BenHinman's avatar

BenHinman

L.A. VFX Artist / Photographer
98 Watchers224 Deviations
34.3K
Pageviews

My Heart

2 min read
i feel like my heart is like one of those toasters that just come defective in the packaging because its been broken from the start and i've taken it to customer support plenty and they've just told me to unplug my router and plug it in again, and i dont know what the fuck that has to do with toast, or they put me on hold and transfer me to technical support who transfers me right back to customer service... and for some reason the toaster can connect to facebook because its been posting these farmville invites to my wall, though i dont know why the fuck everything in your kitchen nowadays needs an internet connection when it CANT EVEN COOK GODDAMN TOAST... yeah, i think thats a pretty apt metaphor. 

My heart is like, one of those huge 10 gb downloads that gets to 99.99% and fails every time, right at the end, just to piss you off, takes forever and then you think its gonna work but then it fails again and then you wanna throw something and you dont know whether you jynxed it crossing your fingers there and you dont know why you keep thinking the shit will actually work because obviously theres something wrong with the connection and you keep calling customer support and they keep telling you to unplug and plug in your router only that resets the download as well, and eventually you just smash the keyboard into the computer screen, push the whole mess onto the ground and go smoke a blunt and grumble to yourself outside.

My heart is like, going onto an internet forum and hoping not to be surrounded by vituperative obnoxious ass trolls, mindlessly tormenting you for their own sadistic pleasure. Disappointed, time and time again, somehow stupid enough to actually believe there could actually be people who aren't completely terrible. And, time and time again, reminded by other people just how terrible i should feel about myself, for being an "OP fag", whatever that means. It sounds bad.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
PROPOSAL FOR A RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY:
A NEW DIMENSION TO WEALTH

For our economy to transition to a resource based economy, it needs a stepping stone, a platform from which an easy, smooth transition might work. If it is not easy and painless, it will not work.

This new system must be approved and regulated by the united nations, who already act as the intermediary for global wealth through the IMF. The IMF must be abolished, and replaced in favor this new system. In order to create a resource based economy one must define and quantify the value of resource, and create a means for distribution and exchange. Our current system is a monetary one backed by debt, we have previously used a monetary system backed by gold, i propose a share based system based on resources, with the value a single share always equal to the basic cost of living, including shelter, food, and clothing, and each person owning at least one single, immutable, non-transferrable share from which to build upon and create their fortune. This share based system would create a safety net for the bare minimum of essentials, so even the poorest, most sickly members of society would not have to worry about paying to maintain their basic needs. It has also been proven and time tested that corporations tend to be far more responsive towards their shareholders than their customers, it stands to reason the same will be true for a similar sociological construct, only doing away with the disadvantaged party.


Beyond basic needs, more shares can be acquired through government jobs, from which all blue collar, maintenance, and other dirty but necessary jobs will transition to. A mininum wage will be set that is always relative to, if not at least equal to a single share, raising the basic cost of living to a second tier, which can be used to buy goods or services beyond that of a single share, ensuring incentive and stability for employment for menial jobs, while allowing personal choice of employment. Total global resources will be counted by the regulatory body and compared against the cost of a single share, divided by the total number of people in the world, the surplus shares used to fund government and blue collar jobs, whos shares can be sold or exchanged for other non-centralized jobs or public services such as entertainment, mining, real estate or interior design, software, healthcare, electronics or engineering. Shares would be sold as both finite quantities like shares in a corporation, single shares with potentially infinite growth potential in the event of growing resources, and of fractionary share hours which act as currency with another dimension for time, for instance, .1 shares for 600 share hours, or 60 share hours, might buy someone a new computer, a 3D printer, or a kitchen table, roughly equal to the cost of time or energy it took for someone to make the good.

A single share would be divisible by the total number of share hours in a year, comparable to the total number of global resources, and sellable as quantities of time. As well, with the advent of 3D printing and websites like kickstarter, property itself will be redefined, and freedom of information will be essential to the creation of freedom of property. Physical goods will be transmitted via wireless signals, and built in home, rather than in a factory, and treated more like a public service than a sale, with people donating shares to the goods that best meet their needs, which can then be used to purchase the resources and manpower needed to complete their tasks. Education would be streamlined, free over the internet, and cheap or government provided via share surplus in educational facilities. Metals and plastics would be mined, farmed and processed, and shipped to the homes of people who would use the resources in their 3D printers to create utensils, furniture, instruments, sculptures, machine parts, and as technology progresses, even circuitry and houses, using designs created by designers, engineers and technicians who are paid in share hours either before a design is released to the public, or after it has been created. Say you've been entertained by a movie maker before, or you've read a screenplay online and you'd like to see it produced, you simply use whatever amount of share hours you value it at to fund the producers further endeavors, and enjoy as the movie is produced free of charge to the public. Or, alternatively, that movie producer may choose to create a corporation, trading resource shares for shares in the company, selling the movie for share hours, and passing the profits on to investors, who would then profit for life by the sales of the movie over time. If the movie makes more than the total number share hours a year per shareholder, it has turned a profit and those profits will be passed on to all who hold shares respectively. The same principles can be used to make mining companies, buy industrial grade 3D printers and labor for a real estate business, etc. etc. while the addition of the dimension of time and shares rather than coin will ensure a responsibility to the shareowners and the sharegivers rather than the currency itself.

It is important that we understand that when we all share in one mans endeavor, he is responsible not just to the vision we have placed our resources in but the people who have shared in it with him. And its important that we tie this in to a sense of globalized ownership, because it is all of us that SHARE in this world, rather than just a select few who OWN it. Finally its important that law and the language of business be changed to reflect this new perspective, that when you share something, and it is not reciprocated, this is not a permanent mistake. For so long we have shared in companies who intentionally obfuscate the language by which they practice their trade, to confuse, deceive, and exploit the people that pay them and keep them alive. These corporations have passed themselves off as autonomous people, rather than groups of people with a common goal, and their common goal has progressively shifted from providing a quality good or service, to profiting from the exploitation of all, while providing the minimum amount of tangible results to ensure profitability for their own pockets. We must change the way we do business, for if we create a system that freely enables exploitation at no risk to profit, then exploitation is what will happen. It is not capitalism itself that is flawed, but the way we practice and regulate it. Companies must be allowed to die if they are no longer responsive to the people they serve, and are practicing inefficient or destructive business practices held afloat only by bailouts and debt. This only creates a black hole for the economy, sucking wealth in, depleting resources and creating none, rather than the symbiotic relationship a corporation ought to have.

For more on future technologies and a resource based economy, visit www.thevenusproject.com. They're the inspiration for this idea, and i am only expanding upon what they have started.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Theres a woman crisis going on right now, and no one wants to admit it, because no one wants to admit women could have a crisis. We've spent so much time inflating the idea that all women are independent, strong, and hardworking providers just trying to make it in this misogynist world, not just some women, all women, and if you don't believe it, here's a feminist talk show host saying exactly that:

Key highlights:
"Theres a reason that women live longer, Mark, let me tell you. It is because we are stronger, and we are happier, at the end of the day, and that is a factual and you know it."
"When men are married to women who scream like you they just want to die sooner."

This is a prime example of the fallacy of radical feminism and the struggles it makes for both men and women in our culture. Here you have an attractive, successful news guest host, who clearly is used to people agreeing with her on this subject, projecting her own personal damage on the entire male race, projecting an idealistic guise of perfection on the entire female race. I find it astounding she can even try and play the victim with the entire show basically set up to coddle her misandrist opinions, but its clear she's offending the only male in the room, who tries to make a rational point about the unhealthy gender roles, but is instead accused of "living in the dark ages" for even perceiving a modicum of fault in the hands of women. What sticks out the most to me about this argument, is that the feminists themselves are placing themselves on the very pedestal they claim to hate.

I want to take a moment to briefly clarify my views on feminism. I am a big supporter of what you might call "first wave" feminism. Equal rights are something i believe in wholeheartedly, equal opportunity is something i believe everyone should have. I think people should be judged on the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, their gender, or even their age. But so many people quote Martin Luther King Jr. on this without fully grasping what such a world might entail. The woman in this video is a slimy, hate spewing bitch. Whether or not she's a woman doesn't change that about her. And she should be treated that way, as a slimy, hate spewing bitch, because thats what she is. Just as a generous, charismatic and thoughtful person should be treated as they are, or a brilliant genius to be recognized for their brilliance, or a sociopath to be condemned for their selfishness. Its not a matter of what race you are or what genitals you're born with, its who you choose to be and everyone should have an equal shot at that.

But feminism is blind. Feminism is an ideology that seeks equality for women without considering the equality of anyone else. Feminism is an ideology that at its best wants to balance the scales, to have an equal number of men and women employed, with equal grades and equal college attendance, and to take it to the extreme, an equal amount of men and women raped. But its not even at its best, ever. Because feminism only pays attention to women's issues. Yes, its for the betterment of women, and i support that, but what happens when you only pay attention to women's issues? Well here, let me give you a statistic.

81% of rape victims are women.
65% of all domestic violence victims are female. 

Those are the REAL statistics, from the united states bureau of justice statistics. Its not including the fake, yet popularly believed statistics such as "1 in 4 women are raped" which dates back to a deceptive 1985 study that considers ANY kind of physical contact without specific verbal consent for each item of interest including even kissing or touching. The 1 in 4 statistic is not based on the legally recognized definition of rape, but can be extended to include all forms of rough sex, drunken debauchery, and really any kind of sex that isn't discussed before hand. I don't know about you, but saying "i'm going to have sex with you now, if thats ok. do you consent for me to put my penis in your vagina?" just kind of kills the mood.

But even if you eliminate all the arbitrary, exaggerated or just plain fake statistics, 81% and 65% still seems awfully high. That is, until you put it next to any other crime statistic.

Here are what the feminists fail to notice:
4x as many men than women will be murdered every year.
9/10 work related deaths are men.
9/10 of every suicide victim is male.
65.7% of all single homeless are male, and 76% of all homeless are single
Men are 3 times as likely to be victims of aggravated assault, and nearly 2 times as likely to be victims of simple assault. They're also twice as likely to be the victims of a "serious violent crime" though i'm not quite sure how the bureau of justice statistics distinguishes between the 2.

These staggering statistics immediately change the dynamic when placed next to rape and domestic violence statistics. For one, those statistics don't include murder, and the crimes, although terrible, are not life threatening. For another, suicide and murder are some of the highest causes of death besides motor vehicle accidents and disease, with work related deaths also being high on the list. And i'm all for rape prevention, but shouldn't we be placing murder as a higher priority for our law enforcement and social causes?

And heres some more statistics that reframe the situation. Did you know over 200,000 prison rapes happen every year, the majority of victims are men, that 18% of them are carried out by prison staff, and that the high prevalence of prison rape results in a high number of prisoners develop HIV (21,987 to be exact, in 2008) and will eventually die of aids because of it? In fact, prison rape could quite possibly outnumber annual rape outside of prison (237,868 on average) drastically skewing the 80% to a much less polarized number. But we turn a blind eye to this, we leave it out of our statistics, because we want to believe only women are victims. We've resorted to ignoring the suffering of men, because it is not as important, as dictated by the femigogy.

In the 1970s, Erin Pizzey, an equal rights activist and the creator of the very first domestic violence shelter, was surprised to find that the women she was sheltering could often be just as violent or even more violent to the men they were taking refuge from. She wrote a book on the reciprocal relationship called "Prone to Violence" and suggested the need for a mens refuge as well. For even proposing women could be violent, radical feminists killed her dog, threatened her life and her family, and tried to bomb her. She was driven out of england for over a decade, because angry women could not accept an idea of themselves that was not perfect, while simultaneously proving her point.

As if thats not enough evidence to support the poisonous effect of feminism on western culture, then you have the story of Lorena Bobbit and Catherine Kieu, who both castrated their husbands, both received praise and were glorified as feminist icons, and both destroyed not only the manhood of their spouses but his dignity, self esteem and social life. Their excuses? Bobbit was mad because he didn't let her orgasm. Catherine was mad because he was filing for divorce. Both used unsubstantiated rape accusations late in the trial as a last resort. Bobbit spent 45 days in a mental hospital and was then freed, Catherine went on for life in prison with parole after 7 years. Catherine was glorified on facebook, youtube, and "The Talk" where Sharon Osbourne and others joked about the entire ordeal being "quite fabulous".

So here we have a culture that is entirely sensitive to women's issues, but lacks the slightest sensitivity to mens, to the point where women are even mocking the suffering of men in the most extreme forms of sexual assault and mutilation, despite having an EXTREME stigmatism when the tables are turned. Surely this is just an extreme example, this isn't present in the daily interactions of average people, is it?

Here below you have a comedy youtube show that tests the boundaries of human interaction by approaching strangers with bizarre, extreme youtube comments:

Unsurprisingly the guy was met with a great deal of ignorance and hostility from both men and women alike. What is surprising though, is the one experiment that actually had the most success, was taking a selfie with random women and asking if he can post it on his instagram tagged #crazywildsluts

The same channel also released a video of the same kind of outrageous behavior performed by a woman, the main actors girlfriend. she had lines fed to her by the same guy who hid behind the scenes and filmed:

Now i've watched this a couple times now, but i can't seem to find one interaction that didn't end with anything worse than a polite "no thank you". People were much more receptive to a woman, even stopping to focus all of their attention on her, and while most of the girls didn't even stop or were even repulsed by the guy saying "you're very pretty", the same line from a girl was met with smiles and cooperation. When met with the unpredictable or unexpected, we assume the worst about men and assume the best about women, even with the most outrageous of requests. Though i'm not sure how either of them got away with it without being arrested, its clear girls can get away with much more, behave any way they like, and still be treated with respect and kindness (and even sexual reciprocation) that is not extended to their male counterpart, who mostly gets threats of violence. Its no wonder men make up 80% of murders and 75% of aggravated assaults. We've been conditioned to treat them this way.

And another astonishing social experiment, an extremely ballsy guy walked up to literally a hundred women and asked them if they want to have sex. All 100 said no. ALL 100. I'll admit its a pretty forward question, but the guy is moderately attractive, and a 0% success rate for something that essentially free, benefits everyone involved, extends your life and acts as a stress reliever... you'd think at least one percent wouldn't react with a scoffing misandrist superiority to everything he represents.



So why is this the end?

Put quite simply, porn. Men don't like to be treated this way. It ostracizes them, limits their ability to express themselves verbally, mentally, physically, and most importantly, sexually. This is a society that both punishes men for their sexual desires as well as the disfulfillment of them. They're constantly subject to a world where if they don't have sex they're a virgin loser and if they do they're a douchebag who uses women, and finding the middle ground is tough, especially when you're the one expected to be courting the woman. And then if that wasn't enough on their shoulders you have the gender roles for women stacked right on top; women are so afraid of being a slut, that they avoid sex, turn away potential suitors and even deny themselves their own desires also at the expense of a man. They're told this is an indicator of their self worth, and they ultimately choose their egos over their own happiness and doom themselves to loneliness as well, as the man decides pursuing a woman who is playing hard to get is not worth his time or effort with 4 billion other options out there, and moves on. But what happens when there isn't 4 billion options? What happens when those other 4 billion options are living by the same flawed social standards, feigning disinterest until genuine interest is indistinguishable from lack thereof, denying themselves sexual pleasure at the expense of their partner and leaving men nowhere else to turn with their sexual frustrations for fear of being punished for them? Well, porn happens. Porn does not shame you for your desires like a woman does. Porn does not expect you to work for it, and it can fulfill your wildest fantasies without the slightest bit of effort on your part. Porn does not expect you to buy it dinner. Porn doesn't expect you to care about its feelings, or ask you about its day. The girls in porn are hotter than the average looking girls who act like they're hotter than the porn girls. Basically, (and i don't mean to say men don't enjoy a good chase) as much as men prefer the real thing, its easier and faster to get off to porn. So really, playing hard to get is only hurting the female race as a whole, and not just temporarily, for the long run.

Heres what i mean. Take for instance the average expectations for a relationship of a typical man, and a typical woman.
MAN:
•ass
•tits
Literally every woman has an ass and tits. And the average breast size in america is a C, just 2 cups below the average desired cup size, a DD. If you live in russia, the average size is actually a D which increases your chances of finding what is in fact relatively commonplace. In fact, the average man's standards are so low, that a cracked writer posing as the despicable "aaroncarterfan" on an online dating site received hundreds of emails a day:
www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-…
^this chick deserves a medal, by the way

An average woman on the other hand, requires much more:
•Attractive
•Successful
•Smart
•Funny
•6 Pack Abs (something only .004% of people have, by the way. just over 12,000 people in the USA would fit this requirement)
•Rich
•independent
•Pays attention to me
•chivalrous
•generous
•Confident
•Big dick
•not a creeper
•etc, etc, you get the picture

The fact of the matter is, if you want one of these attributes, it may be easy for you to find, but if you're after a funny, successful guy with abs whos kind and confident, it may not be realistic, especially considering the very same guy is after only ass and tits and may not find it a fair trade to spend a considerable amount of time and energy on someone who doesn't have abs, doesn't give a shit about his needs, and complains all the time because he doesn't pay enough attention to you. But i've met girls who are literally saving themselves for Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp, as if its practical for them to do so. I'm all for following your dreams, but if this kind of blind idealism is what we're teaching our daughters about relationships, obviously theres something wrong with that.

Divorce rates have only been climbing for the past 2 decades. People recognize it. 70-90% of divorces are initiated by women. Men recognize that. Thats why less and less people are getting married, men just don't want to have all their money taken from them by a woman they don't even like, all for some lousy sex. Thats why a whopping 30% of the japanese adult population are now virgins, the birth rate is declining, and the chasm between the genders is only growing. This kind of problem, if left unchecked, could literally lead to the extinction of the human race as we know it.

So what does this mean for the future? If we expect divorce rates to climb as they have, marriages to drop as they have, sex and birth rates to plummet as they have, then eventually we hit a dead end. Will there be a day when no one is married, and the birth rate hits 0? Probably not. You'd expect the human race to deal with such an issue long before then. A popular blog post from the same futurist who predicted the stock market crash a while back says the "misandry bubble" will pop in 2020, and many of his predictions have already come true. Virtual Reality porn now exists thanks to the oculus rift, MGTOWs (men going their own way) are more plentiful than ever, and everything has so far played out the way he's expected it to. But is this really the way we want things to end??? He's also predicted serious social upheaval, economic downturn, and even the crumbling of the american government. We're already living in a demogogy run by the media, lobbyists and private interest groups. Our final freedoms are being tested. Is this any time for a divide between men and women??? I believe we need to stand together, to abolish feminism, to stand for equal rights, sensitive and compassionate treatment of ALL, and a glowering opposition to the hypocrisies of all false social leaders who would exploit the legitimate suffering of both men and women to create stereotypes, infer worth or worthlessness, oppress freedom of expression in all areas of life, or to seek a more uniform society through affirmative action that only enables the selfish, egocentric or sociopathic, rather than a place of equal opportunity which would condemn them for such choices. But most of all we need to believe in and support those who set their best self forward and bring out the best in others, and prioritize this far higher than any beauty or wealth.

I don't believe we will ever live in an ideal world, but what i do believe is that there can one day be a world where calling someone a hypocrite is a far greater insult than calling someone a slut, people argue with facts rather than popular lies, and we can accept people for their desires and beliefs without ostracizing them for what is essentially a natural biological function. In this world, the only feminists will be men, and the only masculinists will be girls, and we will pay our attention to fulfilling each others needs, rather than simply our own.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Hey everyone, as a medical marijuana patient and a happy supporter of healthy, clean legalization, i'd like to disspell a bit of the fears surrounding marijuana and help to explain just how to use this plant responsibly. I'm not here to advocate drug use and if you don't feel its for you, then i don't recommend it, mainly what i believe in is the power of choice and freedom in the pursuit of happiness. I also believe in drug awareness rather than anti- or pro- drug propaganda, i believe in giving people information and letting them make their own decisions rather than telling them how to feel about it.

MYTH #1: Marijuana can cause brain damage.
This is a half myth, based on a misleading study that was done on rats in the 1960s. Basically inhuman amounts of THC were injected into the brains of rats, which caused them to grow tumors or aneurisms. What they proved was the dangerousness of THC poisoning, which DOES cause brain damage. Its essentially the same as giving someone an overdose of something that usually helps them. however, in order to get dangerous doses in the human body one would have to inject it directly into the bloodstream as even eating a block of pure hash (cannabis concentrate) would not provide a lethal metabolization in the brain. The way THC works means it does not fight over receptors that are already used, so an overdose of THC would just mean extra THC floating around waiting for an open receptor. THC poisoning is definitely not good for you, but is about as dangerous as an elevated panic attack. Also, there is evidence that CBD, a chemical found in higher amounts in cannabis indica strains can counteract the effects of THC poisoning and help regulate the way it is metabolized, leading to safer use. CBD modifies THC metabolization and has been described as changing it from a "mind" high to a "body" high. This makes cannabis itself much safer than pure THC, as all strains contain at least a small percentage of CBD. This is why no one has ever died off of weed but people HAVE died off of marinol, a synthetic version of THC sometimes prescribed though sometimes with adverse effects such as paranoia and anxiety. 

More recent studies on cannabis show both CBD and THC as a neuro-protectant, and that it does temporarily impair certain abilities such as semantic memory and quantative reasoning, but improve others, such as social awareness, creativity and abstract thought. Researchers have not found any permanent impairment, except of those who reported they were regular users of marijuana and did so before periods of learning or being expected to perform in any of the areas of impairment. That is to say, the only loss is a loss of good mental habits, if you're smoking before anything but art and possibly creative writing class, its not going to help you.

MYTH 2: Marijuana is a addictive, and a "gateway drug".
Well, here, let me put it into perspective. Marijuana IS addictive. But about half as addictive as caffeine and a 4th as addictive as nicotine or alcohol. Yes, just like drunks or coffee junkies, there are always going to be "potheads", but the potential for this is less. Its not "physically addictive", as in the cases of heroin or cocaine, and its been recently found to help with cocaine withdrawl.

MYTH 3: Marijuana is no longer the same beast.
This myth arises from anti-drug propaganda writers without a knowledge of botany just plain mishearing actual botanists. Marijuana since the 60s IS different, but whats happened is nothing less than domestication, the same thing thats happened to corn or cats. We're simply breeding the plants to have more of the traits we want, which new medical benefits are discovered. You can still get landraces, in other words the original strains taken from the earth, and some of them are still particularly potent and still sold at medical dispensaries, such as durban poison and hindu kush. The only difference is you start breeding new strains such as OG kush or grandaddy purple. They're not different plants, not different species, just a different breed. Heres a chart that actually shows the family tree of many popular strains:
Probably a lot of the confusion just comes from the odd names people have come up with for new strains, with breeds like "green crack" or "hash plant", nicknamed after harder drugs to sell more or to denote a particular potency. Thats what happens when you leave marijuana in the hands of drug cartel and gangbangers, you get much different names than you'd get than if you left it in the hands of corporations and botanists.

MYTH 4: Marijuana is still relatively unknown.
Actually this one is just downright false, theres even texts dating back to ancient china and india noting it as an effective anti-inflammatory and analgesic. Recently they've discovered the remains of humans before human writing buried with marijuana, potentially as medicine or a spiritual aid. Its actually one of the most heavily documented plants around, with countless studies in the US and abroad, its recently being researched as a cure for cancer as it aids in the process of autophagy, and its found to help fear extinction in the amygdala in PTSD patients. The same part of the brain that kills fears creates them, so this is also responsible for the paranoia that sometimes comes with more sativa dominant strains. The medical benefits have been confirmed by the US government, who holds the patent for it. Many active compounds have been isolated and studied in depth, such as THC, CBD, CBG, terpines like leminol and borneol, various other cannabinoids that appear from strain to strain. On top of the studies done by government and research teams, laboratories for the medical industry are constantly testing strains even from dispensary to dispensary to measure the exact THC%, CBD%, and CBG% that is right for a particular ailment. Databases like straingenius show what laboratory testing has clinically shown to be treatable with a particular strain, while databases like leafly.com and strainbrain help track user experiences from person to person and allow people to gather information on a particular breed. They also categorize them as indica, sativa, or hybrid, and sometimes list the exact percentage. Cannabis is actually 2 plants, cannabis indica and cannabis sativa, that can interbreed. Cannabis sativa has been shown to be more of a stimulant, aids with hunger and provides a higher degree of focus, as well as more visual sensations, while cannabis indica has more of a sedative, providing pain relief and a more "body high", with more muscle relaxant and anxiolytic properties. The exact mechanism of pain relief is still being understood, however its been noted to alter pain sensation rather than to dull it, as seen in opiates.

MYTH #5: Marijuana causes cancer.
FACT: ingesting carcinogens can potentially lead to cancer and other life threatening illnesses. FACT: Cannabis smoke contains about as many carcinogens as a tobacco cigarette. FACT: There are no carcinogens via oral consumption or vaporization, meaning we are blaming the plant when we should be blaming the smoke. Theres no point in taking a chemical that aids to fight cancer if it contains carcinogens, and i urge even the occasional marijuana user to switch to a vaporizer becuase it can help to save your health and your wallet, and you can use less of the plant more efficiently.  I also think all studies in the future should be done on non-combustion methods, so we dont continue blaming the plant for something that fire did.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Featured

My Heart by BenHinman, journal

Proposal For a Resource Based Economy: by BenHinman, journal

Why Feminism is The End of Civilized Society by BenHinman, journal

Busting Common Myths About Marijuana by BenHinman, journal