4 ms·

This is an old 4% strength THC I-used-to-be-a-stoner argument that is completely irrelevant to the "real" dangers (multiple) to teenagers, which include: concen

by xbar 4y ago

This is an old 4% strength THC I-used-to-be-a-stoner argument that is completely irrelevant to the "real" dangers (multiple) to teenagers, which include: concentrated THC in teenagers causes psychosis; moderate THC in teenagers makes them permanently less intelligent. THC users like to downplay them.

solitus 4y ago
Can you provide sources for "moderate THC in teenagers makes them permanently less intelligent". This study implies that it's not really true: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516648113#sec-5 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516648113#sec-5
- xbar 4y ago
  This one comes to the top: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1206820109
nobody9999 4y ago
> This is an old 4% strength THC I-used-to-be-a-stoner argument that is completely irrelevant to the "real" dangers (multiple) to teenagers, which include: concentrated THC in teenagers causes psychosis; moderate THC in teenagers makes them permanently less intelligent. >THC users like to downplay them. What would you have us do then? There are minimum legal ages for using legal cannabis as well as alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't stop teens from trying it out, nor has it ever done so. Archaeologists have documented the use of mind altering substances by humans going back at least 8-10,000 years, and it's very likely that such usage goes back much, much farther (e.g., our distant ancestors getting drunk from eating fermenting fruit millions of years ago). The issue isn't whether or not people should use mind alterng substances, we have done so and we will continue to do so. The advice I gave to those in the younger generation of my family is that "we've been using mind altering substances pretty much forever. And most people handle it just fine. But if using such substances interferes with your goals and/or functioning as a person in society, there's likely a problem." Which is why I believe all "drugs" should be legal, with purity and dosages regulated. From an economic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. We could spend a fraction of what we spend on "interdiction," "enforcement," incarceration and lost economic output (the result of incarceration and bias against those who have been incarcerated) on treatment programs for the tiny proportion of us for whom using mind altering substances keep us from functioning normally in society. That makes much more sense to me. Trying to stop folks from doing stuff we've been doing since before we were us (humans), is a fool's errand. Let's help those who have issues and leave everyone else the hell alone.
- xbar 4y ago
  I heard you say "we need to regulate cannabis more effectively." I think that makes sense. I also think we better get used to the consequences of an increasingly psychotic teen population.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >I heard you say "we need to regulate cannabis more effectively." I think that makes sense. I heard you say absolutely nothing of any semantic value, and certainly nothing that added to the conversation.

by xbar 4y ago

solitus 4y ago

Can you provide sources for "moderate THC in teenagers makes them permanently less intelligent". This study implies that it's not really true: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516648113#sec-5 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516648113#sec-5

xbar 4y ago
This one comes to the top: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1206820109

nobody9999 4y ago

> This is an old 4% strength THC I-used-to-be-a-stoner argument that is completely irrelevant to the "real" dangers (multiple) to teenagers, which include: concentrated THC in teenagers causes psychosis; moderate THC in teenagers makes them permanently less intelligent. >THC users like to downplay them. What would you have us do then? There are minimum legal ages for using legal cannabis as well as alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't stop teens from trying it out, nor has it ever done so. Archaeologists have documented the use of mind altering substances by humans going back at least 8-10,000 years, and it's very likely that such usage goes back much, much farther (e.g., our distant ancestors getting drunk from eating fermenting fruit millions of years ago). The issue isn't whether or not people should use mind alterng substances, we have done so and we will continue to do so. The advice I gave to those in the younger generation of my family is that "we've been using mind altering substances pretty much forever. And most people handle it just fine. But if using such substances interferes with your goals and/or functioning as a person in society, there's likely a problem." Which is why I believe all "drugs" should be legal, with purity and dosages regulated. From an economic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. We could spend a fraction of what we spend on "interdiction," "enforcement," incarceration and lost economic output (the result of incarceration and bias against those who have been incarcerated) on treatment programs for the tiny proportion of us for whom using mind altering substances keep us from functioning normally in society. That makes much more sense to me. Trying to stop folks from doing stuff we've been doing since before we were us (humans), is a fool's errand. Let's help those who have issues and leave everyone else the hell alone.

xbar 4y ago
I heard you say "we need to regulate cannabis more effectively." I think that makes sense. I also think we better get used to the consequences of an increasingly psychotic teen population.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >I heard you say "we need to regulate cannabis more effectively." I think that makes sense. I heard you say absolutely nothing of any semantic value, and certainly nothing that added to the conversation.