>If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X.

source

The lupus was incidental

Wacky tobacky or cancer sticks?

Scary maze game

I dont see your point. Legality of recreational use has a lot to do with access to knowledge on harm reduction, presence of impurities or adulterants, and skews the statistics of users towards those who are already prone to addiction and/or struggling with mental health issues.

I mean obviously. My point is that legality of recreational use has a lot to due with how something is perceived, the amount of available information for harm reduction, and skews the statistics such that only people willing to break the law will do so.

Im talking about recreational use

This is all due to prohibition of their use, lack of access to information on how to safely use them, and them being illegal skews user statistics towards people who already have mental health issues. In order for stimulants to cause psychosis, someone would have to take very large doses. I am not saying there are no side effects.

During prohibition, alcohol could be prescribed. This did not stop illegal distilleries from producing alcohol that had unsafe levels of byproducts which caused even worse health effects than alcohol would alone.

I do not see amphetamine/meth being legal to prescribe as an issue with my argument, as we are not talking about medicinal use. They are illegal to use recreationally, unlike alcohol, leading to all sorts of issues.

I am being downvoted because the "war on drugs" has been largely successful in the demonization and propaganda surrounding illicit drugs

Because alcohol is legal meaning that regular law abiding citizens can easily access it. Amphetamine/meth being illegal skews the statistics such that only people willing to break the law can access it, and mentally unhealthy/ill people are more likely to be willing to break the law.

Really depends on the dosage and purity. If meth/amphetamine were legal, well regulated, with informed users, it would likely be less damaging than alcohol. Obviously people who regularly take very high doses will have health issues, but this can be compared to binge drinking which is also horrible for your health.

Alcohol is a hard drug and daily use of alcohol is probable worse for your health than daily use of amphetamine.

This is utterly false. A side hustle almost never implies working extra hours for your full time employer, rather a secondary, independent source of income

Heathen

The meat wont be wasted. It will be consumed by the local wildlife and fertilize the soil.

Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

Absolutely not, i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I am saying that cell cultures and organoids help to greatly accelerate research, and i dont get why their use would make a study any less valid. Your bleach example is a bad faith argument.

If this is actually a point of contention for somebody then they dont need to worry about their scientific literacy, as it would be moot.

Cell cultures are perfectly valid modes of study and one of the largest areas of active development.

>MDA looks like a white powder

Sounds fun 😜

While he was on LSD no less

Which was likely staged.

Ew

Close, but wrong anime. (Mob psycho 100, the one punch man of telekinesis)