Because Trump is Putlers lapdog obviously

Been there, done that.

Didn’t break a window, just hung on a doorhandle.

The most fucked up thing is salvia has reverse tolerance. The more you use it the stronger it will be.

Yeah this, salvia is anything but some light recreational fun.

Or anything that might help with mental problems.

Last time I went the spirits kicked me out for being too much of a noob to their realm. But that was like 15-20 years ago.

No, just too delusional to accept that forcing a 14-year old girl to suck your weird mushroom dick is actually rape and pedophilia.

I’m uncertain of the specifics, 14 may be shooting high idk.

I don’t even see ads for drinking online, that’s how banned they are in my country.

And the science isn’t a problem that needs solving. Almost as if the answer to this was something that no-one can do alone.

Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!

The science isn’t the issue. It’s the politics.

Haha, agreed.

Vexillologist can be… vexing.

Given the age the nations, I’d say that’s not entirely unlikely. We Finns did do ours last, afaik.

Worth noting that while the rest of the world uses rectangles, it’s not always the same dimensions.

Very much this

Edit also whoever made that image couldn’t write “Finland”

Your correction has been corrected.

Lol no. You’re just angry I corrected you. “Nuh-uh, I’m actually right, also go and do your own research.”

I have. I’ve also been using the terms for like 30 years in several languages.

Addiction is a brain disorder. Even in common vernacular. Dependence is different. Usually with SUD they overlap, but for instance cannabis doesn’t cause dependency (because there’s really no physical withdrawal) which is why you hear a lot of addicted teenager weeders saying “weed isn’t addictive, man”, because they don’t understand the difference between those two words.

Just because they are using a word prescriptively wrong because they don’t understand what it means doesn’t make it wrong for them to use in that context, descriptively. And no, not everyone who knows the difference of “addiction” and “dependence” is speaking in ‘a medical context’. They’re really not that challenging as concepts.

Feel free to consult a dictionary for what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” mean. ;> Perhaps you should also check what “vernacular” means?

Out of literally any people ever, anywhere, how many do you think waited until they were 18-21 to start smoking? And how many do you think started when it was literally illegal for them to buy cigarettes?

exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization

Drug cartel propaganda

Legalise and regulate everything so the industry isn’t controlled by violent criminal organisations. Decriminalisation is their wet dream

Let the children smoke - Lindybeige rants

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.

Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.

When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.

So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.

I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.

You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.

Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.

Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.

I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf

Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:

https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702

He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)

I’d suggest you look into it.

There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.

Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?

Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.

We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.

Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.

Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)

It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.

They tried in NZ.

This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.

It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.

Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.