Rule 4: Do not promote or put drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants in a positive light.
Some comrades mentioned in private channels that weed is not addictive, I’m not going to argue on this point because this is a fundamental divide between China and some western countries.
My view is that whether you’re addicted to them or not, you shouldn’t promote these substances or put them in a positive light. It’s fine if you don’t agree with me, but anyone who leaves a comment here arguing the opposite will be banned from the community (30 days for now).
If a lot of people oppose this rule, either by downvotes and/or number of comments, I will willingly step down as moderator of this community.
Clarification: Comments or posts that violate rules in this community will either be deleted or be given a warning, the violating user would not be banned unless there’s a need to. The 30-day ban mentioned in the post is for people who come into this post and argue for substance abuse, not for people who simply disagree with anti-promotion.
So where exactly is the line between morphine and opium? As a native American, i can say that my people have used many drugs traditionally for the betterment of our people, as have many cultures around the world. Medicine is distinct and separate from abuse in our culture, as even staples can be abused (eg too much food makes one fat). Is there a specific historic reason for these drugs to be specifically banned or are you just following the popular modern sentiments?
Where in the post and my comments have I said to ban these substances? I find it frustrating that people come to me and mention so-and-so substance can have medicinal properties, because I understand this concept, but I’m assuming this type of medicine is prescribed by a certified doctor or therapist, and not by random people on the internet just because they use it in their culture or country.
You made the mistake of assumption. Your post specifically bans discussion around these substances in a positive light, which is why I specifically brought up morphine. Nobody is going to argue that morphine isnt an incredibly valuable medical discovery in the context of modern medicine, but that discovery came from opium, which definitely has some extremely negative implications where China is concerned. For all that tobacco causes cancer, it also reduces stress and provides a mild stimulant. Sometimes, that’s important. Further, medicine is constantly evolving. People in Berkeley, CA seem to think that even psychotropic mushrooms have medical value. While that’s not my cultures approach to the subject, we still believe some of the same things, even if we got there by very different paths.
Idk overall you seem too emotionally invested in this argument to handle this topic with any kind of impartiality.
Why did you bring up morphine, to prove that we should be able to discuss morphine or related substances outside the context of medical use or research?
Morphine is medicine. Nobody is going to argue that it’s a drug with no medical use. Opium is a lot harder to argue for, but it’s still a valid argument because that history is important to the medical context of morphine. “Drugs are bad” is a really immature and shortsighted stance to take when the relationship between drugs and medicine is such a complex interplay with all kinds of overlap.
And that’s ignoring the extremely important cultural context associated with using drugs OR medicine throughout the history of China, let alone other countries.
I’m not even trying to ratio you here. You’re doing it to yourself.
Do not promote or put drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants in a positive light.
Discussing how a psychoactive drug is used regularly and ritualistically would fall into “neutral or positive”, no? As the rule is phrased, it doesn’t matter how the drug is procured.
See my latest improvement to the rule that attempts resolve this disparity between different cultures, which includes a modification of your last suggestion: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5205977/4756875
After input from various comrades, I’ve decided to improve the rule with some explanation, this is my latest suggestion:
Rule 4: Do not promote drugs/alcohol/tobacco/weed/psychedelics/inhalants or any other substance that may be abused. We do not discuss the personal use of these substances out of consideration for comrades who might be affected by substance abuse or have bad experiences related to them. We understand that some substances may be used [medically|(for treatment)] in different cultures, but we think that this community is not the appropriate channel to receive medical advice.
It’s almost 24 hours since I posted this, and the overall feeling I get is that this rule is “ok” only because of China’s history, and not because it makes sense.
Let’s imagine a scenario where the new rule only mentions “Do not promote or put alcohol in a positive light.” What would be the reactions then? Keep in mind that in China, alcohol is legal for adults and can be advertised on national TV, but has the following restrictions: (from the 广告法 Advertising Law)
第二十三条 酒类广告不得含有下列内容：
（一）诱导、怂恿饮酒或者宣传无节制饮酒；
（二）出现饮酒的动作；
（三）表现驾驶车、船、飞机等活动；
（四）明示或者暗示饮酒有消除紧张和焦虑、增加体力等功效。
(DeepL translate) Article 23 Liquor advertisements shall not contain the following:
(1) Inducing or encouraging the consumption of alcohol or publicizing the uncontrolled consumption of alcohol;
(2) Showing actions of drinking;
(3) Exhibiting activities such as driving a car, boat, or airplane;
(4) Explicitly or implicitly suggesting that drinking alcohol has the effect of eliminating tension and anxiety, increasing physical strength, and so forth.
Is it unfair to lump all these substances together as though they have similar levels of influence on a person? Maybe it is, because why didn’t I include games that are designed to be addicting, or mention porn, or other forms of escapism?
Speaking of porn, why can there be a Lemmygrad instance-wide rule 4 of “No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW)”, but I have to be met with a possible majority resistance (hexbear users can’t downvote this post due to how their instance works) for anti-promotion (not a ban on mentioning them) of the listed substances in this community?
Anyway, this discussion post will be pinned for some time until enough consensus has been made on this new rule, and I will suspend the enforcement of this rule 4 in the meantime (not that there has been any violation yet).
This is why I only sniff correction fluid.
Going to add that under inhalants, thanks.
A day to mourn for every chunghwa enthusiast
My suggestions: 1) make an exception for using (psychedelic) drugs for medical purposes, provided there’s sufficient scientific understanding of their efficacy; 2) clearly define what “put in a positive light” means - for example, the word “based” afaik comes from the word “freebase”, referring to the purified form of cocaine; the word itself in my opinion have long become a harmless expression of approval, it’s an old meme. 3) I think it’s obvious to everyone, still - the context under which similar phrases are said matters. Saying things like “you are alienated, go ahead and try some MDMA” or something is unambiguously clear in its intent, that would go against the rule.
I was considering adding “(for non-medicinal purposes)” to the rule, but people who mention medical purposes have proved to me that this is unnecessary. I’m going to repeat this again, online spaces are not a good place to receive advice on medical prescription from others just because they use it in their culture or country.
That’s not to say people should give medical advice on the internet, especially if they’re not professionals - I’m against that. But saying factual phrases like “ayahuasca is currently being researched for its potential to treat PTSD and other related illnesses” is pretty neutral - it is not advice, I think it’s fine.
I’d like to add that such phrases should be backed up with sources and details, and not just as a matter-of-fact statement. Other factual statements like “X substance is legal in Y country” or “X substance is proven scientifically to have Y properties and Z effects” might not be fine depending on the context, like if the statements are used to justify promoting the substance in a person’s comment/post.
Hmm, alright.
I disagree
I agree to it. Especially for a China community considering it’s past struggle with drugs.
substance abuse
Is there anybody actually arguing that being addicted to something drug-wise is a good thing?
I don’t think anyone will do so, but they might instead talk about their experiences with such substances in a neutral or positive tone, they might describe the experience as “interesting” or “cool”. While a person might not be intentionally promoting a substance when they talk about it in this way, what will people who are addicted to the substance think about such opinions? If there’s no opposition raised, the substance might be viewed as any other normal item.
This is not a rule to ostracize people who are addicted to various substances, it’s to clearly signal that these substances are not cool, not interesting, not something to joke about, not something to try out.
Maybe change the phrasing of Rule 4 to something that reflects that concern. “We don’t discuss personal drug use out of consideration for comrades who might have substance abuse issues or bad experiences.”
Well, my feelings are so-and-so so I abstain… I don’t think this policy affects me
On the other hand, some of the substances are of varying degrees, but who I am to judge, with China’s history with drugs…
hexbear doesn’t have downvotes. seems weird to preemptively make a rule when we’re not going to change or productively debate chinese drug policy and weed/shrooms/lsd/whatever aren’t part of any capitalist plots to re-run opium.
are you ideologically anti-drug like middle-aged white americans or is the motivation here about respecting the history and material conditions that caused china to be how it is?
This is the /c/China community on Lemmygrad.ml, not hexbear.net.
the no-downvotes includes federated posts even if the instance has them
One solution is for someone from hexbear to comment that they’re against this new rule, and then people from hexbear can upvote that comment.
i doubt we’re particularly fussed about the rule, i mostly commented because i’m broadly interested in the philosophy of moderation
Considering China’s history regarding drugs, this is a reasonable rule for this community. Also, I believe there should be a separate community for those who still wish to discuss recreational drugs, so that discussions about said topics may be directed there.
On a basic level, I’m fine enough with you choosing to do this for this specific community, but is it really necessary? Have people actually been doing that here in this community specifically? If not, it’s a pretty pointless rule honestly, especially if you’re only making it because you disagreed with people talking about weed in a separate channel
Like, I don’t think the rule’s a bad idea considering China’s history with drugs, but you should make sure you’re doing this for the right reasons rather than out of some grudge or something
It has been brought to my attention in the same private channel that some comrades have mentioned them casually in other communities, and I’m not going to wait for it to happen here before making up this new rule. The last rule I came up with was Rule 0 in reaction to someone who thought Taiwan was a country and not part of the People’s Republic of China.
Nah this is hella corny. Bye. 👋🏿
