this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
637 points (97.2% liked)

politics

25004 readers
2515 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A lobotomy was a recognized and approved medical procedure. Within a few years in the late 1940s 10s of thousands of procedures were done.
The person who discovered the procedure won a Nobel prize for Medicine for how it helped people with psychosis.
How is it not related?
Because this is a chemical that alters brain chemistry instead?

Would you prefer I state electroshock therapy? Insulin shock? Malarial?
Those last 2 are using compounds instead of physical means.

My point stands that just because it is used in the medical field does not being and end the argument of safety and efficiency. Opiods are considered safe until you have to stop taking them and now we are pushing against the prescription and use of them.

You clearly have a specific predetermined opinion on the matter that makes you insulary from having to accept that their are differing opinions on the matter.
Your threat to my appearance does not diminsh my statement it just proves your bias.

Being open towards the use of drugs does not mean they are free of criticism and should not be used sparingly as the world may yet change on its opionion of the costs of their use yet.
This is not to say people can not take what helps but helping is not always good or an answer long term.