"nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects" - have you heard of a cop writing a ticket to somebody for having smoked too many cigarettes?
Of course nicotine has an effect. It's stimulating, clarifying, whatever. But it doesn't impair you or change your personality. You still are who you are.
"Define "weaker"" - in terms of how people overcome those moments.
And once again - I do not slight people for being weak, everyone is at some points to some degree. I am though for people to be honest about it and not make excuses for submitting to drugs and claiming it's normal. It's not. If you can't handle yourself without drugs or alcohol - fine, but admit it. That's all.
I can assure you that tobacco changes your personality. It may not impair certain abilities - such as driving - as much as say LSD, or whiskey, nonetheless a smoker - ie, an addict - has a marked change in personality from the drug.
The same is also true of coffee, and to a lesser extent tea. There are some people who should not be behind a wheel after drinking coffee - or on withdrawal from coffee.
The only difference really is that these are 'socially acceptable' drugs, not that they do not have significant changes to mood and behaviour.
In places where pot has been socially acceptable also for generations, people would look at you for being weird for claiming it was dangerous, or harmful, in moderate doses. Ever talked to a hardcore Muslim about alcohol, and heard how deranged they are about even one mouthful of beer? Well, that's how it'd comes across in those societies.
I don't think societies should be limiting people's choices, certainly not through coercion and threats of extreme violence, such as "Imprisonment"; at the same time, I agree that individuals must also take the full consequences of their actions, and not try to claim "The drug made me do it". No, that's BS. I've been drunk many, many times, but I've never even remotely tried to rape someone. That's not the alcohol, that's YOU, buddy.
But this distinction between 'drugs', and 'drug-free' is largely false. Historically, it comes down to whether the item could be controlled and taxed by and for elites. When you look at it biochemically, you find it gets a great deal more complicated. Look up the effects of processed sugar on the nervous system, fx. If you think that's funny, try giving up ALL products with sugar in for 3 months. You'll find all the symptoms of drug addiction as you go through that, if you know what they are.
"Just one little bit won't hurt..." - just as any old heroin addict who can't quit.
Obviously, these 'natural' - or more natural - drugs are not in the same league as the manufactured utterly synthetics of Big Harma. Opium is a millionth less harmful and addictive than the Big Harma synthetic opioids. Even so, opium destroyed an entire civilisation under British gunboats to force entry.
People have been killed due to caffeine withdrawal. And nicotine withdrawal. Especially nicotine withdrawal.
Ultimately, "You are what you eat", or more generally, imbibe. It ALL affects your mood, behaviour, psychology, consciousness. I cut out meat for two years in my late 20s - I was a different person in important respects.
What I'm getting at here, badly, and longwindedly, is that generally the distinction of "drugs" is entirely synthetic itself. It is socially subjective - to some extent.
Every single person on this planet, is addicted to SOMETHING. Be it meat, sugar, salt, heroin, dope, alcohol, tobacco, or their phones (But that's another topic).
Pointing fingers of superiority at others is ignoring our own problems, which we only admit in secret to ourselves in the dead of night.
We're all addicts. Every single one of us. Addiction is part of the Human Experience.
I'm cool with that, and maybe you are too.
But I'd like the pill-pushing "psychiatrists" to simply call themselves the more honest "Dealers".
"nicotine and MJ do have similar psychotropic effects" - have you heard of a cop writing a ticket to somebody for having smoked too many cigarettes?
Of course nicotine has an effect. It's stimulating, clarifying, whatever. But it doesn't impair you or change your personality. You still are who you are.
"Define "weaker"" - in terms of how people overcome those moments.
And once again - I do not slight people for being weak, everyone is at some points to some degree. I am though for people to be honest about it and not make excuses for submitting to drugs and claiming it's normal. It's not. If you can't handle yourself without drugs or alcohol - fine, but admit it. That's all.
I can assure you that tobacco changes your personality. It may not impair certain abilities - such as driving - as much as say LSD, or whiskey, nonetheless a smoker - ie, an addict - has a marked change in personality from the drug.
The same is also true of coffee, and to a lesser extent tea. There are some people who should not be behind a wheel after drinking coffee - or on withdrawal from coffee.
The only difference really is that these are 'socially acceptable' drugs, not that they do not have significant changes to mood and behaviour.
In places where pot has been socially acceptable also for generations, people would look at you for being weird for claiming it was dangerous, or harmful, in moderate doses. Ever talked to a hardcore Muslim about alcohol, and heard how deranged they are about even one mouthful of beer? Well, that's how it'd comes across in those societies.
I don't think societies should be limiting people's choices, certainly not through coercion and threats of extreme violence, such as "Imprisonment"; at the same time, I agree that individuals must also take the full consequences of their actions, and not try to claim "The drug made me do it". No, that's BS. I've been drunk many, many times, but I've never even remotely tried to rape someone. That's not the alcohol, that's YOU, buddy.
But this distinction between 'drugs', and 'drug-free' is largely false. Historically, it comes down to whether the item could be controlled and taxed by and for elites. When you look at it biochemically, you find it gets a great deal more complicated. Look up the effects of processed sugar on the nervous system, fx. If you think that's funny, try giving up ALL products with sugar in for 3 months. You'll find all the symptoms of drug addiction as you go through that, if you know what they are.
"Just one little bit won't hurt..." - just as any old heroin addict who can't quit.
Obviously, these 'natural' - or more natural - drugs are not in the same league as the manufactured utterly synthetics of Big Harma. Opium is a millionth less harmful and addictive than the Big Harma synthetic opioids. Even so, opium destroyed an entire civilisation under British gunboats to force entry.
People have been killed due to caffeine withdrawal. And nicotine withdrawal. Especially nicotine withdrawal.
Ultimately, "You are what you eat", or more generally, imbibe. It ALL affects your mood, behaviour, psychology, consciousness. I cut out meat for two years in my late 20s - I was a different person in important respects.
What I'm getting at here, badly, and longwindedly, is that generally the distinction of "drugs" is entirely synthetic itself. It is socially subjective - to some extent.
Every single person on this planet, is addicted to SOMETHING. Be it meat, sugar, salt, heroin, dope, alcohol, tobacco, or their phones (But that's another topic).
Pointing fingers of superiority at others is ignoring our own problems, which we only admit in secret to ourselves in the dead of night.
We're all addicts. Every single one of us. Addiction is part of the Human Experience.
I'm cool with that, and maybe you are too.
But I'd like the pill-pushing "psychiatrists" to simply call themselves the more honest "Dealers".