...
Last edited:
There was no science in prohibition. Only politics. The one using the other as a tool should not quantify.
my compost pile is twice as smart as Stephan Hawking and vice versa ...... kinda depends on what exactly you are trying to do IME
context and relativity are key and the lack thereof is the cause of most arguments here
they used bogus science experiments to justify its danger
monkeys exposed to pure smoke for 5 minutes periods led to brain damaged monkeys and thus dangerous marijuana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendull C. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=5771212#post5771212View Image
There was no science in prohibition. Only politics. The one using the other as a tool should not quantify.
Bogus science isn't science.
they used bogus science experiments to justify its danger
monkeys exposed to pure smoke for 5 minutes periods led to brain damaged monkeys and thus dangerous marijuana
it was a legitimate science experiment that did not replicate the smoking experience verbatim
the experiments were bogus when used in comparison to the smoking experience they themselves were done with scientific method and the results recorded
were the scientists in collusion with a Harry Anslinger or did Harry Anslinger ask for a certain test and use the results to his advantage?
either way real science was used to sway opinion and create laws and it doesn't invalidate science but illustrates human manipulation like your focus on my verbiage instead of the simple point made by said verbiage can be used to bias perceptions.