Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either. Painting it as such reminds me of D.A.R.E.
>A ten-year study was completed by Donald R. Lynam and colleagues in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten-year period, no measurable effects were noted.
>In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Ineffective Primary Prevention Programs".
>In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science.
It was, at best, ineffective. At worst it was harmful.
It painted weed as something that if you took a single toke you'd end up shooting heroin shortly after.
The hyperbole, similar the parent comment insinuating that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life, is ridiculously counter-productive.
If used in ways that doesn't affect someone negatively (and here is where the danger, education, and respect part comes in) it can provide life experiences that you could never, ever have by being sober.
Doesn't mean that a sober experience is subpar, it's just different, and it's ok if you want to live that way but it's not the only and "right" way to live a life.
>Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either.
Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.
I have a bunch of anecdotes where people I knew who regularly smoked weed throughout high school now range from successful to wildly successful.
I know a bunch of people that abstained and yet they work dead end jobs, have developed mental issues, and/or live with parents still.
Hence my conclusion that there might just be some other (more important) factors.
I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed, where others similarly situated were unsuccessful having not smoked it.
No, and I'm not disputing that weed is harmful.
What I took issue with in the parent comment is that it insinuates that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life. I disagree with the weight of the harm they imply.
There is a lot of other factors involved, and a lot more nuance and context to consider.
> Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.
And even with smoking it is possible to exaggerate health risks it poses. Just like you severely exaggerated marihuana risks.