I’m reading ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’ and that’s what it sounds like. Hemp is the best thing for making textiles and plastic and paper; It’s better medicine for a ton of things than most pharmaceutical drugs; Its seeds are one of the best foods; and it grows fast anywhere. It’s an old book and I haven’t checked the many sources, but is it all true? I know you can get psychologically dependent on smoking weed, and I suppose it could go invasive (though people could just use it when it does), but I’ve only eaten the seeds - is there any other caveats? Why don’t I see more about China and Russia using it? Is it possible to try to grow in a city in the US (guerrilla gardening?)? Also, I’m wondering if edibles or whatever make it worse. I know there are environmental problems with growing it indoors for THC.
Edit: I forgot to mention the reason why we’re not using it is because the industries that would be taken over by it (plastics, pharma, etc) got the government to ban it under racist pretenses.
Its reconigsed as an effective soother for people undergoing cancer treatments; radio/chemo-therapy tends to completely remove peoples natural appetite. Often times outcomes will be really poor for them as they wont eat what there body needs to recover.
Because of this, the NHS in the UK prescribes it for this specific circumstances; its ability to trigger 'the munchies' helps people maintain a consistent diet and aids in recovery.
'Rick simpson oil' is also known to be good for skin cancer.
Also lastly, its known to be effective in treating seizures in children.
I get the scepticism, and agree people exgerate it; its important to understand the dialetic going on though and find the middle ground. I do believe the positives of it being legal vastly outweigh any negatives.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized or that those other benefits aren't present, I'm saying that cure-alls/panaceas don't exist and that legalization advocates in the past have indulged in that sort of myth-making.
Yeah, I feel you; positive-myths are still not good, they can make people have ephinanies where they find out one side is lying/exgerating so change teams, it happens.
i think the source of his skepticism about it is the claim on a healthy alternative to smoking tobacco, and that is total bs, because the act of smoking itself is harmful, you are burning stuff and inhaling carbon monoxide, that is toxic af.
there is a argument about being healthier than cigarettes because it is a natural product, without the chemicals they use, but the tobacco industry is trying to reinvent itself with the same argument by selling roll up cigs with "fresh" tobacco.
Yeah, smoking weed is bad, I dont do it personally and wouldnt advocate for it.
Vaping the raw bud is safer but the safest method ultimately remains edibles or topical oils you can rub into your skin.
Nicotine is super addictive and THC isn’t technically. I didn’t look at the source, but the book claims weed clears people’s lungs and makes them live much longer than if someone just smoked tobacco.
Inhaling any kind of smoke is not good for you. Regardless whether it's addictive you still fill your lungs with all sorts of shit that's not supposed to be there. And vaping probably isn't much better either. Stick to edibles and oils.
Correct, if you gotta, you might as well just do edibles, gummies, oils. No long term lung damage, and also doesn't stink up everything around you.
in terms of chemistry, the reactions that happen at vaping vs burning temperatures are basically nothing alike. this should be fairly obvious from the smell of smoke vs the (almost complete lack of) smell of weed vapor.