I mean, all of this is very apparent if you have a passing familiarity with how drug use is measured. So I'm not sure why you needed to be rude to me for an extended period of time to get to this point.
I mean, all of this is very apparent if you have a passing familiarity with how drug use is measured. So I'm not sure why you needed to be rude to me for an extended period of time to get to this point.
The most comprehensive history I've ever read on marijuana- and I've read a lot of them. Almost all of the ones published in English, if not all of them.
Including the axe-grinding antis, of course- Harry Anslinger, Donald B. DeLouria, Gabriel Nahas, Robert DuPont, Joe Califano, Alex Berenson. Although those books aren't really histories; they're more intended as inquisitorial bills of indictment. None of them impressed me. But, after all, if you don't comprehend the arguments of your opponents, you don't fully have a grasp of your own position.
It's sad. We agree on some important points. But they share an irrationally exaggerated terror of the risks of marijuana. And all of them think that officially ordained punitive moralism is useful in matters of public health policy, whereas I view it as a severe iatrogenic complication. Possibly a lethal complication, if left untreated. And the influence of punitive moralism on US drug policy has been left largely untreated for around the past 100 years.
I'm just trying to inspire some scholarly rigor on your part, CFL. I'd expect nothing less from people scrutinizing my own Substack posts with a critical eye.
Fwiw, there's nothing especially edifying about pointing me to an opening table of contents page.
In my own posts, I supply primary source links and/or bibliography references, with page numbers and pdf names- or direct links, if possible. An act of courtesy, to the readers. People actually willing to read long-form post content deserve all the courtesy they can get, in this day and age. It's implicitly patronizing to present them with information that they aren't able to easily confirm for themselves. Especially in the age of hyperlinks.
I have to note that I've disabled all comments on my site, for the time being. That's intended as an effort to limit my own problems with preferring to exchange news and views in comment sections over shaping up Substack posts of my own! But, you see how it is. It's a terrible weakness- almost a "disorder", one might say. Like a Funbridge addiction.
I'm tempted to take the easy way out and just do reposts of the comments on my own site, but I just have...trouble...doing that. It feels like cheating. The narrative arc is disrupted.
.My current plan is to allow post commenting on Iconoclasms/ADWJ site by autumntime. So feel free to write some up and file them away, as future replies.
I mean, all of this is very apparent if you have a passing familiarity with how drug use is measured. So I'm not sure why you needed to be rude to me for an extended period of time to get to this point.
"all of this is very apparent if you have a passing familiarity with how drug use is measured."
Rest assured that this is not my first acquaintance with the subject.
For what it's worth, on the topic of providing information on cannabis, this guy blows away everyone else on Substack, including you and me:: https://www.cannabinoidsandthepeople.whitewhalecreations.com/
Book recommendation-- Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana, by Martin Lee (2013)
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Smoke_Signals/8XE-AAAAQBAJ?hl=en
The most comprehensive history I've ever read on marijuana- and I've read a lot of them. Almost all of the ones published in English, if not all of them.
Including the axe-grinding antis, of course- Harry Anslinger, Donald B. DeLouria, Gabriel Nahas, Robert DuPont, Joe Califano, Alex Berenson. Although those books aren't really histories; they're more intended as inquisitorial bills of indictment. None of them impressed me. But, after all, if you don't comprehend the arguments of your opponents, you don't fully have a grasp of your own position.
It's sad. We agree on some important points. But they share an irrationally exaggerated terror of the risks of marijuana. And all of them think that officially ordained punitive moralism is useful in matters of public health policy, whereas I view it as a severe iatrogenic complication. Possibly a lethal complication, if left untreated. And the influence of punitive moralism on US drug policy has been left largely untreated for around the past 100 years.
I'm just trying to inspire some scholarly rigor on your part, CFL. I'd expect nothing less from people scrutinizing my own Substack posts with a critical eye.
Fwiw, there's nothing especially edifying about pointing me to an opening table of contents page.
In my own posts, I supply primary source links and/or bibliography references, with page numbers and pdf names- or direct links, if possible. An act of courtesy, to the readers. People actually willing to read long-form post content deserve all the courtesy they can get, in this day and age. It's implicitly patronizing to present them with information that they aren't able to easily confirm for themselves. Especially in the age of hyperlinks.
I have to note that I've disabled all comments on my site, for the time being. That's intended as an effort to limit my own problems with preferring to exchange news and views in comment sections over shaping up Substack posts of my own! But, you see how it is. It's a terrible weakness- almost a "disorder", one might say. Like a Funbridge addiction.
I'm tempted to take the easy way out and just do reposts of the comments on my own site, but I just have...trouble...doing that. It feels like cheating. The narrative arc is disrupted.
.My current plan is to allow post commenting on Iconoclasms/ADWJ site by autumntime. So feel free to write some up and file them away, as future replies.