Drugs vs Alcohol: What's Better for You?

[Pupil]

That only makes sense if marijuana sales account for a large majority of the profits drug dealers make. When you're talking about organized crime, they aren't just selling marijuana. They'd still be in business if marijuana were made legal unless marijuana doesn't account for all their profits. Organized crime didn't just disappear because alcohol became legal again.

Even if marijuana accounts for only 1% of the cartel business profits, it's too much and we can end it (and I'm sure Cannabis accounts for much more of the profits). We shouldn't be fueling their business with ignorant laws. How much safer would the trade of this product be if it were regulated instead of left to the whim of massive cartels?

 

[Pengwuino]

I hadn't heard of that, but it's good info:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

The article states nothing of the claim being made. Nowhere does it say "All drug related problems have plummeted". It says HIV infections due to used needles and fatal overdoses dropped, hardly "all drug related problems".

 

[Monocles]

Yeah it had been awhile since I read anything about it, my mind must have exaggerated the details :)

 

[moe darklight]

Does marijuana not slow reactions then? People I know who smoked it said it makes them feel like everything is going really fast.

There is a difference between a casual smoker and a heavy user (a heavy pot smoker smokes more than once a day. my stoner friends [and I used to be one] smoke pot many times a day-- pretty much as soon as the high from the last time they smoked wore off).

After you do this for a while, the whole "whoa man" effect wears off. You're still high-- you don't build resistance in the same way as other drugs like heroin, which essentially stop working, so the user must keep increasing his dosage-- but you don't "act" high, because your brain has become accustomed to being in that state. You become so used to the way your brain processes information while high, how your body responds, etc. that being high is now when you feel normal; and when you're not high you feel... sluggish? I don't know what word to use. Less than normal.

The irony here being that real stoners don't act like stoners. Some of you might have stoner coworkers and not even know it. One of my high school teachers (shop teacher. yes, his job was to operate heavy machinery) was a stoner, and only some of us knew it. I've known my friends since high school, and I still can't tell for the life of me when they're high and when they're sober.

This is not to say that there aren't side effects to such heavy usage: short term memory problems, depression, feeling unmotivated. But I don't think there's any question over which is more detrimental to the health of a heavy user. Talk to a heavy pot smoker who's been smoking it every day for 10 years, then talk to someone who's been drinking every day for just one year, and you tell me.

 

[Kronos5253]

After you do this for a while, the whole "whoa man" effect wears off. You're still high-- you don't build resistance in the same way as other drugs like heroin, which essentially stop working, so the user must keep increasing his dosage-- but you don't "act" high, because your brain has become accustomed to being in that state. You become so used to the way your brain processes information while high, how your body responds, etc. that being high is now when you feel normal; and when you're not high you feel... sluggish? I don't know what word to use. Less than normal.

Correct! You're one of the very few people I've come across who actually knows that. It's called a reverse tolerance.

The reason for this is that the human body has natural delta-9 tetrahydrocannibanol (THC, the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana that gets you "high") receptors in the brain (that's right, you're BORN with them). We also only have a set number of these, which is why it's impossible to overdose. Anything over what those receptors can absorb goes into the fat cells in your body.

 

[Moonbear]

After you do this for a while, the whole "whoa man" effect wears off. You're still high-- you don't build resistance in the same way as other drugs like heroin, which essentially stop working, so the user must keep increasing his dosage-- but you don't "act" high, because your brain has become accustomed to being in that state. You become so used to the way your brain processes information while high, how your body responds, etc. that being high is now when you feel normal; and when you're not high you feel... sluggish? I don't know what word to use. Less than normal.

The irony here being that real stoners don't act like stoners. Some of you might have stoner coworkers and not even know it.

The flaw here seems to be your experience with those addicted to other drugs. What you've described is similar to the "functional" alcoholic, or other addicts who are still managing to hide their addiction. What you describe is, in fact, the definition of addiction. The user no longer gets the pleasurable effect from the same amount of "drug" and instead, experience more negative effects when they are not taking it...they take more to counteract the negative effects just to feel "normal", and need more to feel the positive effects.

Now, one of the arguments FOR marijuana use are the medicinal effects of THC, the active compound in marijuana. I would argue that it should be as legal as morphine, which is to say that it is legal but highly regulated by prescription, and only in purified form, not cigarette form.

Frankly, if someone is dying of cancer, I don't care if they want to live out their final days stoned and oblivious to what's happening around them, be it on marijuana or morphine. But, I do not want them putting others at risk of developing cancer or being exposed to the drug just by walking into a room filled with smoke. The glaucoma arguments are far less convincing. There are perfectly good medications available to treat glaucoma without the mind-altering side effects of marijuana.

 

[Moonbear]

Correct! You're one of the very few people I've come across who actually knows that. It's called a reverse tolerance.

The reason for this is that the human body has natural delta-9 tetrahydrocannibanol (THC, the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana that gets you "high") receptors in the brain (that's right, you're BORN with them). We also only have a set number of these, which is why it's impossible to overdose. Anything over what those receptors can absorb goes into the fat cells in your body.

NONSENSE! There is no such thing as reverse tolerance. What was described IS tolerance. You're born with receptors for the other narcotics too...mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors. If you didn't have receptors for them, you would have no effects at all of any of them. Your post only demonstrates the level of ignorance of the general public regarding the physiological interactions of drugs in the brain.

 

[cristo]

Look at Portugal - they legalized possession of all drugs in the early 2000s and all of their drug related problems have plummeted since then.

Let's remember the PF rules, shall we (and this goes for all; not just this post): any and all claims must be backed up by a reputable source. Any statement not backed up with such a reference will be presumed to be speculation, and treated as such. Just because Evo's busy doesn't mean you can get away with murder in GD! (*Stamps down foot*).

 

[Kronos5253]

NONSENSE! There is no such thing as reverse tolerance. What was described IS tolerance. You're born with receptors for the other narcotics too...mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors. If you didn't have receptors for them, you would have no effects at all of any of them. Your post only demonstrates the level of ignorance of the general public regarding the physiological interactions of drugs in the brain.

Prove it. :)

I don't take people's claims without supported evidence. If you can prove me wrong with legitimate cites and examples, I'll accept that. But until then everything you just said is only opinion. I've learned to not feed into peoples "claims", I listen to supported evidence, which is why I do my own research, and LOTS of it, from trustworthy sources. Not just any site I find on the internet.

P.S. - If there's no such thing as reverse tolerance, why do I have a college psychology book that states the opposite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_tolerance

cited sources at bottom

 

[binzing]

No - at least I've never heard of anyone ever smoking pot without the intention of getting high. AFAIK, there is no other reason to do it.

To medicate, for pain relief, help in relaxation and removal of anxiety, increase of appetite (to help with cachexia, anorexia, etc). There are many uses for it other then just getting "high".

 

[moe darklight]

1) The flaw here seems to be your experience with those addicted to other drugs. What you've described is similar to the "functional" alcoholic, or other addicts who are still managing to hide their addiction.

2) What you describe is, in fact, the definition of addiction.

3) The user no longer gets the pleasurable effect from the same amount of "drug" and instead, experience more negative effects when they are not taking it...they take more to counteract the negative effects just to feel "normal", and need more to feel the positive effects.

4) Your post only demonstrates the level of ignorance of the general public regarding the physiological interactions of drugs in the brain.

1) No: The alcoholic or cocaine addict eventually deteriorates and there comes a point when it is no longer possible for him to be functional and "hide" his addiction. As I've pointed out, someone who has been drinking every day for even just one year already starts exhibiting erratic behavior. Stoners remain "functional" throughout their lives. There are side effects such as depression and short term memory problems, but they never become erratic and irrational like other addicts.

2) No argument there. Potheads are addicts.

3) This is wrong. The stoner still gets the pleasurable effect; what goes away is the novelty, the giggling, the stumbling, etc.. After a certain point he reaches a plateau and there is no upping the dosage like with other drugs, there is no spiral downwards and viscous cycle or chasing that feeling the drug no longer provides like there is with heroin. There are no withdrawal symptoms at the level you see with other drugs. I felt stronger functional withdrawals when I stopped drinking coffee than I did when I quit pot: trouble concentrating, headache, etc. This doesn't happen with pot.

4) The public is highly misinformed about a lot of things. This is why the key is education, not scare tactics. If kids aren't objectively educated on drugs, both positive and negative, they will make their decisions on such faulty assumptions. The truth is that drugs are not as bad for you as the anti-drug people think, and not as good for you as pro-drug people think.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument as to why they should be illegal, and why informed people who enjoy them responsibly should go to jail for doing so.

 

[binzing]

He was just a big bouncing baby boy - our dearly departed Dr. Who.

I for one, love the picture. Having lost two dogs this year, I feel your pain.

 

[binzing]

I have plenty more to say on this subject, but I value my PF membership too much...

 

[Pupil]

Frankly, if someone is dying of cancer, I don't care if they want to live out their final days stoned and oblivious to what's happening around them, be it on marijuana or morphine. But, I do not want them putting others at risk of developing cancer or being exposed to the drug just by walking into a room filled with smoke. The glaucoma arguments are far less convincing. There are perfectly good medications available to treat glaucoma without the mind-altering side effects of marijuana.

This is at best an argument that the patient should use a vaporizer or consume marijuana orally.

 

[binzing]

This is at best an argument that the patient should use a vaporizer or consume marijuana orally.

Exactly, many people don't know of, or worse, refuse to recognize, the other methods of use of marijuana.

 

[Kronos5253]

This is at best an argument that the patient should use a vaporizer or consume marijuana orally.

Agreed.

Smoking it is the most popular form, but it's also the least effective in terms of the psycho-active properties and benefits of the drug. Digesting it is the most effective by far, in which case she should have no problems with it in that case.

Bet that cuts down on the whole cancer part of it too eh? lol

 

[JaredJames]

Prove it. :)

I don't take people's claims without supported evidence. If you can prove me wrong with legitimate cites and examples, I'll accept that. But until then everything you just said is only opinion. I've learned to not feed into peoples "claims", I listen to supported evidence, which is why I do my own research, and LOTS of it, from trustworthy sources. Not just any site I find on the internet.

P.S. - If there's no such thing as reverse tolerance, why do I have a college psychology book that states the opposite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_tolerance

cited sources at bottom

Just a quick one here, it is not up to someone to prove something doesn't exist, you must prove it does (I don't like wikipedia so it means nothing to me although I will look at the sources at the bottom you claim). It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something doesn't exist.

 

[moe darklight]

I think what he misunderstood is that just because there are receptors in the brain that respond to THC, it doesn't mean that that's what they're for.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I've just read about the reverse toleration. It does sound very much like another word for addiction. Where a person takes the drug to feel normal, or they feel worse without it. I think that saying 'I'm reverse tolerant to [whatever]' is just a polite way of saying I'm addicted or reliant on.

This link here: http://www.steadyhealth.com/encyclopedia/Reverse_tolerance
Shows four facts, one being Reverse Tolerance is a late stage of alcoholism.

Everything else I've read on reverse tolerance says quite simply, it is when your body is SO DAMAGED by a substance you get more effect from a small dose. So the substance clearly damages the body?
http://hamsnetwork.org/reverse/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1) No: The alcoholic or cocaine addict eventually deteriorates and there comes a point when it is no longer possible for him to be functional and "hide" his addiction. As I've pointed out, someone who has been drinking every day for even just one year already starts exhibiting erratic behavior. Stoners remain "functional" throughout their lives. There are side effects such as depression and short term memory problems, but they never become erratic and irrational like other addicts.

...

3) This is wrong. The stoner still gets the pleasurable effect; what goes away is the novelty, the giggling, the stumbling, etc.. After a certain point he reaches a plateau and there is no upping the dosage like with other drugs, there is no spiral downwards and viscous cycle or chasing that feeling the drug no longer provides like there is with heroin. There are no withdrawal symptoms at the level you see with other drugs. I felt stronger functional withdrawals when I stopped drinking coffee than I did when I quit pot: trouble concentrating, headache, etc. This doesn't happen with pot.

...

I've known several stoners, some tweekers, and have gone through alcohol education where I have met people who did other drugs.
In my experience the alcoholic is the one most likely to stay under the radar. I personally am a fairly heavy drinker and most alcoholics would consider me to be one. One of my old bar tenders used to say she worried about me because she could never tell how intoxicated I was and whether or not she should cut me off. Most of the alcoholics I have met have also been able to function normally even while legally over the limit. One of the guys in my AE class said he used to both drink and do coke, he apparently didn't even like the coke he just did it to be able to drink more. He apparently used to go into work both drunk and spun and apparently no one ever really noticed. If you talk to many alcoholics and their families you will find that they had a really hard time primarily because they were so damn good at hiding their problem.

Stoners are a different story. I've known a few stoners that you would never have known smoked primarily because they only did so occasionally and in private. By my standard they weren't really stoners. I have known green panthers, hippies, beatniks, and just plain hardcore stoners. They smoked all the time everyday. Someone in the thread said that they had a hard time telling the difference between their stoner friends stoned or sober and the biggest reason I can think of for that is that they always act like stoners. Every person I knew who was a stoner I could tell nearly at a glance if they were stoned no matter how much of a tolerance they had acheived. They generally acted very much the same either way but it was worse when they were stoned. They were also very definitely impaired. They may have been able to do most things that they did normally without much trouble but their critical thinking skills, their ability to pay attention, and their ability to react appropriately in unexpected circumstances were incredibly deminished. This often seemed to carry over into their time while sober as well depending on how much and how often they had been smoking.

The only guy I knew who reacted differently had ADD or ADHD and the primary effect of smoking marijuana was that he was able to slow down and think more clearly.

 

[Civilized]

The flaw here seems to be your experience with those addicted to other drugs. What you've described is similar to the "functional" alcoholic, or other addicts who are still managing to hide their addiction.

If you read the article by Dr Andrew Weil in my post above, you'll see the difference between a chronic cannabis user and an alcoholic is that the alcoholic can only compensate their motor skills etc up to a limit that is below their sober ability, while chronic users of cannabis are able to compensate 100% as far as objective lab tests are concerned, according to Dr Weil's article above.

What you describe is, in fact, the definition of addiction. The user no longer gets the pleasurable effect from the same amount of "drug"

No, that's not what Moe said. He specifically said:

After you do this for a while, the whole "whoa man" effect wears off. You're still high-- you don't build resistance in the same way as other drugs like heroin, which essentially stop working, so the user must keep increasing his dosage

and instead, experience more negative effects when they are not taking it...they take more to counteract the negative effects just to feel "normal", and need more to feel the positive effects.

Ok, but this effect is arguably much more pronounced in the chemical dependence saga of caffeine, alcohol, and processed foods.

But, I do not want them putting others at risk of developing cancer or being exposed to the drug just by walking into a room filled with smoke.

Do you know of any studies that have been done to show that second hand mj smoke can cause cancer? Although it may seem "logical" to you, remember that mj is a particularly effective expectorant (this is one of the oldest medical uses, along with treating pain and loss of appetite) and there're arguments that THC itself inhibits the development of lung cancer:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4946.html"

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread. The compound "seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells," explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

Also the eating and vaporizing the cannabis can reduce the carcinogens, and the reason these methods are not as common as smoking are arguably due to the artificial rarity of cannabis i.e. smoking drugs is often the most potent way to ingest small amounts.

The glaucoma arguments are far less convincing. There are perfectly good medications available to treat glaucoma without the mind-altering side effects of marijuana.

But if some people find all the side effects of mj to be positive, and they are more functional than an alcoholic who has even 1 drink / night (according to Dr Weil in the article above), then clearly mj is the ideal medicine for whatever ails them, from glaucoma, to over-active brain and epilepsy, chronic pain and loss of appetite, depression, boredom, lack of creativity, certain types of sexual dysfunction, too much ambition for the life that is accessible to them (seriously, this is a big driver of cannabis use in the developing world, put in a positive way cannabis can make a person more comfortable with the life that they have been dealt), and anything other reason they want to use it, as long as their doctor has talked with them and granted them a license.

 

[Kronos5253]

Just a quick one here, it is not up to someone to prove something doesn't exist, you must prove it does (I don't like wikipedia so it means nothing to me although I will look at the sources at the bottom you claim). It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something doesn't exist.

I'm doing no more than asking her to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims, because as it stands right now they are nothing more than opinions.

If I told you the big bang wasn't true, you would expect me to produce sufficient legitimate information that appropriately supports my claim to prove that what I'm saying is correct. That is nothing more than what I'm asking of her.

 

[moe darklight]

...

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people. Some of my friends are into the whole hippy thing so they act a certain way.

And anyone who smokes pot less than once a day will still act goofy when they are high. The kind of heavy pot smoker that I'm talking about smokes pot more than once a day.

The people I know don't act goofy stoned or sober (and there are a lot of them: my high school, even by Hamilton standards, is considered a stoner high school. We would smoke pot [or worse] during breaks outside in open daylight). And anyone who smokes more than once a day and acts like that is essentially acting, or it's a pot-culture thing.

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcoholics learn to hide their addiction. (And I do know alcoholics and addicts of all sorts; heck, my best friend just went to rehab last summer.) But the damage that is done once the drug catches up with them is much more significant than that of pot. You can see it happening, right before your eyes as an alcohol or coke addict slowly loses grip with who they are, they start acting erratically, they have fits of anger or depression, until there is a point when they just fall apart. This just doesn't happen with pot. Stoners plateau at their level of consumption and addiction and don't get any worse. Maybe they won't win the next award for exemplary achievement, but they don't become a complete wreck.

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life, whereas an alcoholic or coke addict's problem eventually catches up and it all comes crumbling down.

Of course, there are varying levels of alcoholism, and some are able to remain relatively functional for a longer time. We could start classifying, but for the sake of argument I'm using the extremes of both cases, the people who drink / smoke pot every day at least once, to showcase the difference between one and the other.

 

[russ_watters]

To medicate, for pain relief, help in relaxation and removal of anxiety, increase of appetite (to help with cachexia, anorexia, etc). There are many uses for it other then just getting "high".

All of those involve getting high.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life...

I'd say an employer and a social worker would object to the idea that a lazy, unmotivated person would make a good employee and parent.

 

[russ_watters]

In other words, people who use cannabis regularly can function at 100% capacity when under the influence of their normal dose (which can be easily ten times smaller than Russ' "smoke a whole joint").

That doesn't make any sense - if "the influence" has no influence, why would people do it?

All I really see there is that the more you smoke, the higher your tolerance gets so the more you need to smoke to ge the same high. That shouldn't be much of a revalation.

In any case, that article isn't all that compelling - he doesn't cite any actual evidence for those claims you quoted, so it isn't any better than a post on a random internet forum.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people. Some of my friends are into the whole hippy thing so they act a certain way.

And anyone who smokes pot less than once a day will still act goofy when they are high. The kind of heavy pot smoker that I'm talking about smokes pot more than once a day.

The people I know don't act goofy stoned or sober (and there are a lot of them: my high school, even by Hamilton standards, is considered a stoner high school. We would smoke pot [or worse] during breaks outside in open daylight). And anyone who smokes more than once a day and acts like that is essentially acting, or it's a pot-culture thing.

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcoholics learn to hide their addiction. (And I do know alcoholics and addicts of all sorts; heck, my best friend just went to rehab last summer.) But the damage that is done once the drug catches up with them is much more significant than that of pot. You can see it happening, right before your eyes as an alcohol or coke addict slowly loses grip with who they are, they start acting erratically, they have fits of anger or depression, until there is a point when they just fall apart. This just doesn't happen with pot. Stoners plateau at their level of consumption and addiction and don't get any worse. Maybe they won't win the next award for exemplary achievement, but they don't become a complete wreck.

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life, whereas an alcoholic or coke addict's problem eventually catches up and it all comes crumbling down.

Of course, there are varying levels of alcoholism, and some are able to remain relatively functional for a longer time. We could start classifying, but for the sake of argument I'm using the extremes of both cases, the people who drink / smoke pot every day at least once, to showcase the difference between one and the other.

Yes, honestly, I have known people that smoked at least once a day unless they couldn't get their hands on any. My cousin claimed to not be able to sleep unless she smoked a bowl before bed. And all of the people I have known (with the one exception I mentioned) who smoked at least once a day had the hallmarks of a stoner. It wasn't an act, or a matter of stoner culture, they were just unable to not act this way unless they really tried. Have you heard of the hallmark 'stoner laugh'? The only people I could not determine were stoners were the ones who did not smoke all the time.

Alcoholics don't always become complete wrecks. It has more or less been determined that there is a genetic component to aloholism and that not all people are subject to the same extremes of alcoholism. A person can drink every day of their life and not suffer any greater side effects than the standard physical errosion that comes along with heavy drinking.

Cocaine, I agree, is certainly a different story.

 

[moe darklight]

All of those involve getting high.

Just like you can have one or two drinks to relax, you can have a few tokes and not get very stoned. Very low amounts of alcohol do significantly decrease mental functions and reflexes, yet few would argue that there's anything wrong with having a couple of drinks over the weekend if done responsibly. Why are drugs any different?

So the person smokes pot to get high. What I'm asking for is what makes "being high" intrinsically bad enough so as to prohibit people from doing so. Mountain climbing is much more dangerous than doing a hit of LSD if the necessary precautions are taken (having a sitter, etc.)-- so why should it be illegal? it's an activity like any other, and there are risks, but it's also possible to do it responsibly.

The question of addiction and drug use are related but not the same issue. Not all drug users are addicts. Nobody here would argue that addiction isn't bad, but that's not an issue that is resolved by putting people in jail and saying "drugs are bad" and that's that; it's an issue that is resolved through education, research, and honest discussions.

I'd say an employer and a social worker would object to the idea that a lazy, unmotivated person would make a good employee and parent.

I know many people who smoke pot and are wonderful parents and employees. As far as heavy smokers (again, there is a difference between an addict and a user), they may not aspire to much in life, but they still can make good responsible parents.

As far as alcoholics, however... from personal experience, at least, I can't think of any alcoholic who's problem hasn't seeped into his personal life in a way that hinders his ability to take care of his kids.

I wouldn't wish an alcoholic parent on anyone. My dad had one, and I've met others. My friend was telling me a couple of months ago about how she remembers pretending with her brother when they were kids that her mom was "acting funny" as a joke, so they could cope with her mom's alcoholic behavior, about how the dishes were on the sink for weeks and nothing was taken care of, or her fits of rage and depression. A stoner parent may not be optimal, but they will do what they have to do as a parent (unless, of course, they're just sh**ty parents).

... My cousin claimed to not be able to sleep unless she smoked a bowl before bed. ...

Insomnia is one of the withdrawals from pot. You start relying on the burnout to fall asleep.

As to the rest, of course there is no black or white, there are varying degrees of use and different people react differently to any drug.

 

[Civilized]

That doesn't make any sense - if "the influence" has no influence, why would people do it?

For them it is just harmless fun, it puts them in a good mood and it doesn't impair them. They do it because it's fun, relaxing, or whatever other things people say about recreation in general. The thing that Dr Andrew Weil is trying to educate us about in the article, is that these people are not being objectively impaired by cannabis, therefore they are having fun without getting "messed up."

All I really see there is that the more you smoke, the higher your tolerance gets so the more you need to smoke to ge the same high. That shouldn't be much of a revalation.

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

In any case, that article isn't all that compelling - he doesn't cite any actual evidence for those claims you quoted, so it isn't any better than a post on a random internet forum.

Dr Weil is this guy, from TV:

He has appeared on Oprah, Larry King live, etc, so say what you want about these TV doctor-personalities but he is one of the most famous so I think his statements carry a little more weight than a 'random internet post.' Also, the article is an excerpt from one of his published books about health, and so the reference is the strength of his reputation.

 

[binzing]

All of those involve getting high.

And your point is what exactly?

One hit vs. ten hits DOES result in a different level of high, with a different level of impairment.

If it works, use it! If its not for you, you don't have to.

 

[binzing]

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

Exactly. SWIM (someone who isn't me ; ) ) can regularly use marijuana in very small amounts (less than a full "hit") and achieve the desired level of "high" that allows SWIM to eat more, be happier, and pay more attention and be more productive in class as well as other effects such as increased enjoyment of music and higher creativity.

SWIM can also use larger amounts in the other settings, generally with friends, and have a good, safe, enjoyable time.

Further, SWIM can abstain for weeks or months, with no negative effects because SWIM is not reliant upon marijuana, as those that abuse it ("potheads") in general are.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

The general concept has been around. Its generally accepted that if you learn to do something in a certain "state of mind" your ability to preform said task will be best under the same circumstances as you learned it. This goes for any "altered" state of mind including simple stress. My friend who is a congnitive science major after reading about this did his own little experiment where he would drink martinis while studying and then have a martini before going into class or his exams.

The problem here is that this does not cancel out the general debilitation of the substance being used. Basic motor skills are one thing but what of critical thinking and the ability to determine approriate action in an unexpected situation? Just because you have driven while stoned and are used to it doesn't mean you will be able to determine appropriate reactions to unexpected situations that arise while driving as well as if you were sober.

There is also the problem that you need to acclimate yourself to driving while stoned in order to be obtain such a proficiency. So the first, second, third time ect that you drive while stoned you will be just as dibilitated as any other person who has not done this while stoned in which case you are still theoretically endangering yourself and others in order to supposedly be capable of not doing so in the future.

 

[Pupil]

The problem here is that this does not cancel out the general debilitation of the substance being used. Basic motor skills are one thing but what of critical thinking and the ability to determine approriate action in an unexpected situation? Just because you have driven while stoned and are used to it doesn't mean you will be able to determine appropriate reactions to unexpected situations that arise while driving as well as if you were sober.

There is also the problem that you need to acclimate yourself to driving while stoned in order to be obtain such a proficiency. So the first, second, third time ect that you drive while stoned you will be just as dibilitated as any other person who has not done this while stoned in which case you are still theoretically endangering yourself and others in order to supposedly be capable of not doing so in the future.

Legalize Cannabis and tell people not to drive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Legalize Cannabis and tell people not to drive.

Lol... well I am for the legalization of marijuana. I even gave a presentation in high school to this effect. Would you believe it that in California nearly my entire class voted for legalization? ;-)

And not driving while stoned is certainly preferable.

 

[cristo]

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people.

This, like everything else you've written, is opinion stated as fact. I'd like to see some evidence to back up your point that stoners don't always act like stoners (whatever that even means). Note that anecdotes are not accepted as proof, especially not in this instance since you are predominantly talking about high school kids who will act about anything to stay popular!

Regarding your point that cannabis addicts make "wonderful" parents, aside from the fact that, again, it is a sweeping generalisation extrapolated from, presumably, one or two cases, it cannot be true in general. Anyone who is addicted to something is not going to be as good a parent as they would be without their addiction, simply because when you are addicted to something it has to come first. When you are a parent you have to put your children first a lot of the time: you cannot claim that an addict can do this.

Would you believe it that in California nearly my entire class voted for legalization?

Yeah, there's a reason kids don't make laws!