Prompted by “Marijuana Is Safer Than… Selfies?”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/radical-rant-marijuana-safer-selfies
While cannabis use (not abuse) is safe — scientifically speaking (the fact is no experimental science concludes any harm from moderate cannabis use) — and cannabis prohibition is highly destructively unsafe (see millions of non-violent victims of blatantly corrupt “law” upon scrutiny), the ranter’s arguments are harshly selectively aligned in a manner forming reason abuse (which is also ironically unsafe).
Just because cannabis overdose doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes (i.e. a user falls asleep long before being able to consume the thousands of pounds — dramatically outside the range of even the highest of highs — necessary to achieve a direct death by cannabis intake) does not mean cannabis is automatically safer than activities in which death occasionally occurs (e.g. taking a selfie).
Cannabis is a psychedelic plant. While cannabis can be consumed mildly (and, unlike alcohol, stably) for lightly affected experiences away from sobriety, the other end of the psychedelic spectrum is nothing shy of severe perception alteration and all of the serious risks accompanying that severe distortion of naturally evolved perception.
That serious risk is easily on par with the activities mentioned by the ranter as being more dangerous than cannabis due solely to causation of direct death.
Taking a selfie successfully probably requires at least reasonable care (e.g. avoid dangerous cliffs and moving vehicles).
Using cannabis successfully probably requires similar care (in choosing the proper intake method, amount, and strain(s)) to avoid an alteration to perceived reality that easily could cause a user to stumble into all sorts of harm (including death).
Risk is never zero regardless of awareness and even care (delays from care possibly form ironic tragedy).
One activity is not necessarily safer than the other, because the risks vary dramatically in both (if not all) activities.
I can take a selfie right now (I won’t, because I just woke up and it’s probably unsafe for you to see that) with a level of safety on par with safe cannabis use.
We don’t need reason abuse to convince righteous minds that cannabis prohibition is wrong.
We only need reason use (if you will) to shine an intense public light on the only group of people needing pure reason abuse to sustain their scam — the prohibitionists whom could lightly humorously (albeit reasonably effectively) leverage your ‘cannabis is safer than selfies’ rant against cannabis use proponents.
Good luck trying to convince the common person that cannabis use is safer than selfies. The common perception of sanity leaves that convincing likely strictly within the pointless ‘preaching to the choir’ realm.
How about you rant about the Commerce Clause that factually was redefined according to the public record combined with the English language? That illegal redefining is the true “constitutional” basis for Cannabis Prohibition, and its restoration is mandated by actual law and puts a blunt stop to the most serious risk and harm at all levels of government (see Supremacy Clause and necessarily judicially restored amendment nine, which leaves cannabis activities firmly judicially protected by the unalienable right to liberty).
Good luck trying to convince the common person (actually virtually anyone) that the Commerce Clause and even way too often our Constitution and fundamental rights are something to care about (patriotism is sadly and publicly dangerously a muddy affair these days without consistency in that care).
See? I can make my own points against myself, but that latter luck wish focuses upon a factually complete undermining of the outrageous prohibition that leaves us all unsafe, so that convincing is necessary by at least somebody to bring much more strength to our righteous cause against a blatantly illegal prohibition forming an effective middle finger to sanity.
Even if you can convince someone that selfies are more dangerous, what have you ultimately accomplished?
Our movement needs sharp focus towards extremely solid moves that promptly put a respectable end to this example of law madness from reason madness powerfully corrupting the home of the brave (and beyond).
We can no longer mess around with minor points that probably will not land any real blow against opponents, which logically is the only positive purpose of a public rant.
You can do much better, ranter, and we need your properly sharp focus, if that hasn’t been dulled by excessive cannabis intake.
We have fun as part of the necessary healthy relaxation ethic balancing a healthy work ethic (balance is always needed for stability), but our Respect Cannabis campaign never dicks around when it comes to the serious need to press hard to terminate mass insanity immediately.
At the risk of being perceived as an ass for ranting about a ranter basically desiring the same outcome (certainly nothing personal against the ranter likely having the priority of finding a unique angle to achieve publication in High Times magazine), I remain confident in the value of my rant striking true for a net-resulting positive impact towards that outcome.
What will it take for me to convince any of you that bad law obviously requires you to care about law?
If the public cannot change their tune to care about law (especially fundamental law), then the public deserves the lack of safety that comes from bad laws?
What will it take for enough people to understand that Respect Cannabis is a unique force worthy of responsibly passionate support (and is ultimately much safer than any alternative)?