6 ms·

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.

by bitzun 8y ago

zahrc 8y ago
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.
- adventured 8y ago
  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).
  - eternalban 8y ago
    > 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.]
    - simplify 8y ago
      It's dramatically worse becouse it imputes innocent people as criminals and puts them in jail.
      - zchrykng 8y ago
        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.
        simplify 8y ago
        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.
        zchrykng 8y ago
        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.
        simplify 8y ago
        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.
  - dubya23 8y ago
    Why is it that on this topic specifically HN users, who are largely analytical logic driven people, consistently rely on Anecdotes?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    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.
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      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.
      - flattone 8y ago
        Thank God (:p)
        flattone 8y ago
        I love the idea of minusing "thank God" / being happy that religion is largely passe. . . pure vindictive retaliatory holy grace
      - appleflaxen 8y ago
        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.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      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.
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive or has lasting deleterious effects on intelligence. Your anecdata is not evidence.
  - ndarwincorn 8y ago
    > There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive Yeah that's misleading at best.
  - ghobs91 8y ago
    This isn't /r/trees, you can't expect to make a claim like that without backing it up.
    - ghostly_s 8y ago
      I made no claim, the parent did.
  - pdpi 8y ago
    No evidence? You mean other than the study linked in the NPR article that's at the head of this discussion?
    - msbarnett 8y ago
      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)
- mike10010100 8y ago
  > 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.
ddorian43 8y ago
Did you have psychosis on that episode ?

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.

by bitzun 8y ago

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.

zahrc 8y ago

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.

adventured 8y ago
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).
- eternalban 8y ago
  > 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.]
  - simplify 8y ago
    It's dramatically worse becouse it imputes innocent people as criminals and puts them in jail.
    - zchrykng 8y ago
      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.
      - simplify 8y ago
        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.
        zchrykng 8y ago
        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.
        simplify 8y ago
        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.
- dubya23 8y ago
  Why is it that on this topic specifically HN users, who are largely analytical logic driven people, consistently rely on Anecdotes?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  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.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    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.
    - flattone 8y ago
      Thank God (:p)
      - flattone 8y ago
        I love the idea of minusing "thank God" / being happy that religion is largely passe. . . pure vindictive retaliatory holy grace
    - appleflaxen 8y ago
      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.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    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.
ghostly_s 8y ago
There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive or has lasting deleterious effects on intelligence. Your anecdata is not evidence.
- ndarwincorn 8y ago
  > There is no evidence that marijuana is addictive Yeah that's misleading at best.
- ghobs91 8y ago
  This isn't /r/trees, you can't expect to make a claim like that without backing it up.
  - ghostly_s 8y ago
    I made no claim, the parent did.
- pdpi 8y ago
  No evidence? You mean other than the study linked in the NPR article that's at the head of this discussion?
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    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)
mike10010100 8y ago
> 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.

ddorian43 8y ago

Did you have psychosis on that episode ?