College students are now smoking more pot than cigarettes | Hacker News Reader

College students are now smoking more pot than cigarettes

washingtonpost.com

95 pointsfalcor84126 comments

I was a huge pot head when I went to college. Smoked weed through pretty much all of high school and had some traumatic events happen that lead me to it for medication. In high school I was considered an outcast. I was the only sophomore to ever consider taking AP Comp Sci(true rebel here...) and generally the kids drank alot.

But when I got to college, I gave up the weed and focused on the programming and outside my comfort zone stuff. And then I was in an advanced comp sci class, working with a smart dude and he paused, and said, "Toke up, get food and get back at it?" Then, for the first time ever my world was opened to programmers that smoke weed. And it was like a moment of, "holy shit I can be normal here."

Marijuana can be a blessing or a curse. All in your relationship with it. I advise using it for the benefits, and not abusing it for escape.

It's a terrible escape, too. It should be a seasoning on top of an already healthy lifestyle or you're just gonna be throwing your money away.

This last sentence is such an important message. Your use with substances--even if they have benefits--should never take over your life.

I agree. It can be a rather insidious drug. You can be high all day and no matter how much you take you won't feel sick like you would with booze or cigs. It also dampens your ability to absorb dopamine over time (but it doesn't interfere with production like cocaine), so it ultimately becomes possible for 24/7 stoners to lead productive and healthy lives, but the weed is a constant.

I'm reminded of a planet in the space sim Freelancer, which was covered in an orange grass that changed people's DNA to become dependent on it over time, so they needed a constant drip if they were ever off world, but in return life expectancy rose to 120.

The spice must flow.

This is my life (healthy/productive life while high 24/7).

A lot of people are baffled that they know me both as their hardest working friend & their most consistently high friend. Doesn't make any sense to the person who views weed as just something to get high with.

I don't necessarily recommend my life. It does lead to addiction after a long time (started at 14 and began smoking everyday in HS then started everyday everyday again at 21 and am currently 27). Everyday, I wake up and get high, work, then get high probably around 5, work, and then eventually go home and get high, and go to sleep. Whatever floats your boat so long as you're not hurting anybody, that's how I see it.

The effects of addiction are pretty confusing to be quite honest with you. I can refrain from smoking all day and then I'll hit probably 7PM and be like "I don't need to smoke if I don't want to," and actually mean it. The only physical reaction I get to a lack of weed is increased irritability and sometimes a really hot feeling that's hard to explain. After a couple days, it's more like "I wish I could get high" than it is "I NEED TO GET HIGH!" But it's been awhile since I gone a couple days. Even though I been smoking forever (started at 14) and feel like I'll never stop smoking, I do feel that I can stop if I really wanted to. I know addicts all say that, but with weed, it just gets to be really easy after like a couple days.

It's the mental effects of addiction that I actually dislike the most. "It's morning, time to get high." There are times when I think to myself, when did this become normal? Is this normal? People happily guzzle down caffeine in the morning and don't say anything, so is what I'm doing all that bad?

It's an unusual drug. You can get one strain that gets you all excited and another strain that turns you into Mr. Aristotle and another strain that turns you into Mr. Aristotle caffeinated. I do think it's the best hope for mankind though as crazy as that sounds. People become a lot less judgmental and mentally vicious when they start to smoke a lot. Some call this inner-peace.

How on earth can you code on weed? I would get lost in the minutiae of the font.

In my experience: you develop a tolerance over time, and as you grow accustomed to how your brain behaves on it, it becomes possible to partake in productive activities (reading, writing, programming, holding up a fairly deep conversation, etc.)

Strain, dose, method. All have a big impact on whether you're left in a productive state or if it's time to get some chips and netflix

And as with any substance (or activity in general), environment matters a lot.

Hanging out on the couch at home? Probably fitting to crash soon.

Out at the park with a book? Read until you realize you're burning.

How do you not code while high?!

You get tunnel-vision and become a super-abstract thinker. Code is just made up abstractions and being high often involves vivid, creative imaginations. You combine the two and literally anything is possible and it's awesome.

Replace all the "yous" with "I" and the conversation becomes a whole lot clearer (and more factual).

Things affect people differently! It can even affect the same people differently at different times. Sometimes weed helps me to focus on things, other times it puts me on the fritz. Sometimes it wakes me up and others it knocks me out in minutes.

I was joking :) I totally understand. You're right though, I should have said "I"

I had never smoked weed before moving to California (from Europe) in my early 20s, at which point I was fairly quickly introduced to it. I had no experience with drugs of any kind besides alcohol either, and I quickly became fascinated with the effects it had on my brain. Picking it up with the same intensity I would pick up any other interest, I read a lot of stuff about the subject (Timothy Leary, Sam Harris, Aldous Huxley, etc.) and tried a few other psychedelics.

Then for a couple years I had a job that made me utterly miserable, and I smoked as soon as I got home every night. I don't believe it strongly affected my intellectual performance (a lot of my highly upvoted HN comments from that time were written while high), but it made me okay with not doing nothing productive, merely aimlessly consuming media (this is summed up really well in a South Park episode, where Randy tells his son Stan: "Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but, well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored, and it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything.").

Now I have a job that I really like and am in a generally better place in life, and smoke maybe once a week or so. My personality tends to be fairly inwards-oriented, and I get anxious fairly easily (like many hackers, I presume), and weed helps me step back, and get perspective on my mental state. It's also a good social bonding agent, and also an interesting substance to use when you've been working on a creative problem for a while and are stuck (my experience has been that it's harder for my brain to learn completely new things while high, but easier to make connections between things I already know, or see known things under a new light).

I wonder how much of that statistical increase in pot use is due to students smoking pot more and how much of it is due to students being more willing to admit that they smoke pot due to the changing perception of the drug? That's the problem with survey type research, it's based on the presumption that people are generally honest, while in reality most people lie most of the time.

One of the things I really liked about Colorado's legalization is that people could openly and honestly discuss their preferences without the whole legal/moral/peer group issues. E.g. one of my younger cousins said, quite frankly, that she doesn't like the effect pot has on her and prefers alcohol. When drugs don't have illegality to taint or glamorize them we can be honest with ourselves and each other about them.

Seriously this study is total bullshit, the real numbers are much much higher [pun]. The numbers before were bullshit, and the numbers now are bullshit. Any correlation is entirely coincidence. Source: medicinal user for 15 years.

The thing people don't seem to realize is that there are two very different effects caused by the two primary MJ strains (Sativa and Indica's).

If you smoke pure Indica, or Indica dominant strains then yes, you are likely going to be knocked on your ass and get absolutely nothing done.

But if you smoke a Sativa, or Sativa dominate strain, then you'll find that your focus goes way way up, your ability to dig into problems and solve them goes way way up, and generally you get a ton more done.

Reading this article and then the comments on that site it's pretty amazing how poorly people understand pot still.

I've always heard this but anecdotally I've never experienced any difference -- it all makes me want to fall asleep. Is there any legitimate research into this? How do you know which is which?

> Is there any legitimate research into this?

Tons - there are over 70 cannabinoids last I checked (which was several years ago, and we've discovered more since). They all have different effects. Some aren't even psychoactive at all.

The indica vs. sativa is a rough way of describing the relative ratios of the various cannabinoids. Not all indicas and sativas are the same, and some sativas might be more sleep-inducing than some indicas, but it's easier than enumerating chemical compounds which have rather unfriendly and unmarketable names.

> How do you know which is which?

Ask the person growing or selling it to you. If you live in a medical or recreational state (Colorado, California, etc.), they will be labeled as pure indica/sativa, or a hybrid (and if a hybrid, which one is dominant).

Full extract oils (essentially the entire planet is dissolved in ethanol, then evaporated to leave a concentrated resin) claim to contain over 400 compounds (not all are cannabinoids). You can buy them in high THC, high CBD, or high TCH and CBD (in addition to the others) formulations.

Recent studies have shown that reported genetics aren't very reliable (ie. what is claimed to be a pure indica or indica dominate hybrid have actually tested as ~75% sativas).

The combination of compounds is probably the biggest driver in a person's experience and the percentage of indica vs. sativa only has some influence over that combination.

If you're buying it legally it'll usually be on the package. For instance I have a packet here on my desk that says "Blue Dawg - j32 80% Indica / 20% Sativa". There are also websites that can tell you about different strains - leafly.com, allbud.com, and nuggetry.com, to name a few that come up when I search for 'blue dawg marijuana'.

Mood and delivery method can alter the effects, too. If you're taking massive bong hits after a long day at work it'll be a lot easier to fall asleep than if you're hitting a vaporizer early in the day.

Ya, it's like 2 totally different substances that just happen to look the same and can be crossbred.

We got some pure sativa here : White Widow : lifts you up, very energetic. No couchlock at all.

Experiment and find out what works for you. Sativas tend to make me paranoid. I'll happily work all day while taking hits off of some indica that most people would consider to be a couch-lock strain.

The other issue is anxiety: pure sativas can exaserbate it.

I've found hybrids like Blue Dream are useful. Not too sedating but a very relaxed sort of focus.

I just graduated from college and I was one of those kids who started smoking both cigarettes and pot in 6th grade because I hung out with older kids that I wanted to be like. I quit cigarettes my freshman year of college and rarely smoke pot (I prefer drinking for socializing).

What surprises me was how many of my friends started smoking cigarettes at college. While part of me understands that college is the first time many kids are let loose and free to make decisions about their bodies, I assumed that age, experience and knowledge would override the desire to smoke cigarettes at least.

Not to mention this was a wealthier, liberal arts school, which seemed even more out-of-place, especially from my different environment growing up.

Still, the frequency of pot smoking was much higher than cigarettes and bled over into the female circles, whereas cigarettes rarely did.

Overall, the trend I witnessed is that, at a young age, people were more likely to smoke pot and cigarettes, in contradiction to when I was in college, where many more people smoked pot.

Despite this being anecdotal, I am curious what factors (age, generational differences, education) have the strongest influence on this trend.

> experience and knowledge would override the desire to smoke cigarettes at least.

To get into our local mega-organic pesticide-free we-only-sell-kale health food market, one has to pass through a gauntlet of cigarette smoking 20- and 30-somethings. Don't underestimate the power of wanting to look cool.

They are probably smoking American Spirits or similar "all-organic" tobacco that costs a couple bucks more per pack. Much healthier, of course.

American Spirits are packed much tighter than the average cigarette though, a lot more tobacco per cigarette. Yes, it feels much different than even a light cigarette... so it maybe be healthier. But they would mess up my lungs pretty bad.

American Spirits may be pesticide-free or whatever, but they also spray liquid nicotine on their tobacco. Back when I smoked, I noticed that I was more jittery after smoking them than Camels; it made sense when I learned about the much higher nicotine content.

Wouldn't a higher nicotine content be preferable? You wouldn't need to burn and inhale as much plant matter to receive the same dose.

It probably depends on the smoker. I only had 3-4 cigs per day unless I was drinking, and just one American Spirit was enough to make me feel not-so-good for half an hour or so after smoking. A pack-a-day smoker might benefit, except that the habit is just as strong as the addiction so I suspect they'll just ingest more nicotine while smoking the same number of cigarettes.

I remember reading that the nicotine levels were markedly higher, like an order of magnitude, but I'm not having any luck finding the numbers (or even the references) to substantiate it.

I've always thought people smoke cigarettes so they have something to do with their hands while talking.

I also found this totally strange that people pick up smoking cigarettes once they are old enough to know they are just horrible for you.

A recall my first week of college not too long ago. One guy who lived in the same building as me was smoking a cigarette outdoors. I was surprised having not seen many people my age smoking cigarettes before. I asked him how long he had been smoking and his response was "4 days".

> I also found this totally strange that people pick up smoking cigarettes once they are old enough to know they are just horrible for you.

It doesn't surprise me very much. People choose to do a lot of things that are terrible for their body, like eating poorly or not getting exercise, and it's not clear to me that cigarettes are even the worst choice they can make.

It would be interesting to see the long term effects of smoking 5 cigarettes a day versus being 50 pounds over weight.

> Despite this being anecdotal, I am curious what factors (age, generational differences, education) have the strongest influence on this trend.

Here's my anecdotal theory; prevalence of media and ease of media consumption. Let's be honest, media (games, movies, tv) is really great when you're stoned. You don't have to move much and it tickles your auditory and visual senses. The internet makes consuming media incredibly cheap and easy, and Universities often have good internet access (also local media sharing with DC++ is rife). For a student, cheapness is king. Weed is cheap, media is cheap, both are very rewarding when combined and much cheaper than sports, bars, parties, etc.

Not necessarily; especially when watching lesser productions, where it is more difficult to maintain the illusion. The strange juxtaposition of the fantasy attempting to be created vs. the reality that it's just a bunch of people dressed up, trying to create the illusion of another reality can be particularly disconcerting.

I love the stuff, but for me it was incredibly dangerous because of precisely how much I loved it. Once I start up smoking, I can't stop. I'd go through a quarter every two days. I would smoke as soon as I got up, as soon as I got home from work, all through the night, waking up every hour or so to smoke. I would stop seeing my friends (none of whom smoke), I would stop going out. I had no patience to read or code, and so all I would do was lie on the couch and watch TV or lie in bed listening to music. I stopped working out because moving took too much energy. I stopped self-improvement. I lost any intellectual curiosity. Sure, I would write down my moments of "great high inspiration" which were usually meaningless strings of words in childlike handwriting (because my fine motor skills are pretty terrible on the weed) that sober me was embarrassed of.

Some people can function perfectly fine on the stuff, but my addictive brain absolutely cannot handle it, and I'm much, much better without it.

But I love it.

I love it.

And every day it's really, really hard not to just give up and call my guy and smoke the night away.

I'm in the same boat man. We just need a little tamper-proof dispenser that only allows us a certain amount for a given period of time.

Like you, I'm better off without it. But I do miss it.

try this: http://www.thekitchensafe.com/

Sounds like you got stuck on indicas when you needed some sativas. Indicas will stick you to the couch, but sativas are more uplifting. For instance, some nice sativa before a workout will yield a more intense workout.

That being said, you know what's best for you, and you really are better off without it.

I had everything: indicas (Lamb's Bread!, OG, Sour Diesel!), sativas (Sour Honey!), hybrids (Blue Dream!), edibles, wax...

It's not so much the strain as it is my brain and its addiction to dopamine.

I am one of those college students and actually I have been smoking way too much. I just recently stopped and now I sleep much better, getting up in the morning is way easier, I just have more energy.

It's hard for me to have access to it and not smoke it, both my parents were addicts so I'm supposedly predisposed to addictive behavior. I would smoke all day, every day, even when I didn't feel like it.

I'm a little turned off by it now since I found it was having negative effects on my life, but I'm sure that is because I was simply smoking way too much.

Anyways, don't smoke too much.

Hmm... Perhaps the best way to win the war on drugs is not to make drugs illegal, but rather to regulate the industry to death. After all, heavy regulation seems to have curbed tobacco use.

I think facts about the effects of smoking cigarettes has played a much bigger part in that (in the U.S.)

In Korea (where I live now), however, heavy-handed regulation aiming to make it "the most difficult place in the world to smoke" is probably going to curb rates quickly and dramatically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_South_Korea

It certainly stands to reason that diminishing the ability of the tobacco companies to deceive the public about the health risks associated with tobacco cigarettes would similarly diminish demand.

Conversely, the trend with cannabis seems to be that the more the public learns about its effects on human health, the more use rises.

And in turn has led to an ever growing but rarely discussed problem of tobacco smuggling, contraband and counterfeit: http://www.havocscope.com/tag/cigarette-smuggling/

Though, in fairness, it's not as big in the U.S. than in other countries.

> After all, heavy regulation seems to have curbed tobacco use.

Maybe in the upper classes. Vice taxes tend to hit the lower classes harder.

I'm all for regulation, but if an adult wants to smoke pot, I don't think there is a mandate to stop them.

Culture plays a huge part too. In a lot of social circles, tobacco is looked down upon as a smelly loser's fix, whereas celebrities champion being high every waking moment. Of course there are major differences in health effects - cigarettes can kill you but you can't OD on weed - helping drive this cultural shift, but in the end there is only so much that regulation and legislation can accomplish.

Pot doesn't cause lung cancer either: http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-n...

It's worth remembering that inhaling burning plant matter is never really going to be a good idea.

Yeah, lungs did not evolved to breath smoke filled air. In my book, smoking of anything is bad for respiratory health.

That's a shallow argument. Your fingers didn't evolve to type but they're fine with it in moderation.

That's an old study based on limited information. Its primary value at this point is that it encouraged more research, which found that, yes, smoking marijuana DOES increase rush of lung cancer.

For example, a slightly newer study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/

And in a few generations, marijuana will be seen by young people as disgusting and for losers. They'll look back on us and think we were idiots for glorifying it, just as we now look back at how everyone used to smoke cigarettes with disdain.

I think by then we'll have all sorts of excess available to us (not unlike today), and we will say the same things we do today:

All good things, in moderation.

>Perhaps the best way to win the war on drugs

Why does there need to be a war in the first place?

Because there already is one, and america's not interested in losing any wars.

I started casually smoking weed for fun in college, and have continued intermittently since with a different perspective. Marijuana has improved my life consistently by providing me with an easy-to-access window into my mind which persists even when I'm sober. Weed also transiently helps me to be less angry, although I've experienced a few other people undergoing weed rage from time to time.

I think weed is going to be increasingly popular among highly educated people for its innocuousness, creativity/thought promotion, and relaxation.

I must be unlucky because most strains of marijuana give me terrible panic attacks. The sativa heavy or hybrid strains do it every time, and with indica its a dice roll depending on how long the smoke is in my lungs. I inhale and then immediately exhale (the smoke is in my lungs for less than a second). One hit and bam! I'm as high as I need to be (and it feels great). Any higher makes me feel like I'm having a heart attack.

Contrast this to some of my friends who can smoke bowl after bowl of super buds and still write good assembly language.

It's probably better for my health but I do wish I could smoke more, feel the good effects, and not get crazy paranoid.

Yep. I'm the exact same way as you. Forget bong rips like my friends; I'll panic. I inhale and exhale immediately. The worst part of it is that not a single one of my friends shared this trait with me, so I thought I might be abnormal or something, and I was always known as the 'light-weight' when it came to smoking.

Same here. Years ago I used to be fine with smoking bowls and the occasional bong rip but once I took a break for a few years and lost any tolerance, I just can't handle it. A few times a year I'll do a "one-hit-quit" but any more and I run the risk of just feeling terrible and anxious. It really does suck because I used to quite enjoy it on occasion but nowadays I just respond differently.

Given that both anti-smoking campaigns and the stereotype of college students as potheads both date to at least the '60s, I'm surprised that it took this long.

Ok, so here's a question I've been struggling with: is there such a thing as "too much" weed?

I have had issues with depression and anxiety for a long time. I have tried CBT, talk therapy, medication, meditation, group therapy, and combinations of those for about two decades.

Looking back, I often self medicated - with food, and later, with alcohol. Now I have a medical marijauna card, and in the evenings, I generally relax by smoking some weed and watching netflix, browsing HN/Reddit, or just jumping around on Wikipedia.

In the grand scheme of things, is that bad? You could make the argument I'm "abusing" it, but if there are no negative effects, what does it matter?

What I have to ask is this: If I'm happy in my life, ding

As an interesting anecdote, joints in Australia are commonly "spun" with tobacco, mainly to keep the alight iirc. I'd be interested to see how these statistics change and what the general behaviour towards cigarettes in university students would be if a similar article came out here.

Finally. Although edibles are safer.

Have they done any long-term studies on smoking pot vs. vaping vs. edibles?

I'm not aware of any, but edibles certainly won't cause lung damage.

Though they may cause stomach and/or intestinal damage.

People have been ingesting cannabis since long, long, long before they smoked it from a pipe. It would surprise me if there are dire health effects that are entirely undiscovered.

This is, of course, shitty compared to actually providing a study.

People have been ingesting cannabis since long, long, long before they smoked it from a pipe. It would surprise me if there are dire health effects that are entirely undiscovered.

The same held true for tobacco for quite a long time, do keep in mind.

Are there poor health effects from ingesting tabacco? it makes my stomach turn, but I wouldn't jump to cancer.

Yes, according to a number of sources.[1][2]

[1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/quit-smoking/in-...

[2] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/smok...

Nice find.

The likely carcinogens in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines

Yes.

In fact, there are also problems for smkers who cough up and then swallow phlegm - this increases risk of bladder and penile cancers.

Stomach, esophagus, and pancreas cancers are all common for people who dip. The chemical difference between smokeless tobacco and marijuana in food is probably a lot different though.

No, not any more than eating any other food; it's a plant, it isn't going to hurt your stomach.

> No, not any more than eating any other food; it's a plant, it isn't going to hurt your stomach.

There are plenty of plants that can hurt your stomach a great deal. Some will even kill you.

"It's a plant" is not an argument.

It's not a poisonousness plant.

>it's a plant, it isn't going to hurt your stomach

Let me be hyperpedantic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

It's not a poisonousness plant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndro...

Well, if you're not breathing in tar, heavy metals, free radicals, etc., it's not hard to come out on top over smoking.

There still has to be some damage from smoke inhalation, no? Then I'm curious about smoking vs "vaping" vs oil etc. Anecdotally I see a lot of old hippies still kicking.

edit: I didn't realize you were pointing out the effect of smoking cannabis.

Sorry, that WAS the damage from smoke inhalation. Theoretically if you're vaping or eating you shouldn't be combusting anything and should get 0 smoke.

And yes, you can get lung/throat cancer from inhaling pot smoke. Probably way worse than from a cigarette because there's no filter (THC is super sticky, so it's kind of counter productive).

This is a myth. Smoking marijuana might actually be negatively correlated with lung cancer for long term users. Regardless, it's certainly not associated with increased lung cancer or increased risk for COPD. You and others who are misinformed should stop spreading around these ridiculous lies and look at the science:

"Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use." -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821

It is far and away irrisponsible to call a health effect a myth because one paper suggests an opposite effect for light to moderate users. Considering we DO know what we are inhaling, and we DO know it causes massive problems for other smoked substances, it is rational to think that there are likely related effects. Until we can identify that these effects are NOT occurring, we should definitely assume that you can get lung cancer by inhaling massive amounts of carcinogens.

So let's throw out the hard scientific evidence you don't like and substitute "rational thinking" instead? I think you were born in the wrong century.

The hard scientific evidence is that light to moderate users do not have increased lung cancer rates. This is a far cry from "smoking pot doesn't cause cancer".

It is not I who is avoiding rationality, friend. Check your ability to corroborate your statements with evidence.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your viewpoint that it does cause cancer so whatever you deduce through "rational thought" is meaningless.

I don't have evidence. All I have is lack of evidence. Skepticism leads me to conclude we do not know the effects of smoking marijuana w/r/t cancer with any certainty. Correspondingly, it would be wrong to call the prospect a myth, as you cannot say that with any certainty.

You also have lack of evidence of unicorns causing cancer.

You're also choosing to ignore the studies that show moderate use (e.g. people who smoke it casually and aren't huffing 24/7) show no increase in cancer.

Maybe if you smoke from the moment you wake until you pass out you might have an increase of cancer. Same way that drinking water til you die of water poisoning is a thing. It is freakishly uncommon and you'd have to more or less choose to do so on purpose.

That seems hardly conclusive.

It's not skepticism when you ignore evidence.

yeah , what about vaping ? i'm a smoker right now , and it seems to me that vaping is at least safer than smoking.

UK government has said vaping was 95% less harmful than smoking. http://mashable.com/2015/08/19/public-health-england-vaping-...

I imagine our government is either more conservative with making such announcements (more conservative than UK though?) or tobacco companies are lobbying to delay the release of such announcements until such time as they can re-tool and switch business models. I know RJ Reynolds is already making a heavy play for vaping and slowly switching over their business to make it their main thing.

Nice! thanks for the link.

Is the marijuana festival really april 19th? Seems more logical to have it on april 20th. ;)

The probability of developing psychosis among college students is going to be substantially increased.

This week in "class indicators".

420 blz it

"Now"

I'm surprised this is news.

If only because of the massive anti-(cigarette)-smoking campaign of the past several years, combined with the massive pro-marijuana-legalization campaign. Good or bad, that sends a pretty clear message to students that tobacco bad, marijuana good.

as a user, marijuana is definitely good. ive never smoked cigarettes, so I can't say how "good" they are. i just know they don't get me high.

The best part of marijuana is the lack of addiction.

I know some people who can't get by without dabs several times a day. Either it is addicting to some people or they are self medicating some other issue?

There's a difference between "can't" and "don't like to", they aren't going to suffer from any severe withdrawal effects from not having it other than simply not liking being sober. Caffeine withdrawal is far worse for example. Of course if they're using it for something like pain relief, or some other medical reason like you said, that doesn't really count as addiction.

I mean, find a substance that people CAN'T be addicted to. However, the physiological addiction is very low. There is no direct dopamine feedback loop, to my understanding.

I'm addicted to seltzer waters.

It's not completely free from addiction potential, it's similar in degree to caffeine[1]. Dabs are very concentrated, and if you hit them several times a day many days in a row, and you are naturally inclined toward addiction, you may find yourself addicted.

AFAIK the withdrawal symptoms aren't unbearable, nothing like stimulants or opiates or benzos. I'm sure that getting high sounds a lot more attractive than sitting through the withdrawal for 36 hours or however long it lasts, and that the withdrawal would impair the user infinitely more than the cannabis.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin#/media/File:Drug_...

Great chart. Thanks.

Well, independent of whether marijuana is minimally addictive or not, it can certainly be habit-forming (which can be just as significant as a "real" addiction).

But not a lack of psychological addiction.

ha well, as a long-time user i assure you there is addiction, both physical and psychological. if i stop for any length of time i dont sleep as well and i sweat alot more.

Do they realize the joint/spliff they are smoking is filled up with way more tobacco than marijuana ? (or do they smoke fully loaded joint ?)

edit: I don't understand the downvote but to clarify things: in Europe, where I live, I seldom saw fully loaded joint (which would be called the same: joint or blunt).

Yea, except the fact that it does not have the addictive elements of nicotine and those same students do not smoke 20 joints per day. But now you also have edibles and vaporizers too.

Is there any talk about the quality or characteristics of the paper used to fabricate the joint ?

contribution from the paper is de minimis

Some papers incorporate talk into their branding.

"Natural unrefined paper" "100% rice paper" "Natural hemp gum"

TIL a joint can contain tobacco.

In Denmark (and I think most of Europe?) joints usually have tobacco in them, though apparently that's less common in the US.

Yes, in Europe it is very common to mix tobacco with your weed/hashish when rolling joints.

Yuck.

Some people did, but for the most part growing up in southern california it was just all weed, and usually smoked in a bong or pipe or something else made with glass.

Blunts were popular though, so that might negate some of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com