Drugs - What do you think is acceptable, where is the line?

[heavywaters]

I was surprised to learn about the Alzheimer benefits...

 

But that's not all it can do.

 

Watch this and be amazed!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duMDzxiSjbc

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Honestly, when I first found out about the possible benefits for Alzheimer's patients, I damn near converted wholesale. A particularly nasty form of the disease runs in my family... Mom's already so far gone she can't communicate or do anything but (barely) walk on her own, and she's only 60- the first onset of symptoms was three years ago. I've literally been wiping her ass for her for over a year now. If the day comes when I get that diagnosis and find out I'll end up that way, I'll certainly not let the law tell me I can't get stoned to stave it off for a while- because my plan B is suicide. If the stuff is ever proven conclusively to have an effect, I'll start using before I even get a diagnosis. That disease scares the hell out of me.

[ginnyfizz]

I'm so sorry to hear about that, Wrath. My Mum is nearly 81 and she is nothing like that bad, not yet. I am SO going to talk to the geriatricians and if cannabis can also be proved as a preventative, I'd be considering joining you. I'm at the age where you get to think about your own mortality and the issues of getting old.

[gormonk]

my vew is that natrail drugs(weed, shrooms..ect) are better than those that are manmade onse and those that are refined. but its your own chice to do them as for pharmasutical drugs dont take them unless perscribed

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Professor Iverson refers to that study that I linked, and to others, to propose the view, of which I have seen much evidence with my own eyes, that long term, heavy users of cannabis often under achieve and earn less.

The sad truth about "science" is that anyone can prove anything, if you look in the right directions. I bet there were many other factors that could have been linked among those people to prove many other "facts" about them. I've read too many studies out to "prove" something that, of course, do just that.

 

As it seems to be from a wider eye, the truth, ginnyfizz, is that you are only exposed to those low-achievers because of circumstance (job, who you happen to know, etc).

 

My life experiences say the exact opposite, for example. I've known many more "normal" people and high-achievers (lawyers, artists, etc) that are long-term marijuana smokers than the low-achieving type (which, quite "coincidentally", are the people that generally came from abusive and/or broken families).

 

I'd say the relationship is rather casual instead of causal.

 

And I'll never stop repeating it whenever I get a chance: Amsterdam is the cleanest, most well-behaved and polite city I've visited yet. Period. Can't wait to go back, and it's not for doing the things stereotypically associated with the city. What a breath of responsible, fresh air, too. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/yes.gif

Edited January 22, 2011 by WizardOfAtlantis

[ginnyfizz]

But how heavily and how often are your long term high achievers using? The sort of use I am seeing with these low achievers is every day and five or more spliffs a day, they start when they get up and finish when they crash out. I have worked in the law in the past myself and you just would not get on if you were that stoned all of the time. I can just imagine what would happen if you stood up in front of the learned judge reeking of weed and off your face, he'd have you in the dock yourself. In the end when people are using to that extent as I describe, they have no willpower to do anything as they are chilled to the point of comatose, and just don't care, and that is why they don't achieve their potential. To put it another way, it makes them lazy.

 

I am ALWAYS uncomfortable with the using of the generalization about coming from a poor and broken family as a reason for under achieving. I feel that this is setting up people from poor backgrounds to fail, encouraging them to give up before they even start out in life. As I have said before, some of our highest achievers in both commerce and academia have arrived in the UK as refugees with no more than the shirt on their backs. Some of my own forebears and relatives have done so. The same holds true for the United States. But nowadays, we are encouraging them TO FAIL, fostering the idea that there is no hope, and that makes me sad.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

But how heavily and how often are your long term high achievers using? The sort of use I am seeing with these low achievers is every day and five or more spliffs a day, they start when they get up and finish when they crash out. I have worked in the law in the past myself and you just would not get on if you were that stoned all of the time. I can just imagine what would happen if you stood up in front of the learned judge reeking of weed and off your face, he'd have you in the dock yourself. In the end when people are using to that extent as I describe, they have no willpower to do anything as they are chilled to the point of comatose, and just don't care, and that is why they don't achieve their potential. To put it another way, it makes them lazy.

 

I am ALWAYS uncomfortable with the using of the generalization about coming from a poor and broken family as a reason for under achieving. I feel that this is setting up people from poor backgrounds to fail, encouraging them to give up before they even start out in life. As I have said before, some of our highest achievers in both commerce and academia have arrived in the UK as refugees with no more than the shirt on their backs. Some of my own forebears and relatives have done so. The same holds true for the United States. But nowadays, we are encouraging them TO FAIL, fostering the idea that there is no hope, and that makes me sad.

Yeah, I hear where you're coming from, but again, it's not what they're doing (in a categorical sense) but rather how much and why and what then they are capable of achieving in that state. Some people can smoke the wacky tabaccy multiple times a day for decades and be all right with it. I have seen that to be the exception, of course, if it's a morning to night thing. Most people around the world, I think, can responsibly smoke at home after work and be all right for as long as they desire. It depends on what you have to do, how much/when you smoke, how you can handle it, etc. Some lines of work/living are most suitable, others are not. I don't want soldiers getting high on anything, pills, booze, joints, anything, however creative types and mystics can get stuff done that way. Most people can relax a bit, at the right time and in the right setting.

 

I totally agree with you that those people in your examples are smoking too much for themselves to be able to achieve much by normal, societal standards. Obviously, though, they don't want to do anything else. The stuff they smoke is just the tool they use to effect their will upon their world. However, it's not marijuana's fault. Just like it's not a gun's fault if I ever had to shoot something/someone with it. That's my "fault" (and his, if it's a someone), as in my decision (and knowing me, it would be my decision based on his fault, lolhttp://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif).

 

I don't like generalizations, either. I don't see it as an explanation, but as a way of keeping something in mind. It's good to keep an eye on what cards someone has in their deck, but it can never be an excuse. Failure is failure, and I too believe sympathy is a misused coin. I am sympathetic over children in foreign countries who have to fight at the age of 6 in order to have a handful of rice to eat a day, if they're lucky. And I am sympathetic, too, to the kid in the US/UK or wherever who's had a rough upbringing though to a much lesser degree, of course. However, at some point, I think there deserves to be a fair amount of Kick-in-the-Ass treatment as well, for people growing up in developed countries.

 

Too many people use excuses to justify the fact that they're weak-willed. And that goes for home life, being overly fat, whatever.

[DrunkenGamer]

So how do you guys feel about places like Amsterdam, where weed use is pretty much acceptable?

Of course, I know it's not really, just some weird loopholes that let you have weed, but not distribute it?

[marharth]

I think the whole "under achiever/high achiever" thing is a bit messed up...

 

A lot of people smoke weed, it depends on where you live and what happens there. Some people smoke weed and under achieve, some smoke it and do good in life.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the weed at all, it has to do with YOU.

[DrunkenGamer]

There have been lots of discussion on the detrimental effects that weed might have on society, and people often use that sort of example to justify the legalization of weed - that people are in control of what they do with their life and what they do with weed and because of it is their business. That it's not weed that destroying their lives, it's just them.

 

But that makes it seem like the government doesn't really care about society, because everybody can just do what they want to now, at least from my point of view. Also, that justifies tobacco use and alcohol use to some extent, because it's the user's decision to go out and buy those products and use them. It's plain idiotic, or unprofessional at least, to completely (ahem) weed out marijuana as a detrimental effect on a user's life.

 

That's just my two cents.