What is public health? – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

What is “public health”? Since 2020 the term has entered the mainstream, but public health existed long before Covid. Canadian politicians designed cannabis legalization with “public health” in mind.

Instead of the traditional argument for legal cannabis that you have a right to your body.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. As with most things in life, we apply the 80/20 rule. 80% of “public health” people are unhappy bureaucrats who think they are making the world a better place.

The other 20% are busy control freaks.

They have the same mentality as the temperance movement or the Puritans. These people want stronger restrictions on the cannabis industry because some parents can’t be bothered to keep edibles out of their children’s reach.

These people want to bring back mask requirements even though there is no evidence of their effectiveness.

(If the meta-analysis of randomized control trials were in favor of masking, we would never know the end, but since the conclusions did not support the narrative, the “fact checkers” downplayed the study’s significance.)

But what is public health? If governments have to restrict our fundamental rights in this name, we need more than a broad, ambiguous term.

In Canada there is a public health agency. They say their activities “focus on preventing illness and injury, responding to public health threats, promoting good physical and mental health, and providing information to support informed decision-making.”

But how exactly is that?

What is public health?

Is it like a public school? There are all kinds of schools, public and private. “Public” school refers to government-controlled and taxpayer-funded education.

Public school refers to a specific building or system, but “public education” or “public awareness” refers to government messages aimed at the general population.

So it is clear that “public” means everything that the state does. It’s a textbook example of duplicity, where “public” refers to two concepts.

For example, “public health” may refer to the general health of the Canadian public or to the government-sponsored “public health” program, which varies depending on the level of government.

It’s about narrowing the range of permissible thoughts. Let’s say we identify public health with government bureaucrats. In this case, no one will seriously question whether a lack of government “experts” leads to better public health (i.e. the general health of the population).

If it sounds confusing, that’s the point. That’s why Orwell wrote an entire book on the subject.

Not really. What is it?

What is public health? Let’s say it focuses on the well-being of entire communities or regions rather than individual health concerns. They focus on the prevention of illness, injury and health hazards. They do this through massive propaganda campaigns and political interventions.

They could expand the definition of public health to include food safety standards. In fact, we consider the control of cannabis, tobacco and alcohol to be an area of ​​“public health”.

Public health collects and analyzes data to produce reports and advise governments. The Canadian agency believes “white racism” and “climate change” are among the most important factors impacting the health of Canadians.

Instead of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in Canada.

What about exercise and diet?

A traditional definition might include promoting healthy behaviors and lifestyles – things like exercise and diet. And in fact, exercise and nutrition are central to human health.

But as demonstrated during the Covid-19 pandemic, “public health” does not mean the general well-being of the population. If that were the case, instead of demanding that we go under house arrest, they would have encouraged vitamin D consumption. (i.e. taking a walk in the sun).

Likewise, obesity was a major factor in deciding whether Covid would send you to intensive care. But has public health told the public to stop consuming sugar and preservatives? Start training?

No, that would be “fat shaming”. When obesity is not part of the body positivity movement, it is seen as a disease that can only be alleviated with medication.

(Similarly, talking about “natural immunity” in 2020-21 was like saying “Voldemort.” The only approved cure for Covid was an experimental vaccination that made big money for pharmaceutical companies.)

When “public health” experts are scratching their heads and wondering what happened to their credibility, look no further than the inconsistent and pro-corporate messaging.

We’ve researched who butters your bread and we’re not happy. But, you know, blame the rise of “online right-wing extremism” instead. See where this takes you.

Better public health

Better public health requires redefining what we mean by “public.” Instead of grouping everyone by geography, better public health can target specific populations.

Essentially, better public health prioritizes individual freedoms over collective interests. There is no real “collective” interest, only the speaker claims to speak for “the people”.

A meaningful collective requires the consent of all its members. And consent is given only through voluntary association and exchange. The “social contract” that justifies government power is as concrete as the “divine right of kings” that excused monarchs.

“Implied consent” – that we consent to public health simply by living here – is also a bad argument. Applied to another situation, it justifies immoral actions based on the status of the victim.

In other words, “Of course we gave her an ultimatum between experimental vaccinations and bringing a paycheck.” Look what she wore! She asked for it!”

Since the government is in the business of healthcare, its role should be minimal. Governments can “protect” people from direct harm by enforcing property rights and preventing fraud.

Leave nutrition and exercise advice to experts who haven’t been bought out by pharmaceutical companies and big food manufacturers.

Any “public health” measures that involve coercion—such as mandatory vaccinations, quarantines, and excise taxes—cannot be justified by typical ethical standards.

You and I cannot force people to behave a certain way under the threat of prison.

But that’s exactly what “public health” is – part of the coercive and coercive apparatus. In a better system, voluntarily funded civil society organizations play a more important role.

Cannabis decentralization

Canada has never legalized cannabis based on people’s fundamental right to consume this non-lethal herb. The Trudeau government did this for “public health” reasons: to prevent children from falling into the hands of children and to crack down on organized crime.

This was all propaganda that we routinely debunked. And at this stage of the game, propaganda discredits itself.

But let’s say that somewhere on the prairie there is a small community that isn’t interested in cannabis. They may not even be interested in alcohol. It may be a dry community with no weed or gambling, and everyone goes to church every Sunday morning.

Why should their health records be the same as those of a 20-year-old couple who live in their van, smoke weed, and spend their time surfing and snowboarding?

Is “public health” a unified concept or is this another example of government forced egalitarianism?

How is it in the public’s interest to limit cannabis edibles to 10 mg when manufacturers and consumers want higher doses? Who is this “public” that these so-called experts are protecting?

As with cannabis legalization in Canada or Covid restrictions and vaccination mandates, the goal of “public health” is often not to serve the public.

“Trust the Science” is another way of saying “Follow the Money.”

Whether it’s promoting planet-destroying monoculture corporate farming (under the term “plant-based”), making false connections between cannabis and psychosis, or demanding that you inject yourself with experimental pharmaceutical chemicals to make a living and therefore your food the table loses the roof over your head.

Public health is a religion. Belief in Science™ and a method that justified lobotomies, thalidomide, downplayed the dangers of tobacco and overprescribed opioids.

What is “public health”? It is the enemy of the people.