When Adolescents Give Up Pot, Their Cognition Quickly Improves
npr.org
npr.org
I've definitely heard about this colloquially with people reacting very differently to the same strain ("we were all fine but she was just freaking out"), and the new science coming out of places like Colorado seems to be showing a strong correlation in that direction. I guess you could say (colloquially again, since I'm not at all in the medical field) that pot can open a bad door in some people that may have stayed shut otherwise. Is that gene expression? Brain plasticity? Dunno.
I think prohibition does way more harm than good and I'm glad to see legalization coming to the states, but I don't think we can treat pot as totally harmless for people under 30 and teens in particular because it seems like it's very harmful for some.
One paper on the subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2931552/
You're right, of course. But the same is true of peanuts.
The fact is, it's a substance that affects different people differently. It can cause intense anxiety in some people, and it can severely impair your judgement. Responsible use requires that users be properly informed of the risks. We need to be having a more balanced and honest discussion about this, and many other issues.
I have many friends and family on all sides of the spectrum, and there are many conservatives that have opinions like, "it's not for me, but I don't care what you do with your body" (not a typical conservative position IMHO, but becoming more common). I've also been hearing the "I support medical, but not recreational." Even here in Utah, a very conservative state, we are close to legalizing medical cannabis with prop 2.
On the progressive side I've been starting to hear people saying more and more that the evidence is incomplete, and therefore the government needs to consider regulating it much more heavily or wait to legalize until more science is done.
Of course, those are not the stereotypical views, but it's one of the issues that seems to cross left/right divides a lot more than others.
Now 5 of those 20 started developing health/mental problems which are noticeable by parents, teachers & doctors.
What are the chances of the majority of those 5 stop eating peanuts, It is very high.
Now, what are the chances of similar 5 teens stop using weed for health/mental problems?
You can rationalize peanuts beeing unhealthy for you exactly the same way you can rationalize away health issues due to marijuana.
"All other people eating it are fine"
"I've been eating peanuts for 5 years, and look, Im still alive"
It is not the same. Look at the opioid epidemic in teens across USA, talk to health care providers in that area, there is very well recorded evidence "a BIG percentage" of kids who personally noticed "Learning problems and other mental problems" are UNABLE to STOP using weed.
Vs.
There is recorded clinical data evidence throughout USA hospitals. Millions of kids across the country were found having various kinds of food allergies and advised by the doctors to stop eating those foods and the vast majority DID STOP eating them.
The comparision is "If you eat this, you will probably die if you do not get immediate treatment" versus "If you smoke this, in some time in the future you might have mental health issues. Or you might be totally fine"
Peanuts are also not (mentally) addictive, and neither do they alter your mental state.
People like to take chances, and hope that its not gonna be them who get mentally ill.
That is exactly why weed and peanuts should be treated differently.
Yes, they are? Anecdotally, if i put a bowl of peanuts on my desk, I'll eat them without knowing it, and speed up eating them when nervous, thinking, or bored. Any habit a human does enough can be mentally addictive.
Importantly, neither are physiologically addictive.
Your example isnt about addiction though. its that most likely you are kinda hungry, want to do something with your hands while you are thinking, or a nervous tick.
mariam webster defines addiction as follows
> : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal
> broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
personally I would not even require the substance beeing harmfull. So yes, you can imho be addicted to peanuts, but finishing the bowl on your desk is not that.
Presumably, the op knows the same, hence specified mentally addictive, but is confused because they don't think peanuts have the same, but they do. Mentally addictive only means you like the way it makes you feel so you keep doing it, not that your receptors actually need it or stop functioning without it (chemical dependence)
Cannabinoids have similar addiction pathways (dopamine receptors) as sex, sugar, and, for this example, salt.
This has nothing to do with the substance. If weed stopped you from breathing and made your tongue swell, people would drop it right away.
I did. I recognized immediately on the first episode that something was wrong, I had a serious trip at the age of 18 where I was experiencing extremely high paranoia and psychosis to the point where I tried to get to the hospital, made worse by the fact it was illegal at the time so my friends stopped me, increasing the paranoia. It took me another bad experience to realise it was me, not the drug because my friends were fine. I didn't smoke for 20 years and only very carefully started again and now I can, but very very small doses and only when I'm out doing something. I'm a woman and what I went through wasn't so rare for my other friends, women and men. It didn't have any rhyme nor reason who it struck. But most of us stopped eventually, then we went on to our successful lives.
Probably good with actual education that makes sure folks know the actual risks and what sorts of things to look out for. We should do this in a better manner than we do with alcohol now. We should be very careful not to lie to folks lest folks cast aside all that we try to teach.
A few folks won't listen, just like a few folks will eat peanuts nonetheless.
THC is known as the "active" ingredient in cannabis. However we know it's definitely not the only one.
There are 113 identified cannabinoids. Most are believed to have some effect. And there's terpenes that are believed to have effects as well.
So the problem is that ever single bit of cannabis has different ratios of these chemicals. Even two plants with the exact same genetics grown in same conditions can have widely ranging ratios. Which potentially means widely ranging effects.
The good thing is with legalization moving along we should see a lot more high quality studies that can help us figure this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid
https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/terpenes-the-flavor...
http://www.ncsm.nl/english/what-is-medicinal-cannabis/active...
This is tangential, but it seems odd to me that many of the same people who are opposed to GMOs on the grounds that “science may have missed something” are okay with legalizing pot until science clearly demonstrates harm. Note that I’m not directing that at you (I don’t think you said anything like what I’m describing), but your quip made me think of it. I’m only calling this out as an intriguing observation; not trying to pick on anyone.
Firstly, marijuana taken internally has a long tradition of use. GMO's not so much. Admittedly, modern strains of marijuana may pose greater concerns.
Secondly, legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, only tangentially related to the harm they may cause by using them. Take alcohol as an example. The legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, more about a) personal-sovereignty, and b) the harm caused by the war on drugs.
For the record, I'm pro GMO when and where they makes sense, and also pro personal-sovereignty.
> Secondly, legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, only tangentially related to the harm they may cause by using them. Take alcohol as an example. The legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, more about a) personal-sovereignty, and b) the harm caused by the war on drugs.
How does “personal sovereignty” explain supporting prohibitions against GMOs? The opposition to the war on drugs but seems plausible.
Then my observation doesn't apply to you.
> Maybe that's why pro GMO and anti GMO folks can't have a discussion?
Lots of anti GMO folks have cited health concerns.
This seems to be similar reactions to those who take doses of LSD and other psychedelic drugs.
This also seems to be the case for alcohol use.
It stands to reason drug response follows a bell shaped curve, where most people fit in to the pleasant-effects most-of-the-time large area covered by the curve, and fewer people fall outside.
Short of a plausible neurochemical explanation of how it would happen, phenomenological studies like those have to be discarded. They simply don't have the ability to illuminate anything, they can only feed intuitive guesses which is always dangerous in issues of health.
Ignoring the link between mental illness and marijuana use is ridiculous. A medical study doesn't need 100% confidence to be true. If we held all of medical science to that bar, we'd never make progress.
Plus, we have a colloquialism for a person whose mind appears to have suffered damage from excessive marijuana usage: a burnout. It's something that even recreational users observe. And where there's smoke...
Your statement presupposes the conclusion. You need to consider two different questions:
1) Do we have correlation between marijuana usage and mental illness above and beyond the line for something as common as alcohol or cigarettes?
2) Do we have have causation between marijuana and mental illness?
Most studies barely reach an "inconclusive, needs more study" on 1). 2) isn't even in scope yet.
> Plus, we have a colloquialism for a person whose mind appears to have suffered damage from excessive marijuana usage: a burnout.
We also have a word for someone with the same issue on a different drug--alcoholic.
I'm pretty sure we have far more conclusive evidence of the mental damage that alcohol does than the damage that marijuana does.
> The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia fulfills many but not all of the standard criteria for causality, including temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, experimental evidence, consistency, and coherence. At the present time, the evidence indicates that cannabis may be a component cause in the emergence of psychosis, and this warrants serious consideration from the point of view of public health policy. [0]
That's pretty solid, and far from "inconclusive." Animal testing have already confirmed that mice with certain genetic markers will develop schizophrenia if exposed to THC. [1]
It's literally what he said: "inconclusive, needs more study".
Depression is hell, but it's not worth giving up your sanity and intellect.
That said, the two friends of mine that were the heaviest smokers, saw dramatic improvements in their lives in the few years immediately following giving up smoking pot. Both in terms of health and professional success. They were recreational smokers, rather than smoking for pain purposes or similar, it should be noted. One of them has become a very successful business person, the pot smoking had considerably dulled their ambition. They used to do the minimum to further their life. Afterward, their potential was unleashed, it was night and day (and a dramatic benefit to the well-being of their family).
Alcohol has been an integral part of Western civilization for quite a while now. Prohibition on alcohol is in no way comparable to prohibition on pot [in terms of its impact]. Why do you think its prohibition is "dramatically" worse than making this mind altering substance generally available?
[secret handshake disclaimer: I liked Spliff and I don't mean just the band.]
It isn't that hard, don't do illegal drugs if you don't want to be called a criminal. You can work to make them legal, but that doesn't change the fact that they are illegal right now.
Prihibition is dramatically worse because it imputes criminal charges onto people who are otherwise innocent. This is bad because these people are not a threat to society, yet with prohibition they lose their life to jailtime and a permanent criminal record.
I never said they are not illegal right now.
I never said that it shouldn't be legalized/decriminalized, I'm just objecting to the usage of "innocent" to describe these people.
However I would then ask if the legal criteria of judging innocence are useful to society. My claim is that they are not, in that we label people as "guilty" and socially disadvantage them, when they may otherwise be perfectly productive members of society. Their use of cannabis in and of itself causes causes comparatively less harm to others, at least relative to harder drugs like alcohol.
We can maintain the very correct statements that drugs are bad and that all possible care should be made to remove it's availability and discourage it's use, but treat it as a social problem, not a crime. Let's continue to shut down drug dealers, who grow, import, and spread the crud around, but no longer penalize users. Offer them treatment, help them find better means, rather than throwing them in jail.
Churches might serve this purpose, but those are out of fashion now.
There are lots of behaviors that are not illegal and not against religion that we still use social feedback to minimize.
As a child I grew up in a home with a violent alcoholic father.
Should we shutdown licensed alcohol vendors because a few people react badly to alcohol / are irresponsible drinkers?
Obviously not.
The majority of people I've met have not been problem drinkers, nor problem users.
it doesn't have to do this. if people want to kill themselves slowly, they should be allowed to.
Just like the overwhelming majority of alcohol users never have a problem with their alcohol use.
Prohibition seems like the least best alternative. I’m open to being wrong though.
frankly, this argument has no place in a society that considers itself free. it is not for you to tell me what harm i may inflict on my own body, nor to restrict others from helping me do it.
You can argue that our society can't consider itself free, but it's the society we have and the same argument is in play on a number of issues.
not everything on that list is terrible; in fact, it provides a good opportunity to illustrate my point. not wearing a seatbelt makes it likely that you will become a lethal projectile in the event of an accident, so i'm okay with seatbelts being required. as far as food and drugs go, i think people should have access to as much information as possible about the things they are putting in their body, but i don't think they should be prevented from selling raw milk or dangerous drugs. i also think it is fine to prevent children from doing any number of risky things, as they are not mature enough be fully responsible for their actions. my problem is with treating adults like children. unless what you do with your body actually harms others, you should be left to do it in peace. and no, the fact that other people choose to waste resources cleaning up your mistakes does not constitute harming them.
Once you establish a strong connection between what is lawful and what is moral, you open up the ominous gate of any future conflation of moral duty with any reproachable reach of law.
Alcohol is legal, not decriminalized. Alcohol kills and hurts more people than marijuana ever has and ever will. Despite those problems, most sane people do not believe prohibition of alcohol was a good time for humanity.
Yeah that's misleading at best.
Depression itself leads to all of those things. Your anecdote is not data.
For the sake of simplicity, let me put a number here.
High schooler between 9th to 12 grade who smoke weed at least 10 times a week all four years will settle in LIFE below 50% of his potential (compared to how he would have done without weed)
He got a 1st in Chemistry.
#anecdatasmackdown
You did not read my post well. You did not know the guy you said did what I mentioned "10 times a week, for all 4 years 9-12 grade", If he did, he is unlikely to reach university. Even if few kids reach university with parents money, they would not have got 1st in Chemistry.
You may still show me 15 guys who reached university top class ranks after doing 4 year high school heavy weed. In the same high school I can show 85 kids (4 year high school heavy weed users) whose life prospects are diminished by the time they finish the collage .
That is the whole point
The rule for him was always "cannabis triggers".
It is just as likely, given the description, that the sequence that results in an episode includes the prompts that trigger him to medicate with cannabis.
This is why we can't use personal experience to make public policy.
Perhaps the lapse in judgement is a sign of an oncoming episode, with weed unnecessarily blamed. But the experience of so many people and the possibility of a link deserves to be investigated with the rigour of science.
But I can say the same for alcohol and cigarettes and ...
While there are a few diehards, most sane people will not defend "marijuana is harmless"--even for adults. It's a drug; it does something to your mind; that's why you use it.
However, the increasing amount of data suggests that what harm marijuana does is in the same class as things like alcohol and cigarettes--which are legal, but regulated.
School was a tricky time for me. I'm thriving intellectually now, but I was a C- student pretty much 4th-12th grade. I needed those cycles that pot would have robbed me of.
Relaxing is overrated. It deprives you of powers you have developed or will develop, only to make you a more powerless person.
And a powerless person can never and should never relax.
I still of course work extra some times or do productive things in my time off, but yeah unless there's a deadline I'm not gonna worry about some work problem on off hours when I can't even make progress until I get back to my work computer anyways.
Fear/worry/anxiety is the mind killer and often helps nothing.
Relaxing is not overrated at all, it improves your ability to focus, and even makes you more productive. Far from depriving you of any powers or skills.
I get it now. Sort of.
But the problem doesn't go away.
My experience is that there is not a linear relationship between effort invested and output. It's a diminishing returns problem after 8-10 hours per day, so it's not even productive for me to spend all day and night churning on a work problem, even if I wanted to do that.
Be social, happy, energetic, hungry, incapable of succeeding in the education system of the 90s, 00s. (default me)
Be quiet, jittery, never eat, anti-social, depressed at times, but kick ass at school.
Tried a lot of different ADHD medications and generally found success in simply selectively switching that knob when I wanted to be a human or when I wanted to be a learning machine.
I wonder what pot would have done... never really thought about it.
I havent noticed any difference in how fast I recognize changes between me and coworkers. If at all, I seem to miss changes more often, as my mind usually goes "was that allways like that? I guess so", since recall of memories can be pretty flaky
Average seems to be 0.25 seconds, if I remember correctly a online test I did at home put me at 0.28, just sliightly over average
1. Hyperfocus. It has been tremendous for programming or even reading. There's sort of an ADD threshold that I break through after ~30 minutes of self discipline and pain. Then I'm suddenly in the zone, some kind unshakeable state, for hours on end. Most people I know seem to need a break after 30-60 minutes, right when I'm just getting into it.
2. Fun and physical activity. I use extreme difficulty of maintaining attention as an indicator that what I'm doing is just not stimulating or interesting enough. Of course this might not be good when you're with other humans, but I find I'm often able to focus on things better when my body is moving. That means when I take someone out on a date somewhere, it's usually very interesting and unusual.
3. Fast context switching. This may be more of a coping mechanism than a benefit, but often times rather than focusing on a single task, I'll "procrastinate" by switching between multiple important tasks repeatedly or working on things that are peripherally related. As a result, I have a breadth of knowledge that helps me think creatively and still get work done as needed.
4. Creative thinking. I believe (anecdotally, no evidence) that people with ADD are less likely to get stuck in a rut, or get bogged down with repetitive, boring, familiar things, because we simply don't have the attention span for it.
This topic is more complex than simple HN comments are going to cover. There are different types of ADHD and though ADHD is good for software development (because of hyperfocus) it's also correlated with having a lower IQ. So high functioning ADHD people are a rarity and they're often in software or something similar for a multitude of reasons.
What you read here is how smart people with ADHD feel about their condition. It's dangerous to extrapolate to the broader public. You're also going to miss much of the conversation because most people that have tried pot once or twice aren't going to comment on it because they know how it's going to end up in a database somewhere. So you're going to see more pro-pot arguments than "I tried it and it didn't work for me" arguments.
I would argue that hyperfocus vs inattention is a net-loss for my employee
So it's not just the loss of productivity from inattention that's a problem for most jobs, but the lack of consistency in your output.
> Neurotypicals can hyperfocus as well, and personally for me (ADHD-PI) I hyperfocus very few times at work, but more frequently at home.
Yes, neurotypicals can hyperfocus as well, but I've found that ADHD coders are way more likely to hyperfocus. The key is setting up the environment around them. I'm also ADHD-PI if it matters, though my specific situation is more complicated so it went undiagnosed for decades.
> So it's not just the loss of productivity from inattention that's a problem for most jobs, but the lack of consistency in your output.
Agree here too; especially for the unmedicated.
That said, very few neurotypicals hit the performance I see from high functioning ADHD coders (~2000-3000 commits a year and completely ridiculous learning rate with new technology).
Neurotypicals are also less pissed off with minor annoyances than ADHDers and ASDers, so they don't code up solutions to little problems that cost them 5 seconds a day, when in the long run that it is worth it to do so.[0]
But you're right that the bigger the team, the worse they do. Especially if the project is a tarball of uninterestingness and wrought with pointless, unscheduled meetings and other interruptions.
The stimulants generally used allow the brain to get a reward for the current activity, pushing it over the threshold and allowing it to focus on an activity and pay attention to a situation.
On the inverse, simply making the brain slower would yield similar results, IMO. It likely wouldn't fix it overall, you would still suffer from an attention deficit but the overall condition would slow down a bit. That might help a lot.
Cannabis certainly has a calming effect that could lower the hyperactivity component, but it doesn't address the attention deficit part.
The reason the most common treatment are stimulants like Ritalin, is because it "wakes us up" and brings us ADHD people to an alertness level similar to what our peers have by default.
Often low dopamine and noradrenaline levels are to blame. (L-Tyrosine on an empty stomach can help, if you're looking for a natural solution.)
My study strategy in college was to review my notes for about an hour, take a bong hit, and watch a movie. Then I would get a great night sleep.
Otherwise, test anxiety would keep me awake and do more harm than good.
How do you define "boredom"?
According to Oxford Dictionary it means:
"Feeling weary and impatient because one is unoccupied or lacks interest in one's current activity." [1]
As far as my observations go this is particularly not fitting the perception experienced under the influence of weed.
Weed makes you feel - provided one responds positive to it - not weary, not impatient and one finds the present activity overly interesting.
> 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.
In my personal opinion I think that's alright. Not everybody has to be "good" at something. Whatever that even means.
[1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bored
EDIT: I would like to mention that weed only makes me sleepy and helps relax. Also I don't think that one should respond to boredom (how I understand it) with weed - not at all. Drugs are never necessary to grow personally and often detrimental due to overuse.
And that is the point of what they're saying. Being bored can be uncomfortable. One route out of that is to do something more interesting and productive, another is to alter your perception so that you are ok with it.
The stereotype of an absent-minded stoner is one way to look at it, but I often found that it caused my mind to wander and occasionally follow trains of thought that would normally be cut off earlier by "normal" thought processes.
That said, letting your mind wander can spur creativity and cannabis is something that enables this state. At the same time, if all you do is come up with random ideas (some of which might have value to yourself or others), it's only the start of the process. Brainstorming is great but if it never goes past the daydream phase, it may be irrelevant.
Either way, as I got older I stopped reacting positively to cannabis and I find it makes me more anxious than anything these days (yeah, yeah, I tried "that one strain I just had to try"). For whatever reason my brain just doesn't like being in that state anymore. But I'd never tell someone else how to relax or when it's valid to indulge in a bit of daydreaming if it agrees with them.
If people got to choose what they were doing it seems unlikely they would be bored in the first place though...
That's basically what he said. You're doing something that you'd ordinarily find boring, but now you don't feel bored.
Feeling bored is your mind telling you that you should be doing something else.
Okay - so you normally would feel unpleasant. Now you don't because of weed. Of course you can argue weed is unhealthy - totally possible. But regarding the perceived state change. How is that causing harm? Because s/he's not going to become wealthy or "successful"?
The problem is if you do it to excess. When you would rather stay in and get high, than meet up with friends, drop out of school etc. When you are not living up to what you consider successful for yourself. Then you have a problem.
Banal: Overeating/overdrinking/overconsuming, sitting around, reading reddit/HN for hours, playing video games or twitch.
Not banal: Challenging yourself to new activities or hobbies that require skill. Seeing the world, interacting with other people IRL. Learning (new topics, reading, etc). Building things. Getting out of your comfort zone.
Essentially, being passive/not learning/not engaging vs. learning/challenging oneself and trying to be more than you are.
Some of the unhappiest people I know obsess over optimizing every second to be productive
We're not all Elon Musk, working 90 hours a week and always starting up a new start up. Banality will ensure we don't burn out before we're 40.
Also Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Feynman etc. (of course that doesn't prove anything - but it helps keeping things in proportion)
That said I can say that having depression (and a bit of PTSD) is way more of a hell without the weed to take my mind off it. And even if it's just playing a video game for 6 hours (rimworld is my current 2nd drug) that's far more active and engaging than my typical super depressed not leaving my bed state.
I also think bettering yourself and being a success isn't a one-size-fits-all package. I have a friend who smoked so much damn weed it's a wonder they have any brains left. They learned to play league of legends 10+ hours a day sometimes while high as a kite. They're now making multiple times the money streaming on twitch than they ever would've with any job they would be qualified for. They're the happiest they've ever been, met their SO through twitch, and are living the good life all by ignoring the advice being given here.
We really need to look at society and ask why people are looking for a way out instead of a way in, but I guess it's easier to blame weed.
All those things feel AMAZING while high, even if the banal things feel way better than sober. Cannabis doesn't just somehow discriminate to make only unproductive activities feel better.
I personally reached the conclusion to start seriously self-learning coding while stoned out of my mind and would furiously code in my room while stoned out of my mind. Now, about seven years later, I have a good career as a developer and still get stoned silly every night.
I would argue that striving for success is often the best way to actually not reach one's fullest potential.
edit: I'm being rightfully called out. I haven't done heroin and didn't mean to authoritatively say that there is only one realistic outcome. I only meant that painting the picture of drugs completely ruining your entire life isn't accurate, we all know very successful people that regularly do drugs.
I suppose this varies a lot from individual to individual. I had morphine a few months ago for a shoulder reduction, and I felt horrible enough that I almost wish I'd just done it without painkillers at all.
The evasion and mental gymnastics does have some point at least - it isn't the doctor deciding to take the life of a patient because of a judgement and well any student of the 20th century knows how /that/ can end.
But there are lots of drugs that have the possible side effect of death, and plenty of patients who decide that the risk-benefit of taking a drug is warranted even though it might kill them.
So therefore, everything has to be described in terms of "pain management" and "comfort" where the cessation of breathing is just a... potential side effect. If that, combined with the patient's standing orders not to intubate or perform any sort of resuscitative action in the event that they stop breathing, leads to death... well...
The euphemism that is frequently used is "palliative sedation" (or "terminal sedation", although that seems to be used mostly by people of the thou-must-maximally-suffer school of thought).
I'm sure that's not true of every user, but enough of them that I really think heroin(and strong opioids in general) is a different beast.
There are different types of feeling good, and the purely chemical good isn't particularly rewarding. There are the moments in life where you are happy because you are living the life you want to live, and those are way better than just feeling good from drugs. Sometimes life goals and drugs come together, and that gets really interesting. It's reasonably common for people to do MDMA and have a glimpse of their life without anxiety and trauma, or LSD and looking at their own existence objectively.
For me, the best moments in my life are around building connections with people.
Not trying to single out parent, just felt like it should be mentioned.
It's sort of like the fact that nothing tastes better than cheesecake (or insert your favorite dessert here), but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy life or even other food without it.
As far as drugs go though, there is a lot of personal preference involved too. For me, MDMA in unhealthy quantities is still the best that I've ever felt, and I know some other people prefer the meth high, but I don't think that's exactly what you are arguing against :)
I know plenty of people that spent high school and even a not insignificant amount of college in a pot-induced daze that are successful developers, scientists and even one doctor.
The few that didn't were the ones that either got into harder drugs or were already also stealing or hanging out with gangsters also.
The people that just sat around smoking weed though for the most part ended up alright.
I didn't smoke weed through high school but I still did poorly because I didn't really care. I was more concerned with my mom slowly dying of lung cancer at the time. I did enough to pass but was about it. High school was honestly one of the most pointless things i've had to do in my life. It didn't stop me from going to school after and doing useful things with my life though. I also smoked weed constantly throughout university and was consistently among the top in my class. I'd be stoned during midterms and get 100% or more on a couple occasions.
I've never found it slows me down or stops me from thinking. If anything it does the opposite. It lets my mind focus on one thing at a time without getting distracted and makes tasks i'd othwerwise find boring and probably procrastinate on fun and interesting and gives me more incentive to do those things.
You shouldn't be listening to music, you should be creating it. You shouldn't be playing video games, you should be designing them. You shouldn't be just eating food, you should be the one cooking it. You shouldn't be lazing around at the pool, you should be swimming laps.
It's disgustingly puritan. Really it's enough to tell people that you should spend part of your time being productive. How you spend your leisure time really doesn't matter. But I guess quoting south park is typically a prerequisite for constraining the discussion to the point of nothingness.
>If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything.
I understand the audience on this forum will not like this sentiment, but with the empirical evidence we have on hand, video games are a bigger problem for our youth than pot will most likely ever be.
Video gaming is an interesting one, a form of dopamine addiction. Pot isnt about dopamine I think?
I'm sorry what do you think leisure activities are?
It's blatantly obvious some of the comments are speaking out of unbridled ignorance.
But when you finished the joint, you will still have to do something. And after the active part of smoking is done, the "beeing high makes you more likely be okay with beeing bored" still applies.
And I can promise you that I am not ignorant when talking about marijuana, and neither am I opposed to people smoking it for their enjoyment.
I wouldn't consider music an "alternative to boredom" as its foremost characteristic or as a last resort to boredom. It's just a fun activity. Just like smoking marijuana is. It's too much of a mischaracterization of music, or pot, or any other leisure activity.
The effect of smoking pot lasts longer than the action of smoking pot. The effect of listening to music often is limited to the action of listening to music.
Pot affects people over time. So you might smoke a joint then be quite content being in the world doing whatever. If you didn't smoke the joint and did the same whatever things you would feel bored.
You generally don't feel bored and are ok with it on pot, you feel ok doing the same activities you would feel bored doing if you were not high.
I hope that improves the understanding.
Moderation is the thing, and for young people in particular that can be a lot to ask.
All evidence points to it being more destructive.
>Moderation is the thing
That's exactly what I just said.
>and for young people in particular that can be a lot to ask.
It can be. And quite frankly certain forms of media are doing more damage to our youth than marijuana ever could when taken in excessive amounts. Loss of sleep, sedentary lifestyles, in some cases toxic social environments.
This ends up hurting our society on multiple fronts: people not being as productive as they could be because they're encouraged to waste time, an overall less happy society, a less healthy society because of the encouragement of sedentary behavior (and the economic burden that comes with that), a large part of the economy that could be devoted to improving people's lives but is instead wasted on encouraging negative behavior, etc. The problem is that we've grown so accustomed to this situation that we rarely think much about it, or what we can do to change it (whereas marijuana is getting at least some scrutiny, since legalization is new).
> South Park put it quite well: "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".
All high school weed smokers are not equal. There are many occasional smokers. For the sake of simplicity, let me put a number here.
High schooler between 9th to 12 grade who smoke weed at least 10 times a week all four years will settle in LIFE below 50% of his potential (compared to how he would have done without weed)
This isn't true, unfortunately (at least in the US and I suspect much of the world) unless you are getting it legally or know the source. The US does grow quite a bit of illegal marijuana but there is also quite a bit imported by Mexican cartels and I have seen articles about how legalization is having a non-trivial financial impact on cartels, such as:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...
For detailed reporting on cartels in Mexico see Borderland Beat: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/
Yes, you can say this is due to it being illegal and you would be right, but we shouldn't ignore what is actually being funded by US illegal drug consumption.
The problem is confining to a narrow usage pattern. It is just impossible for 99.99% of people over 30 years of their lives. All will make mistakes at one point.
I think the comment i was replying to stated that a little relaxation in the middle of a stressful hour can really help you focus more.
Now, if there is no adverse health issue other than making you a little dumber, shouldn't we also ban a host of other habits that cause just a bit of harm to you? What about eating sweets that may give you a bit of pleasure but are also unhealthy if ingested regularly? What about driving car to cinema when you could watch the movie in safety of your home without causing pollution or risking getting your kids in an accident?
Or maybe, just maybe, the freedom is value in itself and we should allow people to make decisions even if they are not optimal for themselves and for others who may have to chip in to pay for somebody elses mistakes?
And it has: http://i.imgur.com/yPCC3dj.jpg
shouldn't we also ban
Also? Who said anything about banning pot?
Everyone. Like every gov't globally in the past 40 years.
for me personally the effect is this: when i am stoned, i can focus and learn easily. sometimes it feels more easy than when i'm sober. HOWEVER when i am stoned, i have trouble to APPLY what i learnt. when i am sober, it's easy to APPLY what i learnt. so it's very important to me to be sober, so i can finally apply more effectivly all that i learnt.
the key that led me to this is that one day in my early smoking days my brother told me, each year take a month or 2 off it, to show your mind and body you can do without. in these periods i started noticing these changes and differences between states of mind i was in, eventually taking me to the point of realization it was affecting me in a bad way compared to what i wanted out of life.
that being said i have a lot of stoner friends who are also aware of this, but it doesnt bother them and they live happy lives. that's the personal part. if it prevents you from being you or not, and if it stops you from acheiving your goals or not.
i am from the netherlands, it's super easy to get pot fairly ok pot to smoke, maybe for a person like me, too easy.
when i don't smoke even for a few days now after smoking pretty much constantly for around 10 years (5/6 joints a day generally) my cognition shoots up and because i can apply what i have learnt, my life's frustration drops and happiness increases. this is actually what i felt from being stoned when i first started, so that's also something which might be dynamic in nature, and personal to each individual.
last piece of information: i think most people, smoke, drink and smoke pot etc. due to stress, knowingly or unknowingly. because these all reduce the impact of the stress. like instead of getting intense stress, you get less stress spread out over a longer period of time. this might seem nice for some very stressful singular event, but if you do it consistently , it means that you will be lagging behind on dealing with your stress, and these longer less stressful periods start to overlap, causing actually stress levels to be MUCH HIGHER than what you would expect.
be careful, self-reflect, and look critically at your life and how these substances affect your path. it's fun to do drugs or take substances w/e you want to call it. but there is a fine line between use and misuse. if you feel depressed or something like that, seek help from a PERSON and not a SUBSTANCE
I see a lot of pretty silly takes in this thread that weed automatically makes you happy with boredom somehow, and that apparently leads to a bunch of people sitting on couches zoned out who would have otherwise, with that "bored" time, gone out and learned juggling. Sounds like some grandma's opinion from the 40s.
I am on a balanced schedule of stimulants that keep me productive and not-depressed. This doesn't give me the right to tell people to take these drugs because of my personal opinion; research shows the effects of stimulant use, abuse, and misuse, and it's mostly pretty negative.
I'm all for legalizing pot and it's just natural that young people _experiment_ with drugs. That does not mean that constant drug use during adolescence should be perceived as normal or harmless.
Is it?
No problems with 13 year-olds trying heroin?
>If you read studies claiming pot to be safe, and you're not convinced, then don't smoke it.
Pot isn't safe for kids, and there are multitudes of studies that show this. Will it hurt if a kid does something dumb once or twice? No. But habitual use is disastrous, from a brain developmental standpoint, mental health, and the sheer amount of time lost by being 'drunk' and not focusing on things like school. Pot is also addictive, not in the same way that heroin is, but it is addictive.
Keep in mind, the original statement was around what is natural and what is isn't. I'm not conceding that it is natural for kids to smoke pot or do other drugs.
Chronic drug use is no joke, but at least half the people I know used psychedelics in their early 20's.
Most people drink, and most people have used cannabis at least once.
What isn't normal is demonizing all forms of substance use, without properly differentiating it from substance abuse.
Oh yeah? 13 year olds 'experimenting' by doing lines of coke seem normal to you?
On a more serious note, that's quite a biased way of thinking about cocaine use. The plant/substance doesn't have the same stigma in, say, Peru, where a 13-year-old is quite likely to have chewed coca leaves or drunk coca tea on many occasions. The perception you have of cocaine use is very much a product of the community in which you were raised.
I don't think it's natural for kids to smoke marijuana. It is something that SOME kids do, but it is not natural or inevitable, and it is categorically not good for them (from a brain development, mental health, time-waste and addiction standpoint). There is a tendency for people to minimize marijuana risks and get sloppy around pot usage by kids.
Nobody said that smoking marijuana is natural, the argument was that the desire to alter one's mind and to experiment is natural.
If you mean healthy and what I would suggest for a teen, no. If you mean something that happens fairly commonly in the world, yes, that does.
Can weed be a person's gateway to harder drugs? Sure. Is it the gateway drug? I don't think so.
One example is in cholonergic neurons in the pre-frontal cortex. Pre-puberty, they are inhibitory, and post-puberty they are excitatory; it's a fair bit of a change in a very complicated system. Though I can't find that citation right now, there is a good-ish overview of the changes in the pre and post-pubescent neuroanatomy here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5283387/
There is some evidence, in terms of THC, of effects on the growth of mossy climbing fiber neurons and retardation of climbing onset in adolescents. Again, though, I can't find that citation right now. Maybe I need more of the stimulant caffeine? ;)
That doesn't mean we should make it easier for them to experiment.
Additionally, the smoke particulates themselves are really not good for your lungs, and are probably shortening peoples lives.
I believe marijuana has a place in society without a doubt, but people need to approach it with caution and try to avoid using it recreationally too frequently. Like most substances (e.g. sugar), it can become psychologically addictive. Related: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/marijuana-...
Personally, I'm a big fan, actually too big of a fan and trying to cut back on my habit right now.
If parts of reality are better than others this is probably due to internal responses. Every bit of sense-data modifies the internal brain state.
It follows that with sufficient control we can modify the brain, or the sense-data to create an experience akin to the coolest parts of whatever way of life we make.
Your considerations on whether synthetic reality is better, and whether all reality is effectively synthetic will then inform your conclusion on this meaning a modified view can always in theory beat reality.
In practice one will probably just chase a bigger high until the high is so risky that it eventually kills you.
Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has led to a sharp drop across the board in drug usage and an increase in effective rehabilitative outcomes.
I often see this assumption that regulations appear from thin air as a way to keep people down. It seems more possible that they primarily come as a result of witnessing the reality of what happens with no regulations.
It is impossible to put safety rails everywhere (both literally and metaphorically). Some people will try to make selfies on the edge and fall to their death - very tragic - but why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.
I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear - safety rails would sometimes fail. Typical example is the safety belt in cars - people suddenly drove faster. Or with helmets - rugby is less physically harmful than American football due to less protection. The examples refer to the mindset, though - of course I use safety belts but I also don't get too close to the edge of a cliff.
My experience on HN is quite the opposite, but that is besides the point.
==why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.==
This is libertarian ideology in the real-world. Your argument is that your annoyance is as valuable or more valuable than someone else's potential death. In a civilized/democratic society, we have created a governmental system to make these decisions for us and to the betterment of the country at large, not just you. Stop lights are a regulation and annoyance to my car driving, if I stopped heeding them, do you think that makes society better or worse off?
==I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear==
Based on what? Do you have any evidence or just your personal observation/assumption?
It seems like you've lost the forest from the trees here. Specifically on safety belts, they save many more lives than they could ever cost as evidenced by empirical research:
==Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.==
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.h...
Regarding safety belts - I think you didn't get my point. I didn't say they aren't saving lives. I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind.
But there are also other people around and animals and high wind speeds and any number of other factors that impact safety. I bet you still follow stop lights when nobody is coming the other way.
==Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.==
This is an argument for putting rails on cliffs, as children are not barred from cliffs. Seems like you have talked yourself into a pretzel.
==I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind. ==
I get the point, people may drive more recklessly because they feel protected by the seatbelt. I would say that all regulations are a cost-benefit equation. In the case of seatbelts, the benefit of more people living is larger than the cost of lost freedom.
Prohibition has worked wonderfully well for tobacco in many countries, cutting consumption in half and even more.
I don't mind others smoking. I mind wrong advertising, advertising to kids, cigarettbutts, the stink etc.
Somehow, even with Big Tobacco putting tons of money towards promotion and an under-funded health department spreading information, we've arrived at a society where a) nobody can deny that tobacco consumption is harmful (and be seen as sane) and b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).
It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.
Yeah let's not take a few decades this time around? You're basically talking about an entire person's life at some scale.
Better to count lives not decades though
Sure it's not "as harmful" but a shotgun isn't as harmful as a nuclear bomb. Relative harm isn't important here, it's just "ability to cause harm" and understanding the likelihood that could happen. A car can cause harm, but most people drive safely. Nobody smokes a pack a day for 30 years with ill effects. We're not sure exactly what happens is you vape the equivalent level of just nicotine and additives, but we're pretty sure it's not going to be a good thing.
I agree. While we're at it, also elimination of all crime and immorality. Let's start by executing offenders on the spot. Guaranteed to deter drug usage in adolescents. And adultery, too.
Also, we could and should do better than allow people to harm themselves by unhealthy food choices. It logically follows that we need to ban cheeseburgers and sugary drinks!
said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We tackle smoking and alcohol abuse through education (and tax, to a certain extent). Meanwhile prohibition is being selectively enforced in the US to criminalize being non-white. I see zero reason to continue the madness, and economics, social science, and history tend to agree.
Examples? As far as I know in most western countries tobacco "prohibition" is limited to interior common spaces, not in private homes or in the open (say, on the street).
It is actively discouraged (and in that it has been very succesful) through PSAs, medical counseling, warnings on packets, high taxes and the mentioned public bans, but that's not "prohibition".
"Prohibition" is more akin to the alcohol ban in the US in the 1920s, or the current status for drugs in most countries.
In all cases it has been far from successful, the only things that are accomplished is favoring the black market and related criminal activities.
It very much hasn't. The War on Drugs is very much a catastrophic failure, claiming the lives of millions with no tangible improvement to control drug addiction. Meanwhile liberalisation and decriminalization programmes (e.g. Portugal for decriminalization and de facto tolerance without legalisation) have been much more successful. When will you start looking at empirical evidence and realise prohibition simply doesn't work?
Not that it's especially hard to buy pot in Portugal, but still, can't exactly get it at the corner store.
I don't think we'd necessarily get the same plummet with marijuana, because the health story isn't quite as uniformly bad, and I get the sense that pot users don't get as acclimated as cigarette users, who seem to be smoking not to feel good but to avoid withdrawal. (Just on the drug's own terms, tobacco is a really bad deal; the ratio of "high" to harm is just atrocious. If it wasn't so addictive nobody would use it on a regular basis.) But we could probably get some improvement if the messaging got more realistic. And by "improvement" I don't just mean "less", but better; less adolescents smoking some of their most important cognitive years away, more people using THC for correct medicinal uses, and if one chooses to smoke it recreationally, better informed choices.
I'm in favor of legalization, because marijuana prohibition is not as bad as alcohol prohibition was, but it's the same sort of thing even if less of it. I still plan on telling my children quite strongly the best move is not to play.
Should we really need excuses to step out of the office to get some fresh air, collect our thoughts, etc for a few minutes?
I think there is much to be said about cigarettes relieving stress and anxiety...
I once worked at a place where a lot of my colleagues would take smoke breaks and thought it was unfair. I loudly started taking gum breaks where I would go outside and smack peppermint gum for 5-10 minutes before throwing it in the trash and going back inside. Sometimes I would head out at the same time as the smokers so that I got to participate in the chitchat (which was unreasonably valuable from a professional perspective), and I would complain about how it wasn’t socially acceptable to chew gum at your desk like in the eighties when everyone did it. It was softly mocking, but no one objected.
Source: performance enhancing cannabis user
Its like rubbing yourself with poison ivy, just so you can have the relief of itching a scratch
Disagree to some extent. Outlawing of most indoor smoking has decreased usage significantly. Also disagree with reasons for smoking vs not since many do smoke recreationally to feel good as opposed to fear of withdrawal. Sure, most of the addicted are the latter, but the laws are there to target everyone.
Nobody seems to be saying they want unregulated marijuana usage, so it seems comparable. (If nothing else, everyone agrees it should be taxed, and that is already a form of regulation.)
Comparing outlawed, regulated, or unregulated without nuance is unfair. Things can be effectively outlawed, overly regulated, unenforced thereby unregulated, etc. Instead of focusing on the words, we should focus on the effect. To restate my previous claims in terms that hopefully won't be misinterpreted, "Increased regulation/restrictions on smoking has decreased usage significantly."
I'd say the reason it is not comparable is it is adding restrictions instead of removing them. To go from 0 to a set of regulations is one thing, but since that is not the case, the direction matters as much as the result.
Also society doesn't has the right to keep some drugs illegal while keeping others legal.
Stop criminalising someone who chose another drug than you prefer.
Illegal should it be when it harms others.
> There is a reason that under current law using/selling drugs is punished
There was also a law that prohibited alcohol for a time. I am also prohibited under Canadian law from pretending to practice witchcraft. Talking about differences, there is a big difference between legal and legitimate.
Hate to break it to you, but the "war on drugs" was and is really a war on minorities, and a war against alternatives to prescription drugs (among about a half dozen other nefarious reasons).
When I was 12 I would have believed that "drugs are bad and what's why they're illegal" - I'm no longer 12.
Have you ever seen a protestor doing a slightly active protest? No. You hype it.
Srsly make it legal, disallow certain ways of advertising it, done.
You're right. We can do better. I think it shows our hypocrisy. Nobody should get a fine or go to prison for possession of drugs. I think what we should focus on is distribution/sale of controlled substances without a proper label.
I don't do drugs so maybe I am out of touch but this is my opinion. Possession of anything should not be a crime (improper storage of hazardous material is a different story).
If you insist on sending people to prison for smoking pot, you might as well get ready to send me to prison for eating too much candy.
I think you are moving the goal posts here.
For one, I fully support regulation. By regulation, I mean education and truth in advertising. People should absolutely have their assets stripped and sent to prison for life for false advertising and bribing/intimidating researchers to produce bad science or knowingly lying about their products in general.
Additionally, I am not talking about putting people in prison for selling mislabeled candy. I absolutely support legislation that sends people to prison for life for selling candy that is not labeled properly or has a labeling inconsistent with its contents.
I am talking about imprisoning ME for possessing sugar and caffeine-ridden products that I intend to eat or serve to my guests at home. Are you willing to arrest me for eating candy? Are you willing to search me "randomly" on the streets because you think I have candy in my pockets?
Making drugs illegal isn’t helping. Addicts need support services, not punishment.
I don't smoke marijuana, but I'd like to see it legalized, if for no other reason than to shift law enforcement resources to more important things - when people are dying every day from Fentanyl overdoses, busting pot smokers and growers is asinine.
Why do you want to keep adults from making decisions about what to put into their body?
Unfortunately not. If you spend a long time smoking you'll end up permanently slower in the brain.
Also, let's not forget our friend lung cancer.
So anyone who's really concerned about the mental health of cannabis users is obliged to consider the damaging effects of its very criminality.
(There are all kinds of other factors. Like cannabis use being correlated with higher trait openness, which has its own particular correlations with certain personality disorders, et cetera.)
As for lung cancer, that's a straw man, vapes and edibles make that a non-issue.
Isn't that kind of like saying "drunk driving is a straw man, Uber makes it a non issue"?
Of course we know there's less harmful ways to consume these substances. We also know many, many people will not make use of those less harmful ways.
https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-an...
Smoking WHILE on cancer therapy: "A number of small studies of smoked marijuana found that it can be helpful in treating nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy."
Anti-cancer benefits: "More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in lab dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer."
Source: https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects...
Note: The American Cancer Society page on "marijuana and cancer" doesn't mention lung cancer at all.
"permanently slower" based on what evidence? By what measure? Are you speaking from personal experience? (i stopped a few years ago after decades of smoking. Memory as sharp as it's ever been. Creative spark is lower than when i smoked. Will resume when our laws change.)
Seeing how it affected her prompted me to "take a hint" and I've avoided the stuff since. That's not to say I avoid alcohol at all, however, but my family seems to handle the latter much better.
Edit: this is complete anec-data - I don't have any hard-and-fast evidence of long-term impairments like I describe above. Just what I've seen.
I'm sorry, but what? You can't make claims like that without providing evidence to back it up.
I also think we should be doing it honestly and not telling them that their brain is going to immediately leak out of their ears and they're going to start turning tricks on corners to pay for their next hit.
"Hey, pot is going to temporarily make you dumber. Maybe don't use it a lot while you're trying to get through school. Thanks."
Man has this annoying tendency not to believe facts unless they are experienced directly. You can tell teens what you want and they will still do what they want, especially if they know you did the same and ended up alright.
I agree that honesty is the best policy, teenagers can smell hypocrisy from miles. Another good policy is to make experimentation safe, so everyone can make his or her mind up without risking potentially fatal or life-altering contact with the worst elements of society.
I personally think public education should also have a dedicated subject on the topic of addiction, be it to drugs, food, gambling, videogames, and whatnot. An economic system based on profit will inevitably thrive on addiction, often at the expense of public health. Surviving contact with addictive impulses is a life skill that gets more and more essential every day.
Like it or not, reality is nuanced...
>"Hey, pot is going to temporarily make you dumber. Maybe don't use it a lot while you're trying to get through school. Thanks."
You're inviting devil's advocates here though, maybe rephrase it as "pot may make you dumber". Otherwise, I think you may be providing some with a goal, something to prove. I didn't enjoy finding out my health class was dead wrong about marijuana's effects and this was certainly solid motivation to get into it at that time.
Alcohol is responsible for many illnesses. It is NOT 'just another nutrient'.
There is a difference between a few slight trails of alcohol vs. what we drink.
Not a good or very useful argument but in comparison to 'alcohol exists in nature' 'so does weed'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system
Meanwhile we don't know of any specific "alcohol receptors", and it seems to just interfere with other standard processes.
Imagine you eat cherries and accidentally stain your hair. This means that the cherry substance will be detectable in your hair for a long time, but any effects of you eating the cherries will be long gone.
Perhaps reducing the black market and reassuring that the option will be open to them down the line makes the drug less accessible and less immediately desirable.
That's not to say that these aren't things people should be aware of. They should know this and it will help them make the adult choices they want (smoke vs consumables vs other methods).
Just so you know, yes, smoking it causes cancer but it's not on anywhere near the same level as smoking tobacco cigarettes due to how tobacco is treated.
If pot is legalized it should have same packaging as cigarettes that tells clear that smoke causes cancer, and also should tell all the side effects (because I see here on HN how good weed is, especially for creativity but the person is not mentioning all possible downsides)
The packaging would likely exist as it does for all drugs/controlled substances with a lot of warnings about health risks and impaired driving. There is MUCH hand wringing about making sure everyone is WELL aware that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good.
Legalize weed, don't market it towards children, let adults do what they want if they're not harming themselves. Substance abuse problems (which are entirely different from the issues surrounding smoking, which wasn't "cool" but just "the thing that literally everyone does" prior to advertising) are mental health issues more so than access to a substance issue. People become alcoholics because they're genetically inclined towards the it or because they are trying to escape something about their circumstances (or frequently both).
TL;dr- Plenty of people already smoke weed, and nobody advocating legalization is advocating for people to be allowed to drive stoned or let children buy pot.
"Will Kids think it's cool" isn't really a good argument in favor of prohibition. If anything, so far the (small amount) of data seems to show that legalization doesn't really impact things too much in regards to kids smoking in states its been legalized in. The teen usage is about the same, but it's still a super new thing so who knows how that plays out long term.
I admit I did not studied this topics since I am not interested just I am very disgusted on the tabacoo industry advertising and lobby and I would like to not repeat the history. I am not for prohibition, make it legal but don't have that a dozens of people get rich on this and society pays for the consequences.
Everyone I know that smokes daily (a lot of people) is less cognitive than those I know who don't smoke, in every arena except artistic pursuits. And not everyone reacts to weed the same way. I decided to quit when I recognized a lessened ability to solve complex coding questions the day after smoking.
Something about the heightened ability to focus on a single thing, deeply.
As you say - it’s a deeply personal thing. I also never actually smoke anymore. Edibles FTW
"Why is this code breaking?" Not so much...
Carl Sagan touted pot's ability to help him with abstract mathematics, so YMMV.
The difference between abstract thinking and bug fixing is literally left vs. right brain.
> Something about the heightened ability to focus on a single thing, deeply.
I've found it helpful in sussing out tricky bugs that otherwise eluded me, in addition to it helping with the more creative aspects of software development.
Trouble is, all these people just smoke up and watch TV instead of doing anything creative
Some have spoken highly of brainstorming while stoned, fleshing out the details and narrowing their scope and intentions as they sober up, while others say that it helps them concentrate by slowing down their racing thoughts.
And while I've known people who've used it to waste their lives away, that's true of so many things.
But that doesn't mean every thought is going to be valuable, or even good. If treated that way, I think it can be a good tool. I am thankfully not prone to addiction or reliance.
It reminds me of Carl Sagan's thoughts [0] and especially this quote:
> If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I’m high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say ‘Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!’
I find it more fascinating to explore thought while on cannabis and that is what I primarily use it for. Instead of saying "dude you're so high" to a far out thought, I try to explore it as far as it will go. Quite enjoyable.
Bill Hicks had a good bit about splitting your record collection into two groups: records made by people who did drugs and those who didn’t. Then decide which albums you wanted to keep. It doesn’t mean that everyone should do drugs, but it’s a good indicator that either drugs can be used to enhance creativity, or at least that highly creative people don’t seem to lose their edge on drugs.
Are you saying that the most "cognitive" smoker you know is less so than the least cognitive non-smoker?
Can we just ... not? Everyone I know who consumes cannabis on a regular basis is very successful, smart and thoughtful ... now what?
I have very bad ADD, and consuming low doses of 1:1 THC:CBD concentrate helps me focus a bit more.
I wouldn't go getting stoned as shit at work or anything, but, as you said, everyone reacts differently.
There's also another thing to consider when looking at "day after" effects of smoking: for many, THC blocks REM cycles.
Don't smoke late at night. It's not as bad as a hangover, but it's still something to avoid.
The liver can more or less heal itself until it's too late. The brain, not so much.
Also, citation needed for your claim about MRI/brain activity.
* https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...
Sample Citation for the MRI : https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/40/2/...
And if your next point is "yeah but we know nothing about the long lasting effects after your stop", nature has you covered : https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201744
Also, the liver doesn't "heal better" than the brain. If anything, the problem is that Cirrhosis isn't really detected until too late. I would counter that more things cause brain damage than liver damage.
Finally, the last study you point to references two other studies that found OPPOSITE results in its discussion, so trying to say that is the definitive answer is scientifically disingenuous.
Your data doesn't even help your cause dude. It just shows that further research is needed before going out and making "case closed" proclamations.
Not even a mention of a source?
Alcohol abuse destroys your brain as well as your liver. It's a substance that creates an actual physical dependence that can kill during withdrawal (something that even heroin doesn't do!).
It's an extremely toxic substance. Not trying to make any statements about pot here, just noting that you seem to be grossly misunderstanding the effects of prolonged alcohol abuse on the human body.
good one, hackernews
It makes for a muddy discussion at best.
I have heard that it may reduce REM sleep. Consequently, many people who consume regularly then take a break will agree that after stopping they are flooded with more dreams than normal. They may be more intense, realistic, etc. But the effect subsides to normal quickly. Withdrawal is minor to non-existent for such people. Interesting!!
Looking forward to grounbreaking research on "when adolescents give up smoking, their lung capacity quickly improves" and "when adolescents give up alcohol, their liver performance quickly improves".
This is interesting because other non marijuana related studies show that neurogenesis ends after puberty [2].
So, then, could the conclusion not be that the sudden growth of brain cells causes a sudden mismapping of information and memory within the brain causing slight issues with memory recall and retention until the brain is able to cope with and understand the neurogenesis?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/ [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/07/5913056...
My brother began smoking weed in high school, he smoked so much I'd call it an addiction, eventually he developed what the doctors called substance induced psychosis, he saw and heard things no one else saw. He became really paranoid, it was scary to watch and I promised to myself I would never smoke weed.
He's fully recovered and as mentioned before I broke my promise to myself, we should do everything we can to keep weed out of kids hands until they are of legal age to buy it.
I'd also like to see the federal government allow for the FDA to research marijuana and it's byproducts, the fact that states are legalizing it without robust research from the FDA is backwards.
I had panic attacks start out of no where when I was around the same age (~21). There was no obvious moment where/why it started but it would keep happening every once in a while.
I first used medication (lorazepam, cipralex) but eventually learned mental tactics to deal with it and now I never have them. Although antidepressants did help a lot early on, they killed my sex drive which wasnt a good trade off.
I had a similar experience. Eventually learned to control my anxiety and now am I able to come down from the onset of a panic attack before it happens. Weed is no longer an issue for me now that I’m not afraid.
Anxiety is a much different issue than psychosis. The psychosis issue is very real but only affects a very small number of people who are predisposed, and even then likely only when they’re young and unlucky.
Edit: I should add, many substances disrupt NREM sleep in addition to cannabis, such as alcohol, caffeine, and sleep aids.
We can't expect our youth to make a well informed decision when they are told:
1. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug
2. Marijuana isn't as harmful as alcohol
3. People < 26 years old, who's brains are still developing, should limit their marijuana use.
http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB-13-283_...
P.S. Pot use under age 21 is not legal in Colorado.
Obviously this effect isn't going to complement one's academic life, especially in the early stages where it's mostly rote memorization and testing.
Title might as well be:
When Adolescents Give Up Pizza, their health quickly improves.
When Adolescents Give Up bad habits, their behavior quickly improves.
When Adolescents Give Up Facebook, their social circle quickly improves.
edit: emphasized the double negative to prevent further confusion. It could have been phrased better.
That is a ridiculous overgeneralization.
This article supports the opposite.
While it is never good for kids to do drugs (including alcohol, smoking/nicotine or too much caffeine), the article takes the reverse point that you are taking here, cognition quickly improves after which is obvious as it would with alcohol, eating less fast food, doing more homework/study etc.
Also, that is a broad generalization to say kids never recover... kids were doing more marijuana in the counter culture of the 60s, did those kids never recover who are now adults? You would be hearing about that if so.
What needs to happen to protect kids is full decriminalization and legalization because the legal/regulated market handles harm reduction better than the black market, and does a better job of keeping drugs (including alcohol) away from kids. Alcohol for instance would be more dangerous if it was still black market for both kids and adults.
Marijuana is a rare drug in that for users tolerance completely resets as the CB receptors are blocked during heavy usage.
> If you continue to consume THC, it will have less of an effect on brain functioning because there are fewer receptors for it to act on
Those receptors repair themselves after tolerance reset.
> Compared to other recreational drugs, cannabis is unique in the speed at which the brain “recovers” following a period of abstinence. Recovery is notably difficult to measure, but we can look at changes in behavior, brain function, and brain chemical receptor levels as a proxy.
> A study of daily cannabis users reported that users had reduced CB1 receptors compared to non-users, which increased to around-normal after just two weeks of abstinence. Importantly, this study didn’t assess whether CB1 receptors remained desensitized. However, additional studies demonstrated that withdrawal is more intense when there are fewer available CB1 receptors for THC to bind, suggesting that tolerance is indeed the internalization of CB1 receptors.
> Since internalization of CB1 receptors is the predominant consequence of excessive THC consumption, it helps explain why there’s faster brain recovery with cannabis abstinence than many other drugs of abuse. At worst, CB1 receptors become internalized and broken down, in which case they must be reproduced and sent back up to the cell’s surface to recover normal brain function (it should be noted that there can be additional repercussions with substantial use on other brain chemical systems).
Alcohol and fast food cause permanent damage to liver and circulation as well as contribute to obesity.
Additionally, cannabis may also help against fatty liver diseases [2] and fatty alcohol liver diseases [3].
[1] https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/thc-tolerance-heres...
> There are plenty of things that kids do NOT recover from and we now know that moderate marijuana use is NOT one of them.
i.e. Kids don't recover from everything (as OP stated) but we now know they can recover from moderate marijuana use. The original comment was trying to dismiss this work as trivial, I was trying to prove otherwise.
Also, no one made any claim that kid's don't recover from anything. You're arguing with yourself. I'm simply trying to state that having proof that kids can recover (like this paper provides) is necessary. I'm specifically arguing that we shouldn't make overgeneralizations and assumptions without supporting evidence.
I agree though it is nice to have proof, part of the campaign against cannabis and safer decriminalized markets / regulated markets is about harm to kids, which would be better served in a legal / regulated market where more harm reduction is employed.
edit: it's clear my comment was confusing b/c there's a double negative. Reread it with emphasis on the NOT's.
What's left? Hunger? Poverty? Love? Addiction? Depression? It's debatable whether the child really did recover or just get stronger in a different way.
For example, if someone where to study high, then get high before taking their test they might perform equally to the sober group or possibly even have improved performance. I know there have been many times when cannabis actually improved my cognition like this in certain circumstances.
Anyone who uses cannabis regularly will experience this, so of course if you stop using it completely the testing metrics they use to measure cognition will improve as the sober group becomes more sober their ability to remember what they've learned while sober will improve since they're no longer oscillating between different memory states. What would be really interesting is to take a control group who continues to use cannabis and see how they compare to the kids who you make stop using it. If their cognition remains stable and on par with the sober group with continued use then does this study really mean what they think it means?
This study is also limited to THC, which means they're only studying 1 cannabinoid and not the whole plant and how it works with CBD and other cannabinoids. From experience I can tell you that CBD counters many of the negative side effects of THC, as it functions as a neuro-protectant and anti-inflammatory. Had they tested against a variety of cannabinoids and measured which cannabinoids had what effects and then studied the using groups vs. the sober group and how they performed then you could come to a more conclusive argument.
Is hashish commonly available in the US? I get the impression all discussions are about weed/pot.
In other words : not made from indoor/artificial light/heavy strain. Weed sold here in NL is incredibly strong. Too strong.
Outdoors / hands off is much smoother.
I don't know too much about it. I've only smoked hashish once and it was offered to me.
DUH
What a wondrous universe!
... or maybe it was a coordinated effort.
Is this to head off any other countries from thinking about legalization ?
It’s the scientific discovery of the century!
While enzyms in the human body are totally able to cope with alcohol and (which I absolutely do not favor either, for the record), the human body has to "wash out" the remains of pot in the synapses of the brain (which is why there is ZERO alcohol in the blood after a few hours but even after months, smoking pot can sometimes be detected in urine).
I personally have a big problem with really punishing people for smoking pot, I see no sense in it. Yet I see no sign why there should be more people smoking it.
Recently a friend came up to me and told me how great cannabis could be for certain health issues. I just replied: 95% of what you tell me could also be accomplished by good old ginger, no need for weed.
Also: the regular pot smokers in my class in school are NOT successful people nowadays (if people smoke once or twice a year, of course, there seem to be no big issues concerning their success in life).
What does "washing out" mean and why is it bad if remains of pot can be detected in urine months later? What does the fact that the human body is able to "cope" with alcohol quickly have to do with the relative danger of the substances? I seem to recall that the human body is able to process cyanide pretty quickly to get rid of it for instance, I don't think that's enough to say that it's less dangerous than pot.
I definitely don't think we should push people to smoke more (I'm not a smoker myself, pot or otherwise) and we should definitely fight teenage smoking but your pseudo-scientific babble and anecdotal evidence resembles way too much the type of "argument" I see from anti-vaxxers and similar unscientific movements for me to take it seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase This is how the body copes with alcohol.
It is a pity that concerning THC, English Wikipedia is very thin. Concerning potential risks, you might use Google Translate for this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol#Wirkungen Please review the English references 29, 30, 31 for a further discussion of the correlation of psychosis and THC.
Have been dealing with that result on a young relative. Whether it's correlation or causation, it seems bizarre to me that modern-day 500mg 72% THC vape could be considered a safe thing by default - particularly when so many studies are 10 or 15 years old.
I could imagine some adults regulating themselves. But teens and young adults?
Please do not spread your non-scientific opinions as if they were factual.