’t. It’s a drug. And someone who has a glass of wine or a beer to relax or get to sleep isn’t being held out as a social deviant, so why are they? Alchohol kills as sure as cigarettes and yet cigarette ads are banned and booze isn’t. What if Marlboro just added “use responsibly” to their ads too? That’s fine right? Marijuana does have many potential benefits including recreation, and if someone can drink a fifth for fun why can’t they hit a bowl? I don’t use it, but I wouldn’t stop others from using it. It does have therapeutic value as well, and a commercial about a legitimate medical use is not the same as one advocating recreational use.
http://klaq.com/see-the-commercial-cbs-banned-from-airing-during-super-bowl/