5 ms·
This argument always pops up as if there aren't a wealth of very successful daily cannabis users.
by iamdbtoo 4y ago
This argument always pops up as if there aren't a wealth of very successful daily cannabis users.
- margalabargala 4y agoThat's because the existence of outliers doesn't disprove the existence of a trend. Saying that there are successful daily cannabis users and therefore chronic cannabis use doesn't have negative effects on one's brain, is similar to saying that you're holding a snowball and therefore global warming doesn't exist.
- iamdbtoo 4y ago> That's because the existence of outliers doesn't disprove the existence of a trend. Yeah, exactly. Either way it proves nothing about a person or their life.
- margalabargala 4y agoIt means the person you originally replied to was correct to call it a "danger", because while it doesn't preclude the possibility of success as you noted, it does make it less likely for a given individual.
- iamdbtoo 4y agoNo, it doesn't. It just proves the whole point is meaningless. There are successes and failures in both weed users and non-weed users, so you can't use that as a variable for anything. Interepting it that way just always casts judgement on the user.
- margalabargala 4y ago> There are successes and failures in both weed users and non-weed users, so you can't use that as a variable for anything. That's not how that works. The existence of both successes and failures in weed users does not prevent a comparison of the rates of successes and failures between weed users and non-weed-users. Making the above comparison and noting that successes per capita are lower in weed users of an otherwise identical demographic doesn't cast judgement on anyone.
- tboyd47 4y agoThe scale of human potential is vast. Who's to say that, for a given definition of success, a person who's "very successful" with one lifestyle wouldn't be 10x or 100x more successful in another?
- sandoze 4y agoWho’s to say what my full potential could have been if it wasn’t for all the lead paint in my house as a kid?
- cortesoft 4y agoAre you suggesting we shouldn’t remove lead paint from houses? Yes, we can’t know exactly on an individual level what potential was lost to lead paint, but we know it was some amount. Can we not act if we don’t know the exact loss?
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago..did you eat it?
- iamdbtoo 4y agoWho's to say anything about anyone? We only get one shot at this. There's no perfect way to live a life.
- darth_avocado 4y agoThere are a wealth of very successful alcoholics and cocaine users too. On an average, alcoholism and cocaine dependence still ruins life. Don’t look at the exceptions to define the average.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago>There are a wealth of very successful alcoholics and cocaine users too. Not for as long of a duration. Apples to oranges.
- adamsmith143 4y agoThere are also a wealth of very unsuccessful people who don't partake in drugs or alcohol. These points prove nothing
- graublau 4y ago2x drinks at a happy hour isn't successful alcoholism, that's just a lack of cultural stigma. I also slightly doubt casual cocaine won't catch up with you eventually, might take years. Stimulants are generally work friendly anyway, see coffee/adderall.
- akhmatova 4y agoSure, we all know a few. But overwhelming personal observation indicates that in the vast majority of cases -- it blunts your game (and if you pick up the habit in your teenage years, and don't manage to put it behind you -- it can derail your chances at completing your education, or maintaining successful relationships entirely). Again, not from the toxicity - but simply from what it does.
- sandworm101 4y agoYes, many successful (ie rich) people smoke pot and do not suffer because of it. Those traits are not related. Rich people do not suffer most of the negative social/financial side effects of drugs use. That's the great thing about being rich. It insulates you against most negative consequences of your actions. Normal (ie poor) people do not have such protections. They suffer massively. A 100$/day habit for a wealthy person is nothing and, unlike cocaine, that addiction will not ramp up into a 1000$/day habit. But for the not-rich that 100$/day is devastating.
- Bud 4y agoThere are certainly consequences to cannabis use, but let's not get carried away. At least for the vast majority of casual users, this isn't anything remotely close to a $100/day habit. Common sense should inform us of that, even if we aren't intimately familiar with how much pot actually costs. $5-10 a day is closer to the reality for most users.
- sandworm101 4y agoFlat-out 24/7 high would be 100/day. Pot is a drug that successful people can sustain without any financial issues. Compare cocaine which can quickly ramp into 1000/day and beyond, quickly devastating the finances of even relatively wealthy people.
- sleepdreamy 4y agoThis is simply false. I'm not going to discuss pricing here but, with Dabs and several forms of in-take you do not need to spend 100/day to be stoned all day. I live in a recreational state(Lived here for 13 years while it could ruin your life). In the past this might hold true but no longer.
- _j5l3 4y agoAt the peak of my own usage, I smoked around an ounce every 3 days while (pretending to be) working from home. $40/eighth + taxes a pretty average price in the Bay Area, so that works out to almost exactly $100/day. That's pretty extreme, even for heavy smokers, but far from impossible.
- wazoox 4y agoI don't know any, but I know a whole lot of dope-heads who completely destroyed their lives with daily use of cannabis.
- jejeyyy77 4y agoProbably many more under the radar too.