6 ms·

When Getting High Is a Hobby, Not a Habit

34 points by Hooke 6y ago

Bostonian 6y ago
"As Hart argues, the drug war has in fact succeeded, not because it has reduced illegal drug use in the United States (it hasn’t), but because it has boosted prison and policing budgets, its true, if unstated, purpose." Attacking motives is a nasty way to argue. The general public pays for prison and police and supports keeping some drugs illegal (if not marijuana) because it fears the consequence of widespread drug use. This may be right or wrong, but it's not crazy or malevolent.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  you are not the general public nor do you have an understanding of their opinion. please don't project
- dfraser992 6y ago
  I am old enough to remember when the WoSD really kicked off (i.e. crack cocaine) and that has been shown to be a bunch of bollocks aka propaganda. You are right in that reducing the causes of the WoSD to easily understood simplistic theories is too reductionistic (just like "cannabis is being suppressed because it cures cancer!!!"), but the side benefits of boosted prison and policing budgets (and civil forfeiture) are too beneficial to those in power - and thus prevent the money from being spent to actually solve the underlying problems driving drug abuse (as opposed to drug -use-). So it is sort of malevolent. Look up Richard Miller's "Drug Warriors and Their Prey". And "moral panics" like those Anslinger leveraged to exert control on non-whites etc (and journalists who drove the fad of 'huffing' into overdrive back in the 50s) are another important factor. Again, I am old enough to remember the BS around MDMA and GHB (GHB is actually really useful, if you're responsible with it) and how all of that was founded on actions that have been shown to be less than integral by people with little integrity. I did not read TFA, but I can guess its contents. Now that psychedelics and etc are being medicalized, journalists (who largely like to think of themselves of those who shape society) are writing lemming-like articles about the wonders and benefits of psychedelics. You know what? Those wonders and benefits were apparent / present 30 years ago. Why has it taken so long to break the silence? It's fricking science! But it was deemed 'dangerous' so ... Because societies ... are easily lead around by the nose by those in positions of power or influence (aka presidents and journalists) who have their own agendas. Everything over the past 4 years has made it clear how so many people are so easily influenced (aka social media and presidential Twitter accounts) by "common sense". And at this point, it is just "common sense" to have a WoSD. I am certainly not arguing that heroin should be mindlessly legalized, but the problem absolutely needs to be dealt with in a different way and the existing processes are self-reinforcing because they do serve certain interests of the social systems or processes in place and those in positions of power (and who benefit from them). I am vaguely remember now research into why corporations behave as they do despite the people in charge understanding the larger detrimental effects of the actions they undertake for the benefit of or at the behest of the corporation. I think it's analogous, but I haven't thought this through. So the idea that "the general public" actually understands at a deep or even good level the issues, ramifications, or even the larger social forces at work is naive. You're on HN, so I assume you are smarter than the average person, but seriously, the average person has an IQ less than 120. The older I get, the more I realize how so many people are driven primarily by their emotions and unresolved psychological issues. I guess I am ranting because my sister just asked how she can deprogram my brother-in-law from believing all the QAnon bullshite. QAnon, the drug war, the 9/11 lunatics, the Nazi Blood Libel, these are all facets of something having to do with flaws in human psychology and societies.
  - Pet_Ant 6y ago
    WoSD = "War On Some Drugs" https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html
- dontbeevil1992 6y ago
  "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor
  - floor2 6y ago
    This often-repeated quote is almost certainly fake. A single person claims to have heard this statement and waited until after Mr. Ehrlichman's death, decades later, to publish the quote. tl;dr - You're spreading misinformation because it confirms your biases
    - res0nat0r 6y ago
      He made that statement in this interview to Harpers in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
      - mikestew 6y ago
        No, it is the memory of an interview for a book (which, AFAICT, was never published) back in 1994, and that memory was posted to a Harper's article in 2016 (I mean, it's right there in the URL), long after Ehrlichman was dead. As the inexplicably-downvoted GP comment says, there is no traceable basis for this quote. As far as we know, the author just made it up. The more likely case is that, at best, it is from old interview notes from 1994.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - 6y ago
- pjc50 6y ago
  After a while, being wrong and refusing to acknowledge the damage is indistinguishable from malice, and refusing to confront evidence which would contradict that starts to look "crazy".
- el_nahual 6y ago
  The issue is that the fear of widespread drug use does not emerge spontaneously: it is a direct result of education, law enforcement, and drug policy.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  It may not be crazy or malevolent, but it is egregiously negligent. There's a real wisdom behind the quote "with great power, comes great responsibility". While I don't agree, I think it's perfectly possible for a reasonable, well-intentioned person to believe in drug prohibition. But actually following through with that policy inevitably means destroying the lives of millions of people. That may be defensible on utilitarian grounds. But if you're going to pull the Trolley Car level, you better make damn sure that you're not actually switching to a track running over more people, How many of the current policymakers, politicians or prosecutors who continue to wage the drug war have bothered to do a rigorous evaluation of the evidence for themselves? How many have performed an in-depth examination of Portugal's experiment with decriminalization? How many could show you their utilitarian calculus, giving precise figures between people incarcerated and overdoses prevented? Heck, how many politicians lack an even basic understanding of the physiological effects of the chemicals they're imprisoning people for? 99 out of 100 drug warriors show a total lack of respect for the responsibility of the power that they're asking us to give them. If you're going to ruin the lives of millions of people, and infringe on fundamental personal civil liberties, then the standard needs to be higher than "I've got a good feeling that this is the right thing to do".
ndiscussion 6y ago
"Chasing liberty". Given recent events, I'm not sure that US citizens possess the personal responsibility necessary to avoid self-harm. To anyone who disagrees: how do you square this with calls for censorship on "dangerous information"? Essentially, it seems the "average American" can no longer be trusted with rope - they're liable to hang themselves. I don't remember this as a child. I don't know what's happened to us. See: riots, obesity epidemic, texting while driving, et al
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Well, we didn't have texting while driving when I was a kid, because we didn't have texting. We sure had drunk driving, though. I don't think it's more irresponsibility. I think it's a much greater number of ways that you can be irresponsible.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    That's a good point, drunk driving is still very popular in Portland among the 40+ crowd (source: anytime I'm at an event with people over 40, they slam 3-4 drinks, and drive home like it's nothing) But a long time ago, drunk driving wasn't really known to be a bad thing. And nowadays it has a pretty bad social stigma.
- whalesalad 6y ago
  I cannot argue against this sentiment, you are correct. The question though is - how do we fix it? How can we get back on the right track without taking away civil liberties. How can we lead and inspire instead of command or dictate? I am really surprised by the reactions you are receiving. I think this is a very important topic of discussion to try and approach without bias.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    Not sure about that... I think it's the culture. We used to have a monoculture in the US (basically whatever the TV told us). Nowadays we have an almost uncountable number of subcultures operating independently, and many of them despise each other. I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. As long as we allow people to worship themselves without thinking about external costs, this will probably continue. Another factor is that technology tends to centralize control. And the people running the technology want us to be like this. Medical costs skyrocket, they make money. Smartphone use skyrockets, they make money. etc.
hprotagonist 6y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spontaneoush_uses_heroin_gets_addicted_dies_gets/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spon... I dunno, opiates in particular are scary to use recreationally. I'm firmly in support of full legalization, but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea to nip out to the local smartshop and buy some horse.
- Nbox9 6y ago
  A significant portion of the risk of using opiates recreationally comes directly with interacting with the black market. Opiates sold ‘on the streets’ are more expensive, adulterated, and inconsistent. The risks of taking opiates with access to a safe, affordable, unadulterated, and consistent supply are significantly more manageable than the current state of affairs in the US.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > The risks of taking opiates with access to a safe, affordable, unadulterated, and consistent supply are significantly more manageable Won't unadulterated opiates be more addictive and powerful than their adulterated street counterparts? Meaning people will get addicted more quickly and more strongly? How affordable is affordable, considering that they will almost certainly be taxed? Would it be affordable enough that a minimum wage worker be able to fund a heroin addiction without sacrificing food for their kids, for example? Even now, cigarettes take a huge chunk out of poor people's budget, to the point that they buy cigarettes first and fall back on food stamps to feed the kids second.
    - Nbox9 6y ago
      The problem with adulterated products is that they are inconsistent. It’s adulterated with both active and inactive compounds, and the strength varies significantly. There are overdoses related to “hotspots” of fentanyl. Yeah, an opiate addiction now is ~10x the cost of prerolled cigarettes addiction. It it was closer to 1x then the property crimes and desperation associated with it would be significantly decreased. In the book Cherry by Nico Walker the author writes about his experience of robbing banks in order to fund he and his wife’s heroin addiction.
distribot 6y ago
I'm surprised the NYT would give this position a platform. The author's position is that all drugs, even very hard ones like heroin, can be used recreationally. The author is a professor of psychology, so I find this surprising and really irresponsible. Very few are able to use opiates recreationally. Even the weakest opioid, codeine causes serious addiction problems via codeine-promethaize cough syrup. The extremely high risk of developing dependence, extremely painful withdrawals, and the fact that prices are inflated due to being accessible only on the black market make it a recipe for destroying your life. This is ignoring the risk of picking up a felony conviction for having it on your person. I think many drugs can be used recreationally, my instinct is to let people do what they want, and I wish our drug policy was more technocratic, but it's really reckless to recommend people use certain substances. This chart really drives home how dangerous heroin is. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational...
- hanselot 6y ago
  Of course this being opposed to the many, many upstanding civilians that go home in alcohol fueled rage states and beat/murder their loved ones? Please, let people choose what way the leave this atrocious existential nightmare called earth.
- sithadmin 6y ago
  I have to wonder if the author's judgement is too heavily impaired by his own lived experience as someone with the chops rise to a position of success. He claims in the prologue to be a responsible recreational heroin user. Sustaining this without sliding into an ever-worsening spiral of addition would require an immense amount of willpower. And as someone with a PhD in neuroscience and a tenured position at an Ivy League institution, he clearly has plenty of personal willpower. The typical person doesn't have that sort of willpower.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The slide with heroin doesn't happen overnight. Give the guy some time and he might tip over the edge. >In the prologue, he writes, “I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user.” I've read stores, even posted to HN, where lawyers can go longer than that before their finances collapse.
d33lio 6y ago
Seattle and SF are great examples of why public drug use is not a crime that doesn't inflict harm on the general non drug using public.
- Nbox9 6y ago
  Seattle and SF are examples of what happens when concentrations of homeless people appear in an urban environment.
- umvi 6y ago
  The drug use itself might not inflict harm on the general public, but the effects of addiction certainly can. It's pretty obvious that extremely powerful chemical addictions in conjunction with poverty are a recipe for petty crime. So unless all drugs are made free, then a i.e. broke heroin addict will constantly be tempted to steal to feed the addiction.
INTPenis 6y ago
People like this are dangerous. I believe the vast majority of people can barely handle the stress of daily life, let alone juggle a drug use hobby. I know there are people out there who are exceptional, one of the perils of the internet is that you get a glimpse into their lives through social media. But we can't all compare ourselves to these exceptional people. Take a relatively harmless drug like cannabis as an example. I personally know people who are very active on cannabis and can still steer their life towards their long term goals. But most people are not. Most people use cannabis as a way to make a boring day fun and in the long run those boring days amass to nothing gained. So people like Carl are probably right but they should speak for themselves, not for the masses.

34 points by Hooke 6y ago

"As Hart argues, the drug war has in fact succeeded, not because it has reduced illegal drug use in the United States (it hasn’t), but because it has boosted prison and policing budgets, its true, if unstated, purpose." Attacking motives is a nasty way to argue. The general public pays for prison and police and supports keeping some drugs illegal (if not marijuana) because it fears the consequence of widespread drug use. This may be right or wrong, but it's not crazy or malevolent.

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
you are not the general public nor do you have an understanding of their opinion. please don't project
dfraser992 6y ago
I am old enough to remember when the WoSD really kicked off (i.e. crack cocaine) and that has been shown to be a bunch of bollocks aka propaganda. You are right in that reducing the causes of the WoSD to easily understood simplistic theories is too reductionistic (just like "cannabis is being suppressed because it cures cancer!!!"), but the side benefits of boosted prison and policing budgets (and civil forfeiture) are too beneficial to those in power - and thus prevent the money from being spent to actually solve the underlying problems driving drug abuse (as opposed to drug -use-). So it is sort of malevolent. Look up Richard Miller's "Drug Warriors and Their Prey". And "moral panics" like those Anslinger leveraged to exert control on non-whites etc (and journalists who drove the fad of 'huffing' into overdrive back in the 50s) are another important factor. Again, I am old enough to remember the BS around MDMA and GHB (GHB is actually really useful, if you're responsible with it) and how all of that was founded on actions that have been shown to be less than integral by people with little integrity. I did not read TFA, but I can guess its contents. Now that psychedelics and etc are being medicalized, journalists (who largely like to think of themselves of those who shape society) are writing lemming-like articles about the wonders and benefits of psychedelics. You know what? Those wonders and benefits were apparent / present 30 years ago. Why has it taken so long to break the silence? It's fricking science! But it was deemed 'dangerous' so ... Because societies ... are easily lead around by the nose by those in positions of power or influence (aka presidents and journalists) who have their own agendas. Everything over the past 4 years has made it clear how so many people are so easily influenced (aka social media and presidential Twitter accounts) by "common sense". And at this point, it is just "common sense" to have a WoSD. I am certainly not arguing that heroin should be mindlessly legalized, but the problem absolutely needs to be dealt with in a different way and the existing processes are self-reinforcing because they do serve certain interests of the social systems or processes in place and those in positions of power (and who benefit from them). I am vaguely remember now research into why corporations behave as they do despite the people in charge understanding the larger detrimental effects of the actions they undertake for the benefit of or at the behest of the corporation. I think it's analogous, but I haven't thought this through. So the idea that "the general public" actually understands at a deep or even good level the issues, ramifications, or even the larger social forces at work is naive. You're on HN, so I assume you are smarter than the average person, but seriously, the average person has an IQ less than 120. The older I get, the more I realize how so many people are driven primarily by their emotions and unresolved psychological issues. I guess I am ranting because my sister just asked how she can deprogram my brother-in-law from believing all the QAnon bullshite. QAnon, the drug war, the 9/11 lunatics, the Nazi Blood Libel, these are all facets of something having to do with flaws in human psychology and societies.
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  WoSD = "War On Some Drugs" https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html
dontbeevil1992 6y ago
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor
- floor2 6y ago
  This often-repeated quote is almost certainly fake. A single person claims to have heard this statement and waited until after Mr. Ehrlichman's death, decades later, to publish the quote. tl;dr - You're spreading misinformation because it confirms your biases
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    He made that statement in this interview to Harpers in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
    - mikestew 6y ago
      No, it is the memory of an interview for a book (which, AFAICT, was never published) back in 1994, and that memory was posted to a Harper's article in 2016 (I mean, it's right there in the URL), long after Ehrlichman was dead. As the inexplicably-downvoted GP comment says, there is no traceable basis for this quote. As far as we know, the author just made it up. The more likely case is that, at best, it is from old interview notes from 1994.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- 6y ago
pjc50 6y ago
After a while, being wrong and refusing to acknowledge the damage is indistinguishable from malice, and refusing to confront evidence which would contradict that starts to look "crazy".
el_nahual 6y ago
The issue is that the fear of widespread drug use does not emerge spontaneously: it is a direct result of education, law enforcement, and drug policy.
dcolkitt 6y ago
It may not be crazy or malevolent, but it is egregiously negligent. There's a real wisdom behind the quote "with great power, comes great responsibility". While I don't agree, I think it's perfectly possible for a reasonable, well-intentioned person to believe in drug prohibition. But actually following through with that policy inevitably means destroying the lives of millions of people. That may be defensible on utilitarian grounds. But if you're going to pull the Trolley Car level, you better make damn sure that you're not actually switching to a track running over more people, How many of the current policymakers, politicians or prosecutors who continue to wage the drug war have bothered to do a rigorous evaluation of the evidence for themselves? How many have performed an in-depth examination of Portugal's experiment with decriminalization? How many could show you their utilitarian calculus, giving precise figures between people incarcerated and overdoses prevented? Heck, how many politicians lack an even basic understanding of the physiological effects of the chemicals they're imprisoning people for? 99 out of 100 drug warriors show a total lack of respect for the responsibility of the power that they're asking us to give them. If you're going to ruin the lives of millions of people, and infringe on fundamental personal civil liberties, then the standard needs to be higher than "I've got a good feeling that this is the right thing to do".

ndiscussion 6y ago

"Chasing liberty". Given recent events, I'm not sure that US citizens possess the personal responsibility necessary to avoid self-harm. To anyone who disagrees: how do you square this with calls for censorship on "dangerous information"? Essentially, it seems the "average American" can no longer be trusted with rope - they're liable to hang themselves. I don't remember this as a child. I don't know what's happened to us. See: riots, obesity epidemic, texting while driving, et al

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Well, we didn't have texting while driving when I was a kid, because we didn't have texting. We sure had drunk driving, though. I don't think it's more irresponsibility. I think it's a much greater number of ways that you can be irresponsible.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  That's a good point, drunk driving is still very popular in Portland among the 40+ crowd (source: anytime I'm at an event with people over 40, they slam 3-4 drinks, and drive home like it's nothing) But a long time ago, drunk driving wasn't really known to be a bad thing. And nowadays it has a pretty bad social stigma.
whalesalad 6y ago
I cannot argue against this sentiment, you are correct. The question though is - how do we fix it? How can we get back on the right track without taking away civil liberties. How can we lead and inspire instead of command or dictate? I am really surprised by the reactions you are receiving. I think this is a very important topic of discussion to try and approach without bias.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  Not sure about that... I think it's the culture. We used to have a monoculture in the US (basically whatever the TV told us). Nowadays we have an almost uncountable number of subcultures operating independently, and many of them despise each other. I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. As long as we allow people to worship themselves without thinking about external costs, this will probably continue. Another factor is that technology tends to centralize control. And the people running the technology want us to be like this. Medical costs skyrocket, they make money. Smartphone use skyrockets, they make money. etc.

hprotagonist 6y ago

https://old.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spontaneoush_uses_heroin_gets_addicted_dies_gets/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spon... I dunno, opiates in particular are scary to use recreationally. I'm firmly in support of full legalization, but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea to nip out to the local smartshop and buy some horse.

Nbox9 6y ago
A significant portion of the risk of using opiates recreationally comes directly with interacting with the black market. Opiates sold ‘on the streets’ are more expensive, adulterated, and inconsistent. The risks of taking opiates with access to a safe, affordable, unadulterated, and consistent supply are significantly more manageable than the current state of affairs in the US.
- umvi 6y ago
  > The risks of taking opiates with access to a safe, affordable, unadulterated, and consistent supply are significantly more manageable Won't unadulterated opiates be more addictive and powerful than their adulterated street counterparts? Meaning people will get addicted more quickly and more strongly? How affordable is affordable, considering that they will almost certainly be taxed? Would it be affordable enough that a minimum wage worker be able to fund a heroin addiction without sacrificing food for their kids, for example? Even now, cigarettes take a huge chunk out of poor people's budget, to the point that they buy cigarettes first and fall back on food stamps to feed the kids second.
  - Nbox9 6y ago
    The problem with adulterated products is that they are inconsistent. It’s adulterated with both active and inactive compounds, and the strength varies significantly. There are overdoses related to “hotspots” of fentanyl. Yeah, an opiate addiction now is ~10x the cost of prerolled cigarettes addiction. It it was closer to 1x then the property crimes and desperation associated with it would be significantly decreased. In the book Cherry by Nico Walker the author writes about his experience of robbing banks in order to fund he and his wife’s heroin addiction.

distribot 6y ago

I'm surprised the NYT would give this position a platform. The author's position is that all drugs, even very hard ones like heroin, can be used recreationally. The author is a professor of psychology, so I find this surprising and really irresponsible. Very few are able to use opiates recreationally. Even the weakest opioid, codeine causes serious addiction problems via codeine-promethaize cough syrup. The extremely high risk of developing dependence, extremely painful withdrawals, and the fact that prices are inflated due to being accessible only on the black market make it a recipe for destroying your life. This is ignoring the risk of picking up a felony conviction for having it on your person. I think many drugs can be used recreationally, my instinct is to let people do what they want, and I wish our drug policy was more technocratic, but it's really reckless to recommend people use certain substances. This chart really drives home how dangerous heroin is. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational...

hanselot 6y ago
Of course this being opposed to the many, many upstanding civilians that go home in alcohol fueled rage states and beat/murder their loved ones? Please, let people choose what way the leave this atrocious existential nightmare called earth.
sithadmin 6y ago
I have to wonder if the author's judgement is too heavily impaired by his own lived experience as someone with the chops rise to a position of success. He claims in the prologue to be a responsible recreational heroin user. Sustaining this without sliding into an ever-worsening spiral of addition would require an immense amount of willpower. And as someone with a PhD in neuroscience and a tenured position at an Ivy League institution, he clearly has plenty of personal willpower. The typical person doesn't have that sort of willpower.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The slide with heroin doesn't happen overnight. Give the guy some time and he might tip over the edge. >In the prologue, he writes, “I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user.” I've read stores, even posted to HN, where lawyers can go longer than that before their finances collapse.

d33lio 6y ago

Seattle and SF are great examples of why public drug use is not a crime that doesn't inflict harm on the general non drug using public.

Nbox9 6y ago
Seattle and SF are examples of what happens when concentrations of homeless people appear in an urban environment.
umvi 6y ago
The drug use itself might not inflict harm on the general public, but the effects of addiction certainly can. It's pretty obvious that extremely powerful chemical addictions in conjunction with poverty are a recipe for petty crime. So unless all drugs are made free, then a i.e. broke heroin addict will constantly be tempted to steal to feed the addiction.

INTPenis 6y ago

People like this are dangerous. I believe the vast majority of people can barely handle the stress of daily life, let alone juggle a drug use hobby. I know there are people out there who are exceptional, one of the perils of the internet is that you get a glimpse into their lives through social media. But we can't all compare ourselves to these exceptional people. Take a relatively harmless drug like cannabis as an example. I personally know people who are very active on cannabis and can still steer their life towards their long term goals. But most people are not. Most people use cannabis as a way to make a boring day fun and in the long run those boring days amass to nothing gained. So people like Carl are probably right but they should speak for themselves, not for the masses.