thirstytho

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've bound services to 0.0.0.0 just to avoid the trivial annoyance of checking an IP.

I always kinda wondered when the other shoe was gonna drop on "why do databases even have passwords"...

That's ok, it's not important to my point; it's just weak but confirmatory evidence of my prediction.

Still, after 80 years, how are you splitting responsibility for that between our laws and culture and the substance itself? Smoking cigarettes furtively is much more difficult than smoking weed furtively[0], due to the exact same two factors I pointed out previously.

If the same evidence that predicts you'll see less disease predicts you'll see fewer of the users, does not seeing as many users really count against the prediction of less disease? At the very least it seems like you'd have to assign some priors in order to know which way that evidence points.

[0] In the habitual sense, obviously.

On the face, there are dramatic differences between cannabis and cigarette smoke, the most important being that cigarette smoke is highly addictive, the second most important that cigarette smoke has much lower potency.

This is why our smoking/cancer statistics reflect a reality in which it was once extremely common for smokers to be inhaling one or more ounces of burned tobacco per day.

Most people already know that that's a huge amount of weed for an average person. Even out of folks who are getting high every day, almost none are hitting that mark-- the most obvious proof of that being that it would cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars per day. Even if we allow for unfiltered cannabis smoke to be several times more carcinogenic than commercial cigarette smoke, we're not going to get there.

In fact the opposite is true; the average person who develops a serious weed habit (more than a few grams a week) is actively incentivized to try safe methods of consumption like vaporization, extracts, or edibles, if nothing else because they will save a lot of money.

So apples-to-apples, we wind up comparing the habits of generic cigarette smokers to those of drug dealers and very wealthy, very pot-addicted people. I understand the desire not to approve of any amount of smoke inhalation, but the null hypothesis here is not equivalent risk.

Apart from all of that, our generation didn't invent smoking weed, and neither did our parents. If cannabis represents a public health hazard on a similar scale to cigarette smoking, it's hiding pretty well after all this time.

Unfortunately since they get paid on IP, it's more like the opposite. A minor revision to replace a proved drug with a re-patentable version is a little work for a lot of money; proving a new use for an out-of-patent drug is a lot of work for very little money.

I don't necessarily agree with the snark but we'd probably be better off if more medical research were not profit-motivated.

You can choose alcohol or some other beverage.

So should the meal plan serve alcohol, too, to avoid reacting to 'fears that they're "making a mistake"'?