What we know and don’t know about pot use
We don’t know all that much about pot, but much of what we do know is that it appears to be bad for some people:
Over the past couple of decades, studies around the globe have found that THC—the active compound in cannabis—is strongly linked to psychosis, schizophrenia, and violence. Berenson interviewed far-flung researchers who have quietly but methodically documented the effects of THC on serious mental illness, and he makes a convincing case that a recreational drug marketed as an all-around health product may, in fact, be really dangerous—especially for people with a family history of mental illness and for adolescents with developing brains.
A 2002 study in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) found that people who used cannabis at age 15 were more than four times as likely to develop schizophrenia or a related syndrome as those who’d never used. Even when the researchers excluded kids who had shown signs of psychosis by age 11, they found that the adolescent users had a threefold higher risk of developing schizophrenia later on. One Dutch marijuana researcher that Berenson spoke with estimated, based on his own work, that marijuana could be responsible for as much as 10 percent of psychosis in places where heavy use is common.
I haven’t read the studies, but my guess is that they contain the caveat that there may be something about cannabis users in adolescence (or other ages) that’s already somewhat different, and that it might be this other variable that predisposes users to schizophrenia or to any of the other negative effects. But I don’t know; the statistics are certainly troubling.
A lot of pot proponents point out that alcohol is as bad or worse. Agreed. However, we already tried to ban alcohol and it just didn’t work; it was too well-ingrained in our society (and not just ours, either). Has it become the same for pot? I tend to think so. Since the 1960s it’s become almost a mainstream drug. Whether that means we should legalize it or just decriminalize it (two different things) I don’t know.
But I think it’s too late to do much else other than one of those two, and we’ll reap the consequences. In fact, I think we’ve already reaped some of the consequences of increasing pot use, and they’re not good. I’ve written about this before—for example, here, in which I quoted some research results:
The findings showed habitual marijuana users made repeated errors even when told that they were wrong. Users also had more trouble maintaining a set of rules, suggesting an inability to maintain focus. Early-onset users and those who used the most marijuana had the most trouble with the test, making more than twice as many errors and fewer correct responses than later-onset smokers.
In my opinion, if you re-conceptualize the movie “Idiocracy” as being about a society taken over by stoners, you get the picture. That’s an exaggeration of course, but it’s the trend I see.
I’ve long been, and remain slightly, in favor of legalizing, taxing, and clearly explaining the known & suspected dangers of most drugs, including pot & cocaine.
I understand legalization, or decriminalization, will put more pot-heads out on the street, to compete with winos for “most disgusting homeless slob nearby”. Addiction to alcohol, in a poor guy, is disgusting. So is addiction to THC / pot. We’ll see more of it after legalization.
Those in favor, who think “the state” can get big net benefits from legalization, will find out that the increased social costs for the problems caused by more pot use, those social costs will eat up most, if not all and then some, of the taxes collected.
Still, I’d rather more users choosing to ruin their own lives, with a legal almost-poison distribution, than the current fewer but more desperate illegal users supporting the Mafia and cop corruption. I’d also prefer pot-heads to opium/ fenatyl addicts.
Those who want fewer addicts, and accept the costs of it being illegal in order to have the benefit of fewer victims, disagree. We don’t know, now, the costs — but as legalization proceeds, we’ll find out.
More addicts with lower net cost per addict vs fewer addicts with much higher cost per addicts. It’s not a science question, it’s a value question. But one where the real-world costs are prominent, yet not well known with a wide range of estimates.
My wife is against legalization; one of the few areas we disagree — it’s not so important to me, I stopped using it many years ago. Cheap, legal, quick out of the system alcohol is better. But I like the pot songs (and then I got high; smoke two joints) Wife likes songs, and dancing, too. 😉
I think anyone who uses or considers using pot should be aware of these studies. I hope the research continues.
But in regards to policy making, studies like this are irrelevant unless paired with studies concerning the “side effects” of prosecuting the drug war.
Because what I want to know is not “is this drug safe?” Of course it isn’t. Water isn’t “safe”. (Depending on how you define “safe”.)
Think about all diseases caused by inhalation of dust and aerosols from activities like coughing and sneezing. AIR isn’t safe.
What I want to know is, if you take this drug, are you at greater risk from the drug, or from what the government wants to do to try to keep you from using it? Even more, what about the effects of law enforcement on people like me, who do not use or possess any recreational drug (aside from a dusty bottle of whiskey in the pantry)?
Show me the risks and costs of drug law enforcement, particularly on the innocent. Then I will listen to the statistics of drug use.
Alcohol impairment wears off so much faster. While there is some merit to the pot being no more dangerous than alcohol, it assumes they both last the same length of time.
There’s going to be an almighty clash between legal cannabis and employers not wanting stoned employees. You can’t turn up drunk, so you can’t turn up stoned. But my five drinks the night before will have worn off. While cannabis is illegal, employers don’t have to judge whether the quantity impairs, but once it’s legal the fight will be on.
I am of the bent that a ALL drugs should be legal. The Prohibition of drugs has created far more problems than the abuse of drugs ever did. Harming one’s self is not a sin; just stupid.
Obviously, I don’t endorse drug (or alcohol) abuse. But, I insist that treating this problem as a social and health problem instead of as a criminal one is the most effective and moral solution.
Please take some time to review the website of Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) for rational arguments by professional police and prosecutors from all across the law enforcement spectrum.
https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/about-us/who-we-are/
I agree that some narcotics should be legal. Morphine and Heroin are prime examples. Cocaine is tougher since it makes users hyperactive and paranoid, a bad combination. Meth and all the unknown street drugs are too dangerous and too hard to understand what is in them.
It is pretty apparent that most pathology related to heroin is related to the legal status and attempts to get money, and or drugs. Cocaine kills but, as long as it only kills the user, it is OK with me to be legal.
No time for legalization whatsoever. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube…
My problem with pot legalization is that it makes it so much easier for kids and teens to use it. How can a mom tell whether that brownie her kid is eating contains no THC? If the kid eats one in the evening, how much attention is paid to homework? I get so annoyed at the me, me, me libertarians who seem to feel no responsibility for what they are teaching the next generation. We are raising a future generation with no grounding WRT sex, drugs, or real-life experience.
BTW, it is lots easier to hide a bit of pot than a bottle of beer.
Alcohol impairment wears off so much faster. While there is some merit to the pot being no more dangerous than alcohol, it assumes they both last the same length of time. –Chester Draws
IMO alcohol is about 100x worse than marijuana and the notion that “pot is no more dangerous than alcohol” is an absurdly upside-down claim on that account.
We are still arguing about statistical secondary effects for marijuana, but the horror of lives lost and lives blighted on account of alcohol stares us in the face daily.
I don’t argue marijuana is a harmless drug, much less a panacea. I don’t recommend it for children or teens. But as a person who has seen a lot of people go down from drugs, legal and illegal, recreational and prescribed, I say marijuana is a light-hearted walk in the park by comparison.
A lot of pot proponents point out that alcohol is as bad or worse. Agreed. However, we already tried to ban alcohol and it just didn’t work; it was too well-ingrained in our society (and not just ours, either). Has it become the same for pot? I tend to think so.
neo: So what is the argument here? You would prefer to keep marijuana illegal except it’s probably too late?
What about the libertarian argument that within limits we let people do as they wish with their lives and their bodies? How would marijuana be outside those limits?
We are now seeing studies showing the deleterious effects of social media, particularly on young people. Should social media be made illegal? Or is it a matter of regret that we can’t practically do so?
huxley:
I would prefer to keep marijuana uncriminalized. Actually, I’d prefer people didn’t use it much and didn’t drink much either, but I wouldn’t impose that through law and I don’t think one could anyway. I’d prefer a lot of things I wouldn’t impose through law.
However, I have no problem with the idea that some substances that are very dangerous should be criminal. Pot is a somewhat of a hazard to people and society, but not so much of a hazard as to make it criminal.
“Alcohol impairment wears off so much faster. While there is some merit to the pot being no more dangerous than alcohol, it assumes they both last the same length of time.”
And this is the money quote. Alcohol is metabolized by the liver, like most drugs. The biological halflife of alcohol is measured in hours; as anyone who has drank knows. THC binds to fats, hence its affect on the brain which contains much fatty tissue. As such, it doesn’t get taken care of by the body’s filter known as the liver. It’s halflife is on the order of days. The psychological effects therefore can last days, including reduced complex problem solving. Thus, people use use pot on a daily basis or even every other day have the continuing psychological effects that never wear off…perpetually stoned. Idiocracy is the correct term.
Now as to the question of whether is should be legal or not…I don’t know, but we do have some interesting experiments happening in Colorado and other places.
I wish there were a way to let the Colorado, etc. experiments run in place for some years, but with some way to contain any effects, positive or negative, so they would stay within that state. Of course, given the nonexistence of ‘hard’ borders between states, this is a pipe dream, but I think it would be really nice to have that so we could all, in the collective, make a more accurate judgement on the outcomes of these experiments.
For example, say somebody takes in far too much whateverine (I made that up just now, so I hereby claim it 🙂 ) in Julesburg, CO, then drives off like a maniac and ends up in a car crash in North Platte, Neb. I would imagine they’re going to give him/her critical care in North Platte rather than transport back to Colorado first. That would mean, in principle, that the bulk of at least the initial costs of that incident, basically induced by whateverine, would be borne by the people of Nebraska and not of Colorado. Thus, the costs, which we would want to measure and assess, would not be limited to the jurisdiction engaging in the experiment.
I don’t bring up this example as a question of fairness as far as whether it’s fair for Nebraska(ns) to be on the hook for the particular case, but in terms of cost-benefit analysis, say this person dies as a result. Let’s also say particularly that the crash costs the lives of one or more Nebraskans as well – that would mean that other jurisdictions are suffering at least as much harm in their sphere as the jurisdiction actually performing the ‘experiment’.
Now if the experiment had been properly contained, the same car crash might have happened, but would have killed only Coloradans. Then this particular cost would be more clear and easier to assess in its proper context. What I’m getting at is essentially the concept of socialization of costs, I suppose.
people who used cannabis at age 15 were more than four times as likely to develop schizophrenia or a related syndrome as those who’d never used
whats wrong with this?
why not ask about the cigarette use of people who develop schizophrenia?
what else is wrong?
well, how many are in the population?
how and when did you determine the rate of which an unknown population uses something and so skews the base number your comparing to?
lots more with the way this goes…
[if ya want to see it much much worse, try feminist academics… wowser]
Puff, the Dangerous Driver: Is Doping and Driving Safe? Jun 1, 1980
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15141572/puff-the-dangerous-driver-is-doping-and-driving-safe-archived-feature/
they got one guy giggly, did a bunch of runs, and on and on
and previously, their most requested article reprint was one in which they did similarly with alcohol…
This one was a big talk about in the 1980s among the kids who were into cars at high school… and even the newspapers referenced it and tv news…
so what were these critical results they had to have explained?
ok.. really? [it was reproduced and i think sci am had an article on it too]
actually we know a lot about things, but the problem is separating really good work from really bad work that serves a political agenda and thusly is a lot easier to get funding.. not to mention your work wont be repeated, people will love you if you lie, and the two camps will argue without reasoning much about it.
the worst thing they wont really reason is how the mentally unfit are used to limit the mentally fit and exert control
hows this for muddy thinking:
“But that doesn’t mean the problem isn’t there,” Donelson said. “It’s just that no one has proved it.”
ie. if we keep searching and redesigning things we will certainly find what we cant find now…
that is NOT good science… that is a fishing expedition dressed up
Donelson: “It may not be a highway-safety problem, statistically, now, but it’s a potential problem, potential in two ways: more study may show it as a definite problem, and increased use may make it a problem.
“Right now it comes down to a sense of personal responsibility. And then there’s that typical tendency to blame the drug and not the user, as we do with booze. Perhaps as society matures we will be able to handle the problem at its source, the user.”
Neo concludes, “But I don’t know; the statistics are certainly troubling.”
That is the heart of the problem, indecision leading to inaction. “Troubling”, but “I don’t know”.
What’s it gonna take, Neo? Or is your equivocation simply a means to stimulate a “conversation”?
Neo then goes on to say, “I would prefer to keep marijuana uncriminalized. Actually, I’d prefer people didn’t use it much and didn’t drink much either, but I wouldn’t impose that through law and I don’t think one could anyway. I’d prefer a lot of things I wouldn’t impose through law.”
One can prefer many things, but meanwhile our culture is rotting around us, with the legalization of marijuana as a sign thereof, and there is no point to pretending any longer that we stand on a stable cultural platform. I would surely prefer something other than our present situation, if I may use the “prefer” word. I would prefer an end to abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, public education that misundereducates and malinforms, voter fraud, “Medicare for all”, and a return to the Sunday blue laws as examples. But can any of those be reversed or undone?? No.
Where is the virtue of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato? Remember them? Most Americans have never heard of them, much less read them, thanks to the Gramscian takeover.
I am becoming persuaded by reading Newell’s book, “Tyrants: a History of Power, Injustice and Terror” that a new, relatively benign, lawful tyrant along the lines of Cyrus the Great is required for us, lest we get an evil, oppressive and injudicious (Democrat) tyrant. I fear the latter is inevitable, coming to rule us all pretty soon. The 2018 elections are proof-positive.
ER: “The findings showed habitual marijuana users made repeated errors even when told that they were wrong. Users also had more trouble maintaining a set of rules, suggesting an inability to maintain focus. . . . ”
It’s interesting, but the same statements can be made by substituting “millenials” or “left-wingers” for “marijuana users”. All human beings, myself included, have trouble in these areas.
[sidebar: When I worked with drug addicts and alcoholics, I saw a few people who were compulsive marijuana users. They were “addicted” in much the same what that compulsive gamblers are addicted to the rush that they get from gambling. Most of the addicts and alcoholics I worked with had serious to severe psychological issues, many were the result of severe trauma. The State can’t pass laws to protect people from themselves. I wish that the State would provide more help to these people, but that isn’t happening. Writing prohibition laws is easier.]
As marijuana gets decriminalized or legalized, life will be tougher for some. Many will discover that marijuana is their “drug of choice”. I still favor decriminalization because:
(1) I don’t think it’s the State’s job to protect us from everything and tell us how to live.
(2) People will always find a way to mess up their lives — or the lives of others.
(3) The War on Drugs is failure: it’s done more harm than good. We had the best of intentions. We tried. We failed. Time to move on.
(4) Ultimately, it’s up to the individual.
“What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.” — Any Rand
Rod Dreher’s piece is interesting, but even more interesting are the comments. Some praise the article and some deplore it; many bring up actual issues about mj rather than focussing on the article itself.
I do generally read at least some of the comments to postings and articles, unless they’re of the yay-boo-hiss or flaming variety. They can be informative, and also help to gain or keep perspective.
Thus, people use use pot on a daily basis or even every other day have the continuing psychological effects that never wear off…perpetually stoned. Idiocracy is the correct term.
physicsguy: What is this — the one-drop rule applied to neurophysiology? Idiocracy indeed.
The effects of marijuana drop off pretty fast. Sure, it binds to the fat, which would kill you on a drug test for weeks later, but you are really not “perpetually stoned.”
Or if so, maybe that’s not so bad. I navigated through the Bay Area/Silicon Valley tech jungle as a programmer and managed the brass ring on three successful IPOs, while “perpetually stoned” by your metric. I wasn’t the only such programmer.
Later I got clean for Tony Robbins for ten years and I didn’t notice much difference.
However, I have no problem with the idea that some substances that are very dangerous should be criminal. Pot is a somewhat of a hazard to people and society, but not so much of a hazard as to make it criminal.
neo: Fair enough.
I’m Old Testament on meth myself. I saw people go down so fast on that. I’m not sure where I draw the line but I do draw it there.
huxley:
How much of a hazard to people and society is sufficiently acceptable to avoid criminalization? What rate of adverse effect? 1 per 1000? 1 per 100? 1 per 10?
Let us stop with the somewhats, the perhaps, and the maybes, and make some active decisions. This fanny-sitting of ‘not so bad’ does not mean it is good or OK, whatever is at issue. That is how America lost to the 1968 student/hippie rebellion.
Gotta draw lines in this life. Right v. Wrong. Otherwise one is just flapping in the wind, which comes from all directions.
A marijuana / schizophrenia connection is a possibility., thus far only a hypothesis. What alcoholics all know, and tell anyone who will listen, is that those who start drinking in the adolescent years, stop their emotional maturation right then, so, when they eventually do quit drinking, they are still fixated in that stage of development. This has been the experience also of pot smokers, virtually every last one of them. Whether our elaborate legal and criminal attempts to limit cannabis use are worth the societal effort or not, I can’t say. What I can safely predict, however, is that later attempts to return to prohibition or limitation will be met with daunting resistance.
What I also observed in phych wards and substance abuse treatment facilities was that the chronically mentally ill tended to self medicate, maniacs with alcohol, depressives with amphetamines and cocaine, The anxious used alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco to control their runaway emotions. Nicotine is a sensory stimulus barrier, and you can bet that schizophrenics use it for that purpose. Some places where I have worked (I am a nurse.) had no-smoking policies, so the doctors wrote prescriptions for the patches.
In fine, I know that the science is far from settled, but, so far, using the law, and especially criminal law, in approaching this problem, is very much like trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. Non-criminal restrictions make a great deal of sense. We have used such limiting factors with alcohol since distillation was invented, to good, if limited, effect.
I’m in favor of legalizing all drugs – provided you have to stand in line with all the other addicts at a depressing and inconvenient government office to purchase them. That should take care of the ‘glamour’ aspect of drug use…
Same goes for prostitution.
Cicero … stimulates the conversation?
[Neo] “I don’t know” … [Cicero] “What’s it gonna take, Neo?”
Probably #2, we know that not-knowing is a very big deal. Science, police, the military, intelligence – they all know clearly & professionally, that what they don’t know (can’t know?) is what requires the highest-quality attention. Only one Institution really Knows, folks, so if that’s what we need, get comfy in those pews.
Probably #1, though not credited properly, humans, pre-humans and other animals have had to react on snippets of often low-quality info, across geological spans. A flicker in the bushes that might be the bad-thing? Best be up a tree first, then review & analyze it from there. A slight gesture by a dominant & cranky group-member that might be irritation? Best to react like it is, first, and adjust one’s conduct later, if wrong.
So people do shoot from the hip, a lot, and they’re flat wrong, a lot. It’s a limiting factor in personal development, culture, and society.
Known-knowns, known-unknowns, and unknown-unknowns. Successful people get used to not-knowing … and they admit it, at least to themselves.
Two thoughts on marijuana use:
1. The THC level of modern marijuana is so much higher (no pun intended) than it was when I was a youngster 50 years ago, it is nearly impossible to generalize today from what we used to know (or thought we knew). And as legalization spreads across the land, you can count on growers further developing varieties that are even stronger. I would wager that any review more than 10 years old of the effects of marijuana on regular users is outdated just by virtue of the newer drug strains. People I knew who used to smoke marijuana would crumble the leaves of the plant and get high that way. Now users concentrate on smoking the bud.
2. Legalization has been tried in places like Colorado (and now in Nevada) in part to raise taxes and reduce crime. The problem now raising its head is that legalization has not stopped the black market. Just the opposite, in fact, in CO (and likely in other places with legal use.) The black market product gets into the supply chain and is virtually indistinguishable from the legal product unless tracking of the growth and production is extremely precise. This level of precision has not been accomplished anywhere, as nearly as I can tell, although perhaps it will be in the future. Meanwhile, black market marijuana is increasingly sold, without taxation, in Colorado. That is according to law enforcement and tax authorities. So we are seeing crime is not being decreased, and taxation is problematic. And the marijuana making its way into the supply chain in CO is partly coming in from outside the state, including from Mexico.
How much of a hazard to people and society is sufficiently acceptable to avoid criminalization? What rate of adverse effect? 1 per 1000? 1 per 100? 1 per 10?
Cicero: I see that as your onus, not mine.
I rather thought the default in the land of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was liberty. Those who wish to restrain liberty need to make the case.
I’ll make that case with methamphetamine, not marijuana.
Marijuana was declared a Schedule 1 narcotic — legally equivalent to heroin — on the basis of no research whatsoever. Maybe that’s OK with you, but a whole lot of people had their lives ruined by that arbitrary, draconian judgment. What they lost, they will never get back.
We’ve been conducting “reefer madness” research against marijuana for over seventy years. So now, based on some sophisticated statistical breakdowns, we have the two latest, greatest white hopes for discrediting marijuana — the claimed teen IQ loss and possible violence and schizophrenia in a small number of cases.
I’ll continue to follow the research, but given the dismal history of marijuana research and the current reality that about 50% of peer-reviewed research is not replicable or has statistical problems, I’m not getting my knickers in a twist.
Even if the worst is true — marijuana is bad for teens’ IQs and some tiny number of people become violent or schizophrenic — well, campaign hard for kids and put warnings on the latter. Peanut butter kills about 100 people each year. It’s still legal.
As far as I’m concerned, this is culture war stuff. Conservatives generally have about the same attitude towards marijuana as liberals have towards guns. If we are talking about sheer damage, the liberals have the better argument on guns.
I heard about the schizophrenia-pot connection two decades ago from a friend with a schizophrenic brother. It makes sense, too, that heavy use of drugs and/or alcohol in the teenage years is going to affect brain development, and becoming properly adult. My brother was a test case. It took him to about age 35 to grow up, and fortunately he survived the bad years without a criminal record.
I do wonder why all the people who (rightly) point out the health risks of tobacco smoke don’t seem to see them for marijuana.
As to legalization, we haven’t done too well with trying to control it by policing, have we? Employers do need to have the right to deny employment or fire people who are under the influence. And meth production is so dangerous to everyone that it’s got to be illegal to do that — blowing up the neighbors is not okay.
The difference with alcohol is that responsible users can control it by limiting quantity to what is relaxing but not dangerous. With pot and other drugs, you’re either high or you’re not. A nice glass of red wine with dinner is different.
The THC level of modern marijuana is so much higher (no pun intended) than it was when I was a youngster 50 years ago, it is nearly impossible to generalize today from what we used to know (or thought we knew).
F: No, it’s not. This is typical scare talk from people who don’t know what they are talking about.
Alcohol didn’t become a whole new drug when it was distilled. You just drank less for the same result. You can drink hard liquor fast enough to harm or even kill yourself, but that’s not true of marijuana.
As with many drugs, the effects of marijuana, as dosage is increased, level off. You don’t keep getting higher and higher. You reach a plateau. Then you have to wait several hours to get a decent high again. Many keep smoking to stay mildly buzzed, but I don’t see the sense in that.
My big question, since I resumed marijuana several years ago, is why I don’t get as high as I once did on the bad, old, weak, old, marijuana in the seventies.
My two guesses: (1) I’m forty years older and my brain chemistry is different. (2) The current marijuana is so strong my tolerance is blown out. I would have to stop smoking for several months to get that big bang high again.
With pot and other drugs, you’re either high or you’re not. A nice glass of red wine with dinner is different.
Kate: No, no, no.
Conservatives talk about drugs with the same sure knowledge as liberals talk about guns.
You can get just warm and comfy, and not high? That wasn’t my experience on the few occasions I smoked pot. Plus, I hated the smoking part. I don’t think this is a “conservative” thing.
huxley:
Did it ever occur to you that a lot of conservatives who talk about drugs actually have quite a bit of knowledge about them and even experience with them? What makes you think they don’t?
Now, I grant you that experience with drugs is more rife on the left than the right. But plenty of people on the right either use them (I know such people), or used to use them (I know such people), or know a lot of people who use them (I know such people), or work in the field (I know such people).
You, your own experience, your own observations, and your own conclusions, don’t make you more expert than people whose history and experience you know nothing about but who may have had a lot of experience and/or varied experience.
huxley:
By the way, I also have personally observed a friend after she had eaten some of the new cannabis edibles, someone who had had a long experience with the old type of grass. She had a very extreme reaction to just a small bit of the edibles, getting much higher than she intended and going out of commission for quite some time after. This could be a real problem for people not prepared for the strength of their reaction, having thought they knew what they were getting into.
It’s certainly not a completely different drug from the old stuff, but it can have quite different effects and certainly different potency.
Together with decriminalization – the justice system must treat all crimes and damages “under the influence” as intentional/premeditated.
You chose to get high.
One of the things I have learned over the years is to be really suspicious of things that lead there biggest ‘fans’ or whatever you choose to call them to be over the top in support of said thing. Whether it be some religion or product or drug it really raises a red flag for me. I would bet that most people who have been around a while have known that guy (and it is usually a guy) that is so into marijuana and can go on and on about it’s supposed wonders to the point you no longer want to be around that guy.
Obviously not all users are like this but it seems to be somewhat unique to that drug over others. A higher percentage of users are really, really, really into it and really, really, really want to tell you about it.
Did it ever occur to you that a lot of conservatives who talk about drugs actually have quite a bit of knowledge about them and even experience with them? What makes you think they don’t?
neo: Reading your blog for one. This topic, for instance.
It may be that conservatives with such knowledge and experience don’t speak up much and those lacking such do.
huxley:
I am actually quite puzzled by your response to my question.
I am unaware of people here—and certainly not many people here— who have been talking about their personal experiences doing drugs such as pot. A few mentioned having worked in health or mental health facilities, and what they’ve observed there. The rest is simply your own assumptions, perhaps based on the fact that quite a few people here disagree with you. But the fact that they haven’t talked about their personal experiences does not mean they haven’t had them.
You have no idea what people’s experiences—personal or observational—have been, unless they divulge them to you. And the vast majority of people here have not divulged their experiences on this blog.
> Meanwhile, black market marijuana is increasingly sold, without taxation, in Colorado.
Trying to control and tax what is effectively a weed is going to be tough. If tobacco were as easy it would also be a problem, and cigarette smuggling is a thing even so. I worked nights one summer in a NYC restaurant and the truckers making deliveries at the loading dock out back would take orders. At $0.25 a pack in NC vs $2.12 in NYC it is easy to see why it was profitable.
By the way, I also have personally observed a friend after she had eaten some of the new cannabis edibles, someone who had had a long experience with the old type of grass. She had a very extreme reaction to just a small bit of the edibles, getting much higher than she intended and going out of commission for quite some time after.
neo: Edible marijuana is metabolized in the liver and has somewhat different effects. Either nothing happens or too much does. It’s hard to gauge the dosage. It’s hard to gauge when the high will start or how long it will last. When you do get off, the effects last longer. In my experience it’s also a different, more paranoid high. I don’t like it.
I got uncomfortably blasted the first time I got off on brownies. I expect if one used edibles regularly, one’s tolerance would increase and one’s ability to figure the dosage would improve.
I consider edible marijuana more problematic than the smokable form, especially the issue of children ingesting it by mistake.
I am actually quite puzzled by your response to my question.
neo: Good grief.
First, we had phsicsguy saying smoking once every other day would render one “perpetually stoned.”
Then, F said that today’s marijuana is so much more stronger that it’s “nearly impossible to generalize today from” old marijuana.
Kate said, “you’re either high or you’re not” with marijuana and other drugs.
I find such comments on par with gun control people going on about “assault rifles” and not knowing the difference between pistols and revolvers.
huxley:
You’re missing my point, which is not whether they’re correct or not.
It’s whether they’ve had much experience, either personal or observational, with the drug.
One can be wrong even with experience. People have different experiences and observe others who have different experiences.
The factual stuff, right or wrong, can be gotten from reading about it.
I am pretty sure that there are people here who are experienced with the drug who have opinions that differ from yours. There are also, of course, people here who are not experienced with the drug who have opinions which differ from yours. My point is that, unless they have stated their experience or lack thereof, you cannot know which you are dealing with—unless they say something utterly preposterous. I don’t think the statements you cite are preposterous.
And you know nothing—literally nothing—about my own experience or lack thereof.
Well, huxley, I admit my experience was somewhat limited, but I didn’t know any pot users who just got comfortably warm on the stuff. They got high. Since my high school and college years were in the late 60s and early 70s, I was by no means unaware. Perhaps your experience is different because you have been, you say, a frequent and long-term user. All I can say is that my brother’s life got lot better since he’s restricted himself to the occasional beer.
I don’t have data at hand, but I’d worry about lung cancer from the smoking. Hope I’m wrong.
MEANWHILE, BACK IN VEGAS
Planet 13 aims to be the Disneyland of cannabis dispensaries
We have a libertarian problem here.
It is OK to smoke grass since it harms (potentially, possibly) only yourself, or so it is said.
But if it does cause harm, are not others sharing in that harm or the costs thereof (social, economic, emotional) ?
Individuality without constraint damages and destroys. Why then should it be so encouraged?
BTW, no one comments on the effects of chronic marijuana smoke inhalation, just on the THC so inhaled. Seems short-sighted. What component(s) of cigarette smoke cause lung cancer? The answer is not nicotine!
Cicero:
See this.
not completely off topic – and not an indictment of any commenters here – but, I have noticed over the years some of the clearly heavy potheads are the ones who seem to speak up by saying” hey, man, I’ve used pot a lot and I turned out okay”!
Ha! those that have told me that are some of the flakiest, dumbest, clearly missing quite a few brain cells folks. and they “believe” that they turned out “okay”?
Huxley:
I can do that too:
Yes it is.
Cicero,
It is OK to smoke grass since it harms (potentially, possibly) only yourself… [sic]
Since inexpensive & quick tests, a number of reports now have ER statistics showing a more-than-passing link between automobile accidents and marijuana intoxication.
Drivers on pot are not aggressive, crazy, like drunks … but they are inadequate drivers and dangerous to others on the road.
Testing will continue to get cheaper, faster and better. The juncture approaches at which users will no longer be able to casually drive around, as many now do.
And because the stuff stays in the system, they will be in a pickle. Like with employers.
And you know nothing—literally nothing—about my own experience or lack thereof.
neo: I didn’t say I did.
I made a general claim that conservatives seem to be similarly unknowledgable about marijuana as liberals are about guns. I assumed the “general” part could be read implicitly but apparently not.
I’m sure there are some liberals who know their guns. But they are usually not the ones who pipe up and say foolish things about them on the web.
Likewise conservatives about marijuana. It’s not just on this conservative blog. I run into these silly statements about marijuana everywhere on the rightosphere.
I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. On the other hand I get tired of the “idiocracy” and other slams toward marijuana users.
BTW for those intent on the “super powerful modern marijuana with unimaginable dangers” meme — we smoked super powerful marijuana back in the 60s and 70s. It was called hash.
The high was somewhat higher and definitely more expensive. You didn’t have to smoke much, but you were not transported into some realm beyond marijuana. You were good and stoned and there was no surprise involved.
Also: there are plenty of degrees of being stoned, both on the the way up, at the peak and on the way down. It’s not any different from alcohol in that regard.
Ha! those that have told me that are some of the flakiest, dumbest, clearly missing quite a few brain cells folks. and they “believe” that they turned out “okay”?
charles: Are you saying that’s me?
Make your case.
BTW, no one comments on the effects of chronic marijuana smoke inhalation, just on the THC so inhaled. Seems short-sighted. What component(s) of cigarette smoke cause lung cancer? The answer is not nicotine!
Cicero: It’s a big topic. I try to hit my high points (so to speak) within a screenful by limiting what I address. And no one mentioned THC so far.
You’ve brought up another standard foolish gotcha about marijuana. Consider that typically users pass around one, maybe two, marijuana joints for a few people and that’s it for a couple hours. That’s rather different from the quantity of burning plant matter a one-or-two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker takes in.
I have no illusions I am doing my lungs any favors with marijuana. But I don’t smoke that much. It usually takes me about 3-4 months to get through an ounce.
A pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 ounce. So a pack-a-day smoker is smoking something like 80x as much tobacco as I am MJ.
All I can say is that my brother’s life got lot better since he’s restricted himself to the occasional beer.
Kate: All I can say is that I stopped marijuana for ten years, then resumed and I didn’t notice any difference beyond not spending time being stoned, The bookkeeping on that is an individual call.
I was a big Tony Robbins guy when I stopped smoking. I would have liked to report that stopping marijuana catapulted me into a brighter, clearer, more productive state, but it didn’t.
Your mileage may vary.
huxley:
Reading your comments I get the impression that you have lost the distinction between personal experience and population-wide effects; my anecdote is more persuasive to me than your’s so there!
I don’t trust the goodness of George Soros-sponsored marijuana legalization initiatives. INO they lead to more stoned. impaired voters who will believe progressive lies. Idiocracy indeed.
On reviewing huxley’s remarks, I am forced to the conclusion that his marijuana use has impaired his cognitive abilities somewhat.
“The problem now raising its head is that legalization has not stopped the black market. Just the opposite..”
I made this point endlessly in general discussions about drug legalization. It seems obvious to me that, knowing how anti-social/criminal/addictive behaviors and lifestyle play out, there is no way to eliminate illegal drug sales. I don’t even think it will lessen the amount of illegal drug sales. People who already buy drugs from neighborhood dealers will not want the hassle of complying with legal purchases and the government-approved weed sales would have to be more expensive than those who can sell whatever they want, wherever they want. Not to mention the market for illegal sales to those who CAN’T buy from legal vendors, such as minors and those who may be denied due to having a criminal record.
Huxley: “charles: Are you saying that’s me? Make your case.”
Well, Huxley, I also said: “and not an indictment of any commenters here .”
Please, next time take me at face value; when I say I am not referring to anyone here that means I am NOT referring to anyone here.
And, quite honestly, with no offense meant, I hadn’t really read your previous comments before you called me out. So, no I wasn’t referring to you.
Experience can be tricky. I have been breathing for over 70 years, am I an expert on lungs or air? No.