If you're taking cannabis for work, be sure to take Sativas.
Terpenes are gaining popularity, but I'm not 100% since some report it being toxic at higher levels. A terpene that I purchased (but am scared to use) are from SpaceBear Co.
We are all essentially bags of chemicals. If someone hacks their diet to optimize nutritional chemical input, are they a chemically altered monster? Where's the line?
Even playing sports together, sharing in a rush of dopamine to bond, could be considered here.
If you ever get stoned, you are in for a surprise.
I actually did this, and it's amazing to actually notice the strong effect it has.
It alters your mood SO MUCH you'd be amazed. But since you have a daily dose, you can't really tell. Much like you will never know what a weed-adict behaves like when he hasn't consumed in days.
It didn't affect me anything like a spliff, you're massively over-exaggerating the effect. Also caffeine you build a tolerance to, so that's not something you're normally experience when drinking a coffee.
It was stronger than a drag from a cannabis joint. But I have never been a nicotine user.
A few spliffs is more comparable to drinking a bottle of wine, rather than a couple of coffees or a few fags. But different. A single drag is more like have a gulp of wine. Won't get you drunk, might get a little fuzzy feeling depending on your tolerance.
I can bet you the op isn't talking about having a single puff.
I'd say the false equivalency is thinking substance use always = substance abuse.
Many forums have a rule: "do not diagnose[0] fellow forum members." You're not directly diagnosing kdelano, but if a malady (crutch-needing) needs a drug (THC), you're implicitly saying kdelano has a malady. It's then too easy to insult the person ("some chemically-altered monster").
[0] medical diagnosis, psychoanalysis, etc.
Which is exactly what it is. A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.
Taking your stand of "but everything is chemically altering" is being intellectually dishonest in this argument and serves no real purpose beyond derailing conversation BACK to defining the constraints to which we're using to discuss the actual implications of actual, out of the normal baseline, mind altering substances.
You're not contributing anything with the ridiculous position you take by doing so, and make yourself and the rest of the "recreational user" group look bad by such poor arguments.
>A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.
This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.
>group look bad by such poor arguments.
Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.
You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.
Considering that the original claim had no depth to it what so ever other than attempting to grandstand, it is odd you feel to have two completely different standards here. You have to point out why it isn't a sufficient rebuttal other than saying it doesn't. Time for some intellectual honesty. Or you can just blanket label people that consume certain things as having a "crutch" with absolutely no basis for such a claim.
> when all it's proven is otherwise.
Where's the evidence for this?