A drug more benign than alcohol.
Smoke too much, take a nap.
Smoke too often, cut down and get sharp again.
Drink too much, you get flu symptoms.
Drink too much too often, you get a new liver, or die.
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.
good one, hackernews
It makes for a muddy discussion at best.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.