Cannabis reduces aggression in users. As does porn (once satisfied like.) Was the point. Plus everywhere that had censorship and bans on porn that then legalized it or less censored saw a drop in sex and violent crimes. Everywhere that banned it or over-censored it, those crimes went up. It's old data goes back to the 80s. And the Meese Commision on Pornography confirmed it.
The effects of Pornography: An
Bit to read so the relevant bit:
"This paper focuses on these last types of studies. It will attempt to show how the prevalence of pornography in a locale has or has not had an influence on sex crimes, particularly rape. The focus on rape reflects the opinion of those most opposed to available pornography. They claim the more sexually explicit material present in a community, the more rape. Or, as it has been alleged: "Pornography is the theory and rape is the practice." (Morgan, 1980). Findings around the world are reviewed with initial attention to the countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Then, I focus on Japan, a country quite different from those in the West. In regard to pornography, in Japan the swing from prudish and restrictive to relatively permissive and nonrestrictive was dramatic. Some limited data from Shanghai and new data from the United States follow. Several conclusions are then offered. These real world types of findings most accurately reflect the broad crime-related effects pornography has on modern societies.
...
CONCLUSIONS
The concern that countries allowing pornography and liberal anti-obscenity laws would show increased sex crime rates due to modeling or that children or adolescents in particular would be negatively vulnerable to and receptive to such models or that society would be otherwise adversely effected is not supported by evidence.
It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims. Even in this area of concern no "clear and present danger" exists for the suppression of SEM. There is no evidence that pornography is intended or likely to produce "imminent lawless action" (see Brandenberg v. Ohio, 1969). It is reasonable that the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected the principal that speech or expression can be punished because it offends some people's sensibilities or beliefs. Compared with "hate speech" or "commercial speech" there seems even less justification for banning "sex speech.""