Hacker News Reader

Comment by framebit | Hacker News Reader

A therapist friend recently attended a conference where a big group of doctors and health professionals focused around adolescents presented on the link between pot and the development of psychosis and even schizophrenia in users under age 32 or something like that.

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/

View on HN

As I understand it THC aggravates symptoms in people predisposed to psychosis. CBD is antipsychotic and can have a balancing effect but unfortunately growers have been selectively breeding and optimizing for high THC at the expense of CBD for decades. The result is that cannabis is more "incompatible" with certain people than it used to be.

Which is one of the big problems with cannabis studies.

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...

> The good thing is with legalization moving along we should see a lot more high quality studies that can help us figure this out.

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.

I've also noticed that. People are illogical.

I don't believe that's a fair comparison.

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.

GMOs have been consumed as a primary food source daily by hundreds of millions of people per year with no known health risks, even after extensive study. Cannabis has been used for a while, but it hasn’t received the same level of study and concerns have been raised (e.g., this article). I’ve got to give this one to the GMOs.

> 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.

GMOs are the genetic equivalent to plastic in the ocean. Once it's in the wild it's damn hard to reverse the damage. Weed on the other hand you can just not consume.

GMOs are already produced on a massive scale; any irreversible damage is already done. Further, this is true for any domesticated organism, not GMOs in particular. Besides, the argument I referenced was about health risks, not ecological damage.

I don't care about health risks. Maybe that's why pro GMO and anti GMO folks can't have a discussion?

> I don't care about health risks.

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.

>As I understand it THC aggravates symptoms in people predisposed to psychosis.

This seems to be similar reactions to those who take doses of LSD and other psychedelic drugs.

Just to level to the playing field:

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.

Fun anecdote, my Bipolar disorder didn't manifest itself until immediately after the first time I consumed marijuana, and it is now a lifetime endeavor.

I know a lot of people who tried out marijuana as a medication for depression. (well, illegal / no prescription) It helped in the beginning, but most of them just became addicted, paranoid and incredible slow thinkers and figuratively numb.

Depression is hell, but it's not worth giving up your sanity and intellect.

I'm a big supporter of legalization, because I think prohibition is dramatically worse than any negatives from people smoking pot (similar to alcohol, etc).

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).

> I think prohibition is dramatically worse than any negatives from people smoking pot (similar to alcohol, etc).

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's dramatically worse becouse it imputes innocent people as criminals and puts them in jail.

People who break the law are by definition not "innocent". You might disagree with the laws/penalties, but anyone who knowingly violates the law is categorically not innocent.

Of course, that's the entire point. Without prohibition they are innocent. With prohibition they are criminals. That is why prohibition is dramatically worse. People who are not a threat to society are imputed as criminals, losing their life to jailtime and a permanent criminal record.

The same argument could be made for anything. Not paying your taxes is only illegal because there is a law that says you have to. You can't just define words to have whatever meaning you want. If you agree that they did something illegal then you can't call them innocent without lying.

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.

I'm not "defining words to have whatever meaning". I explicitly agreed with you on the technicality of innocent vs criminal ("Of course"), and brought the conversation back the actual point:

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 talking about the original comment I was responding to. You specifically said that it "imputes innocent people as criminals". This implies that they are innocent which they are not.

I never said that it shouldn't be legalized/decriminalized, I'm just objecting to the usage of "innocent" to describe these people.

Ok, I hear you. But I think my usage is ok. The purpose of prohibition is to apply a criminal status to an otherwise non-criminal. And without that law they are innocent, no? Or how else should we describe the status of said citizens without the existance of prohibition?

Fine - you are correct. These people are not "innocent" in the legal sense, in that they are in blatant violation of the law.

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.

The point is that a person who otherwise works and provides value, but does cannabis is better for the society as a working person rather than someone in prison where people will pay with taxes for his living. If you skip on taxes you are living off of society so this should be illegal ofcourse.

Never disagreed with that. I'm just objecting to the usage of "innocent" in this context.

Ugh! Another case where technically correct is the worst kind of correct. It really adds nothing to the conversation, IMO.

Circular reasoning FTW. You are a totalitarian toady.

Because we've tried that prohibition, and the results are demonstrably worse. I would recommend Radley Balko's numerous articles and his book on how detrimental the "war on drugs" has been to civil liberties in the USA in general, and how many people's lives it ruined.

I am a huge opposer of legalization, because I've seen what pot has done to people I care about. I would point out that solution to the negatives of prohibition is not legalization, but decriminalization. The issue with legalization is that it removes the stigma with trying it, which means we get more users than otherwise.

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.

Maybe we need ways other than the law to stigmatize bad behavior. The law is a blunt instrument.

Churches might serve this purpose, but those are out of fashion now.

Thank God (:p)

I love the idea of minusing "thank God" / being happy that religion is largely passe. . . pure vindictive retaliatory holy grace

You don't need a church to express social disapproval.

There are lots of behaviors that are not illegal and not against religion that we still use social feedback to minimize.

Consider:

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.

Drugs do not just lead you to harm others. In fact, like alcohol, most drug users probably do not harm others. But both cause significant self-harm. And society ends up bearing the burden of helping people who aren't able to help themselves, be it on an individual level or a governmental level.

> society ends up bearing the burden of helping people who aren't able to help themselves, be it on an individual level or a governmental level.

it doesn't have to do this. if people want to kill themselves slowly, they should be allowed to.

The problem is the same people who want to kill themselves slowly want our tax dollars to provide them free medical care whilst they do so. Your comment ignores the real burden that self-harming people create upon those around them, and why we need to get them out of self-harm rather than bearing the burden of it.

It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of drug users never have a problem related to their drug use.

Just like the overwhelming majority of alcohol users never have a problem with their alcohol use.

While I agree with your general sentiment, I’m not convinced I have a comprehensive alternative to the current standard: legal / decriminalisation + harm reduction.

Prohibition seems like the least best alternative. I’m open to being wrong though.

With legalization comes regulation, which is extremely beneficial, so it's better than just decriminalization. Like other commenter posted, the law shouldn't be the stigma-ruler we use to measure things. And I'll further that by saying that education and information is more important than stigma.

Isn’t that an overreaction? Pot allegedly has had an adverse effect on your friends, but anecdotally its only had a positive effect on friends and co-workers.

> I am a huge opposer of legalization, because I've seen what pot has done to people I care about.

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're staking out a pretty extreme position there. Society has already accepted: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, mandatory health insurance, age limits for alcohol and tobacco consumption, food and drug regulations, etc.

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.

> Society has already accepted: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, mandatory health insurance, age limits for alcohol and tobacco consumption, food and drug regulations, etc.

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.

It’s not up to the law to take upon itself the role of arbiter of society’s truer mores.

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.

So you're in favor of alcohol prohibition, too, correct?

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.

There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive or has lasting deleterious effects on intelligence. Your anecdata is not evidence.

> There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive

Yeah that's misleading at best.

This isn't /r/trees, you can't expect to make a claim like that without backing it up.

I made no claim, the parent did.

No evidence? You mean other than the study linked in the NPR article that's at the head of this discussion?

You mean the linked NPR article that agrees it doesn't have lasting effects, but instead effects that clear up as soon as people stop using? (Although with no control group, the described study is essentially worthless)

> It helped in the beginning, but most of them just became addicted, paranoid and incredible slow thinkers and figuratively numb.

Depression itself leads to all of those things. Your anecdote is not data.

Did you have psychosis on that episode ?

Every study done, and likely to ever be done given ethical standards, attempting to link marijuana usage to mental illness shares the same fundamental problem which makes their results meaningless: It cannot account for self-selection. There is no way to know that those who would later be diagnosed with schizophrenia were not self medicating with marijuana, leading to the causation actually being backwards. And in that case there is also no way to know what effect preventing that self medication might have had, and whether it would be positive or negative.

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.

This same argument could be applied to many long-term medical studies: Maybe people with a pre-disposition to heart disease also hate exercising, so the link between heart disease is and lack of exercise is backwards. Yeah, that doesn't work.

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...

> Ignoring the link between mental illness and marijuana use is ridiculous.

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.

Alcohol is a red herring and serves no purpose in this discussion. The public has been made aware of the dangers of alcohol consumption.

> 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]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904437

[1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317170.php

> That's pretty solid, and far from "inconclusive."

It's literally what he said: "inconclusive, needs more study".

I'm not an expert on this though my father is, and from my recollection of our conversations I believe schizophrenia being latent until some trauma 'triggers' it in young adulthood is a quite common pattern, especially in men. Drug use is just one of many events that can induce this, and I don't believe it's in line with current clinical understanding to say that "door" "may have stayed shut otherwise".

A personal anecdote of mine. A friend has schizophrenia. There was a clear point of descent from smoking cannabis. He was 13 at the time - young for schizophrenia. He's now on clozapine, a powerful antipsychotic. Whenever his judgement fails him and he smokes pot, it's weeks to months before he has to spend some time in hospital. Otherwise, he could take other, heavier drugs to excess and not require urgent hospitalisation.

The rule for him was always "cannabis triggers".

You've illustrated the problem in anecdata: Nothing in what you said indicates that cannabis causes his episodes.

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.

Nope. I understand that. I wouldn't say that cannabis causes schizophrenia or even episodes. It's more a story of how my friend and the people that love him came to view cannabis as it relates to his illness. It's an "understanding" if you will held by carers and primary care givers alike. If you suffer from psychosis, they make a point of warning about cannabis.

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.

This exactly. Right now we have correlation. A ton of people in this thread are trying to divine causation.

If anything, legalization will greatly increase the sample size of users that are comfortable with taking part in studies that could confirm the effects of marijuana on cognitive performance.

I personally find that in the times I've used marijuana, there's a very small zone between no effect and feeling like I'm clinging to my sanity. I rarely partake. It reminds me of how people describe ayahuasca as being profound, but not fun.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

You're right, of course. But the same is true of peanuts.

The problem is that the discourse right now is extremely polarized, following the left/right divide in politics. You have people on the right claiming that pot will automatically ruin your life, and (some) people on the left pretending it's completely benign and almost a panacea. I once watched a "documentary" claiming that pot cures cancer! I kid you not.

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 agree with you that it is extremely polarized, but disagree that it follows the left/right divide in politics.

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.

Let us say there are 100 teens in your neighborhood, 65 of them tried eating peanuts and 20 of them liked very much and started eating multiple times a week on a regular basis.

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?

The same?

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"

>The same?

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.

Yes, but a food allergy is something you can feel. You feel sick, you might have to go to the hospital once or twice if you ate something which contained peanuts. It is a much tighter feedback loop. Eat some peanuts -> feel sick -> go to hospital. As far as I am aware this loop is very quick. If you extend this feedback loop to span multiple years, the connection between trigger and result is a lot more blurry, and it leaves more room for rationalization.

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.

> Peanuts are also not (mentally) addictive, and neither do they alter your mental state.

That is exactly why weed and peanuts should be treated differently.

> Peanuts are also not (mentally) addictive, and neither do they alter your mental state

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.

True, they can be mentally addictive as well.

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.

My point in emphasizing is that there are no known physiological addictive components of canabis.

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.

Millions of people are told to stop smoking every day and they don't do it. That's because humans are bad at judging the likelihood of long-term effects, whereas food allergies have immediate and very painful ones.

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.

People harmed by peanuts generally aren't interested in eating peanuts and don't do it except by accident. That's not true for drugs.

Every drug is not heroin or meth. In fact, with the exception of cocaine, the overwhelming majority of recreational drug use (weed, MDMA, LSD, even ketamine) is relatively low risk for addiction.

1 of those 100 peanut eaters would have had to have paramedics immediately, another would have required a benedryl.

>Now, what are the chances of similar 5 teens stop using weed for health/mental problems?

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.

Now, what are the chances of similar 5 teens stop using weed for health/mental problems?

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.

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)

Citation very much needed :)

I knew a guy at university who smoked everyday. And before he took exams or tests, he would do a bong hit to settle his nerves.

He got a 1st in Chemistry.

#anecdatasmackdown

+1 definitely know a few people who somehow (total mystery to me) their brains are on fire when using. Similarly have opposite examples... It just seems to work differently for differently people.

used to be this way, then i got old.

>a guy at university who smoked everyday

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com