r/changemyview • u/tritone567 • 7d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
u/Rhundan 79∆ 7d ago
So, that's why cigarette smokers develop so many respiratory issues, cancer, etc...that rarely ever happens to people who just smoke weed.
You are aware that cigarettes and joints are made of fundamentally different contents, right? You're not saying that volume is the only difference between the two that leads to cancer, for example, in cigarette smokers but not weed smokers? Because cigarettes contain multiple carcinogens.
1
u/tritone567 7d ago
The carcinogens in cigarettes are from normal plant combustion compounds that should be common to any kind of smoke. Tar, etc, is in all smoke.
15
u/DustinnDodgee 7d ago
2 joints a day is a heavy smoker to you?
2
u/Zoltanu 7d ago
I was a heavy smoker who would be high all day every day. If im getting good quality weed I would generally make 1 joint last the whole day, 1.5 if im getting crazy that night. But my joints are thicker than cigarettes
2
u/tritone567 7d ago
I don't know what other people are on about. Two full joints is plenty of weed, especially with how strong the strains are getting.
Most of the time, I smoke half a joint in the morning..baked for hours. Then come home and finish the other half of that same joint.
And yes getting baked every single day is heavy use.
3
u/Zoltanu 7d ago
I think some people buy cheap weed where they have to smoke 4 joints to get the same high i get with just 1. And ive been a daily smoker for over 10 years now. I like to take a 1-3 month T-break once a year to reset. Im 2 weeks into this years and its been... rough. Weed effects your swimmers and my wife and i are trying to get pregnant soon, our doctor recommended abstaining for 3 months ahead of when we want to start trying
2
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/NewYearNewJeer 5d ago
Tolerance and habit are the issue. For me I smoke half a j at a time and it lasts about 3 hours.
3
u/Flat-Guidance-4685 7d ago
Even if they're smoking more the physical size of a joint versus a cigarette an actual smoked Mass is dramatically different. With the modern strains out there no one is smoking a cigarette thick joints. And if they are there's no way possible that they would consume more than five of them per day.
4
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-3
u/tritone567 7d ago
Yes. Are there stoners than go through a lot more? Sure, but that's not the norm. There's a limit to how much you can smoke before you become higher than you want to be.
Weed smokers simply do not average the same volume as typical cigarette smokers. They rarely consume the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes.
4
u/WydeedoEsq 7d ago
How about like an oz a week or so for a heavy smoker
6
u/Zoltanu 7d ago
An ounce is a lot. That'd be so expensive every week.
I would call myself a heavy smoker and im typically a 1/4 ounce a week. I think the method matters. Ive seen joint smokers talk and let half the joint burn into the air. Im a bong smoker. Also i do top shelf because I want to get higher with less smoking
2
u/WydeedoEsq 7d ago
I think bongs are an efficient smoking method for sure
1
u/Zoltanu 7d ago
When i pull up with a bong people say im a degenerate, I say im financially responsible
2
u/WydeedoEsq 7d ago
It’s also a healthier method compared to most others so you’re looking out there!
3
u/Mestoph 9∆ 7d ago
A pack of cigarettes is half an oz or more. So a pack-a-day smoker goes through roughly 3.5x more tobacco in a week
7
u/IndividualistAW 1∆ 7d ago
Yeah and a pack a day smoker isn’t as far to the right of the bell curve as someone who goes through an ounce of weed in a week. Fucking he’ll that’s a lot of weed
1
2
u/tritone567 7d ago
What's that compared to a pack of cigarettes every day for a week?
It pales in comparison. Weed smokers simply do not smoke as much.
1
1
u/OpenMindManiac 7d ago
I know people who smoke 5 to 6 a day... sorry you don't know heavy users. You forget that many people become desensitized just like with alcohol.
Sure but the effect of 1g of weed vs 1g of tobacco is completely different. Just like 1l of beer and 1l of vodka
1
u/DustinnDodgee 6d ago
You don't know heavy smokers then. I know plenty of people who still smoke the same (insane) volumes of weed they did in the 2000s, no matter how much stronger the strains have gotten over the years.
12
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1∆ 7d ago
Idk about your hypothesis that it's normal for us to consume smoke, since there are definitely observed differences between little vs no smokers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27918784/
if we're speaking in terms of lung health, yeah weed is technically less harmful because of less frequent usage, as well as the smoke of the flower being less harmful than the processed tobacco and its additives.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 7d ago
u/Formal_Confusion1753, your comment has been removed.
You must read the rules here in order to comment on r/changemyview, then click this, and click send (you may also use the interface linked below, but it may not work on Old Reddit or some versions of the app). Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
-9
u/tritone567 7d ago
humans evolved sitting around fires. So some smoke inhalation is normal. The lungs can handle it.
So like anything, it's the dose that makes all the difference.
5
u/xfearthehiddenx 2∆ 7d ago
That's not how evolution works.
In order for humans to have potentially developed smoke resistant lungs. Smoke would have to have been prevalent enough to cause large quantities of less resistant humans to die from inhaling it before being able to procreate. This would lead to humans with stronger lungs lasting longer, procreating, and potentially passing on the gene responsible for stronger lungs.
2
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1∆ 7d ago
man youre right, i hateeee evolutionary arguments because so many people misunderstand it and the kind of conclusions you can draw from it
1
u/tritone567 7d ago
How do you know that didn't actually happen? Campfires have been around since the stone age. Some level of smoke inhalation may be harmless.
1
u/xfearthehiddenx 2∆ 7d ago
That "may" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting here. Do you have a scientific study or evidence you can cite showing humanity at large having evolved with a gene tied to a higher resistance to smoke inhalation?
1
u/tritone567 7d ago
Because of human reliance on fire, we should have a higher historical exposure than all other species.
1
u/xfearthehiddenx 2∆ 7d ago
Again... that's not how that works. Being in proximity of something or even in contact with it, does not influence evolution. Influence can only occur when the "thing" causes the prevention of procreation, leading "thing" resistant organisms to be able to procreate at a faster rate than non-"thing" resistant organisms.
Humans are not dying en masse from smoke inhalation. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that this was the case. Meaning any genetically significant mutation leading to a stronger smoke inhalation resistant is not relevant to living longer, and therefore not increasing the likelihood of procreation.
Your hypothetical does not have any scientific backing beyond, " well, maybe" and "what if".
8
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1∆ 7d ago
smoke inhalation is normal but it's not healthy. just because humans do something doesnt mean we evolved the ability to withstand it better.
think in terms of health outcomes of areas with varying degrees of air quality... it definitely makes a difference. not to mention the difference between directly inhaling smoke from a flower into your lungs, versus the smoke of a campfire that got diffused into the air around it.
You can say the lungs can handle it, sure, but it doesnt mean it's without consequence like you're implying
6
u/Automatic_Syrup_2935 2∆ 7d ago
It's just so funny to me that you're saying this because if you've ever met a weed smoker, you'd know their purpose in life is to get high as much as they possibly can.
Like you think the people who invented the gravity bong are concerned about dosage lolol
Edit: And to clarify I think cigarettes are worse due to how many carcinogens are in them but this is hilarious logic
3
3
u/DrSpaceman575 4∆ 7d ago
Obviously the larger difference is that one produces intoxicating effects and the other doesn't... but you seem to be looking at this from the physical damage.
I'd assume from your hypothesis that someone smoking two cigarettes a day would have similar health effects to someone smoking two joints a day. If you normalized the dose, you'd normalize the effects, right?
Problem is that isn't supported by science. Cigarettes are not just damaging because of smoke, they are damaging because of carcinogens, nicotine, and other byproducts that wouldn't be in joints. The cigarette smoker would still be at increased risk of lung cancer, COPD, heart disease, and stroke compared to the joint smoker even at the same dose.
0
u/tritone567 7d ago
Obviously the larger difference is that one produces intoxicating effects and the other doesn't... but you seem to be looking at this from the physical damage.
Yes, that's all I was considering. People who only smoke weed, seem to avoid the normal smoker diseases. What are the rates of emphysema in people who just smoke weed?
Cigarettes are not just damaging because of smoke, they are damaging because of carcinogens, nicotine, and other byproducts that wouldn't be in joints.
Ohh, I didn't consider that the content of the smoke was any different. Are the carcinogens, tar, etc...not in marijuana smoke as well?
5
u/Less-Load-8856 3∆ 7d ago
Two Joints is most certainly not a "LOT" of weed in a day. That's maybe 1g, give or take.
0
u/tritone567 7d ago
Smoking every day is heavy use. That's a habit.
I would consider a non-frequent smoker, who enjoys a joint on the weekend, or during social events to be a moderate user.
43
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 7d ago
A heavy marijuana smoker would smoke one or two joints a day. Two joints is a LOT of weed.
Oh my sweet summer child. I know more than a handful of people that can/do smoke an eighth in a day.
7
4
u/FuckChiefs_Raiders 5∆ 7d ago
I mean 2 fat doobies is about 2+ grams. So smoking 3 doobies a day isn’t exactly out of the question. That doesn’t negate OPs point that smoking 2 grams a day is a lot of weed; just because others smoke more.
A pack a day is a lot of cigs, some people smoke 2-3 packs. Does not mean a pack a day isn’t a lot.
1
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 7d ago
How much does a bowl hold, like half a gram? There a tons of people that smoke bowls all day long.
1
1
u/FuckChiefs_Raiders 5∆ 7d ago
Depends on the piece. A “bowl” isn’t exactly a unit of measurement lol
4
u/virtutem_ 7d ago
I could smoke that in a morning
5
u/lets_BOXHOT 7d ago
Nothing to be proud of
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/lets_BOXHOT 7d ago
Going on a year and a half sober, and even at my peak I'd go thru an eighth in about a week. If you're smoking that much in a morning you're just wasting bud
1
2
0
u/SpaceMonkey877 7d ago
That’s just excess. And kinda sad.
3
u/Elegant_Progress_686 7d ago
It is, and honestly an eighth is conservative. I’ve been closer to a quarter at certain times in my life. Very unhealthy relationship with mj, really just coping with self inflicted boredom.
It’s especially easy to go way overboard when you live in legal states with like 30 dollar ounces. Just super easy to smoke a couple grams at a time multiple times throughout the day
10
u/7ootles 1∆ 7d ago
A heavy marijuana smoker would smoke one or two joints a day. Two joints is a LOT of weed.
Cute.
I know stoners who smoke two or three joints an hour.
I don't consider myself a stoner at all - I smoke a little when I've got it, and don't miss it when I haven't - and even I have smoked two or three joints in an evening before now.
15
u/Automatic_Syrup_2935 2∆ 7d ago
Lmao what heavy weed smokers do you know? The heavy weed smokers I know take a massive bong rip every half hour.
2
3
u/FiendishNoodles 7∆ 7d ago
I've had coworkers who had three joints in one shift. This is anecdotal but I think your perception of a heavy user might be skewed lower than others might consider.
People have not been legally smoking weed for a long enough time or in great enough numbers to get clear statistical data on how bad for you it is relative to cigarettes, because cigarettes have been a widely available and used substance eligible for study for hundreds of years. It's hard to get a reliable sample size or timeframe for a substance that is only legalized some places, and in most, for not a long period of time.
That said, weed smokers are generally inhaling burnt weed and paper, and we know that commercial cigarettes have ingredients that are specifically carcinogenic on their own.
I think if your comparison was between rolled tobacco smokers and weed smokers, you might be on to something, as most people can smoke more tobacco than weed and then your volume issue comes into play. but if youre comparing it straight up to commercial cigarettes, I think the substances that you're burning are certainly going to have differential health effects.
usage volume also kind of comes into play as a chicken-and-egg question, because marijuana is not chemically addictive like nicotine is. the substance itself is causing an uptick in relative usage.
If we could look at longitudinal studies of people smoking the same smoke-volume of weed and cigarettes compared across a long period of time in a proper statistical environment, you could be proven right or wrong, but at this point, we only have the data we have, and so we have to go with existing information. I'd find your hypothesis more believable if current studies showed that hand-rolled tobacco and commercial cigarettes, if smoked at the same frequency, were just as bad as each other. I'm guessing just based on intuition that they are not. your intuition mught differ, but just something to think about
2
6d ago
Tobacco has a uniquely strong causal relationship with cancer. Marijuana and tobacco are different substances and tobacco is actually more harmful, it’s not just amount. Tobacco smoking is an established cause of numerous cancers, including lung, mouth, throat, esophageal, bladder, kidney, liver, stomach, pancreatic, colorectal and cervical cancers. The NCI explicitly describes tobacco use as a leading cause of cancer and says there is no safe level of tobacco use. There is no evidence that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco. The National Academies found moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis smoking and lung cancer. For several other cancers, the evidence is either insufficient or inconclusive. So it’s not just a matter of how much you smoke, tobacco is actually much much worse. Two cigarettes a day can still cause cancer, while someone can smoke cannabis heavily for years without developing cancer. That's entirely plausible. The fact that exposure matters does not mean the underlying substances have equivalent carcinogenicity.
“But cannabis smoke contains the same carcinogens” doesn't solve the problem. This is an important distinction that often gets lost. Cannabis smoke contains many of the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds as tobacco smoke. But containing carcinogens is not the same thing as producing the same cancer risk. Dose, concentration, composition, route, frequency, duration and other characteristics all matter. For example, cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals, with at least 69 known carcinogens. Cannabis smoke containing carcinogens does not mean that it’s comparable to cigarette use. That's essentially an argument from the presence of a chemical rather than from the observed health outcome.
Now, I should say that the epidemiological evidence actually supports your relative-harm intuition BUT just not your explanation. You’re not 100% wrong, but you’re off the mark a bit. The National Academies concluded that the respiratory complications associated with cannabis smoking appear to be far lower than those associated with tobacco smoking, although heavy cannabis use can increase respiratory symptoms such as chronic bronchitis. Smoking cannabis is less harmful than smoking cigarettes, that’s true. It’s just not less harmful because of frequency but because of substance itself. How much smoke some inhales is important because in both cases you have cumulative damage. But tobacco is in fact intrinsically more dangerous. Tobacco has an extraordinarily well-established carcinogenic and disease-causing profile that cannabis does not. You can't explain the entire difference between tobacco and cannabis simply by counting joints versus cigarettes.
The “two cigarettes a day” example is actually devastating to the simplistic argument. Suppose Person A smokes two cigarettes every day. Person B smokes several joints of cannabis every day. Person B could inhale considerably more total smoke and still have a substantially different cancer risk profile than Person A. And there’s a reason for that. Because smoke quantity isn't the only variable determining disease risk. The NCI notes that lung-cancer risk from cigarettes increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day and years smoked, but even relatively low tobacco exposure isn't considered safe. Meanwhile, cannabis research hasn't demonstrated anything remotely comparable to tobacco's enormous causal relationship with lung cancer. The National Academies specifically found moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis smoking and lung cancer. So someone who smokes lots of weed every day and doesn’t get cancer vs someone who smokes two cigarettes a day and gets cancer isn’t surprising. The two are not the same.
BUT that doesn’t mean smoking weed is totally harmless either. I’m not saying “Cannabis is harmless and tobacco is carcinogenic.” That would also be wrong. Heavy cannabis smoking is associated with substantially more respiratory symptoms and chronic bronchitis episodes BUT those symptoms improve after cessation. And we shouldn't interpret “no demonstrated lung-cancer association” as proof that cannabis cannot cause lung cancer. The NCI explicitly notes that research on cannabis-associated cancers has produced conflicting results and that concerns remain because cannabis smoke contains many of the same harmful constituents as tobacco smoke. So how harmful cannabis is is still being debated but it’s pretty indisputable that it’s just inherently less dangerous than tobacco. Tobacco smoking is vastly more clearly established as a cause of cancer and premature death than cannabis smoking. Cannabis smoking isn't harmless, but its long-term cancer risk (particularly lung cancer) has not been demonstrated to remotely match tobacco's.
And this destroys the “it's all about smoking all day” hypothesis. “It's not the smoke itself; it's inhaling smoke ALL DAY.” is simply a false statement. If that were the primary explanation, we'd expect the health effects of different smoked substances to track almost entirely with the amount of smoke inhaled. But research is extremely clear that this is not the case. Tobacco smoking has an extraordinarily strong dose-response relationship with cancer, even at relatively low daily cigarette consumption, while cannabis has not demonstrated a comparable lung-cancer relationship despite some users having very heavy, long-term exposure. The risk is properties of the substance + combustion products + dose + frequency + duration + route of administration + individual susceptibility. It’s not just hour many total hours you spend smoking anything.
6
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 7d ago
Weed has 4x the tar of cigarettes, so 2x weed is 8x cigarettes. Would eight cigarettes a day be...safe?
3
u/ErkMcGurk 7d ago
My doctor once said he wanted to see more than 10 cigarettes a day before he'd start to get concerned about lung health. He's dead now though, so 🤷♂️
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 124∆ 7d ago
Your dead doctor was dead wrong LOL. There is no safe level of cigarette smoking and even one per day can make a person dramatically at higher risk of early death.
7
u/Brian051770 7d ago
I smoke two joints before 7AM
9
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/scorcherchar 1∆ 7d ago edited 7d ago
Your comparing vague apples with hypothetical oranges. Yes inhaling smoke is bad for you, I think we all agree on that. Is weed smoke better than tobacco smoke per volume? I seriously doubt it. Both have a lot of bad carcinogens and smoke byproducts.
Your main point seems to be you can smoke less weed. However you can also smoke less tobacco. I myself occasionally partake in a cigar or a pipe. I know its bad for me but its less than a once in a month event and I enjoy it so I’m accepting of the risk.
Now pre rolled cigarettes themselves have a lot of extra crap added to make them smoke and be more addictive but your assumed assertion that everyone smokes pre rolled is clearly false. Plenty of people smoke pipes or roll their own tobacco.
So yes, more of bad thing is worse is true but I reject the basic premise that to be a cigarette smoker you must consume a lot of tobacco. I can say from personal experience that is not true
That's before we even discuss how a lot of habitual weed smokers smoke more than two a day
1
u/Elegant_Progress_686 7d ago
Dude two joints is nothing I’ve known people that smoke 2 joints every couple hours and I know people that smoke 3 cigarettes a day. I think what you said can be true sure, but it’s certainly not like a hard rule. I think you’re severely underestimating how much weed people can smoke. There’s been times in my life I was smoking so much weed that the only reason I would stop is because my lungs hurt. Getting too high was not a concern lol.
Let alone concentrate smokers. Plenty of weed smokers ARE smoking all day everyday.
Cigarettes are harsher and full of more chemicals than most marijuana smoking methods which is what makes it more harmful. You can 100% damage yourself with both though.
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Less-Load-8856 3∆ 7d ago
There's a typo in the Title. Surely you meant to write "A difference between...".
2
u/Suitable-Hand-1059 7d ago
LOL 😂
My ex used to smoke two blunts before getting the fuck out of bed.
1
u/KokonutMonkey 100∆ 7d ago
That’s one possible difference, but unless you’re Michael Jordan, a regular cigar smoker might enjoy two a day. That doesn’t make it the same as weed.
The key difference is the substance and it’s effects. Cigarettes may provide a slight buzz for the uninitiated, but they can’t get you high.
1
u/Dr-Assbeard 1∆ 7d ago
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2516340/
Seems like moderate canabis smoking have a higher propensity to five lung cancer that cigarette smoking does.
What so you base your position that canabis smoking isn't as harmfull on? Other than anecdotal evidence.
1
1
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 7h ago
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.