3 ms·

I have plenty of anecdotes in the other direction. Perhaps there are other factors involved. Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guar

I have plenty of anecdotes in the other direction. Perhaps there are other factors involved. Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either. Painting it as such reminds me of D.A.R.E.

iforgot22 2y ago
D.A.R.E. was right
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >In 1998, a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use." [...] The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use. >A ten-year study was completed by Donald R. Lynam and colleagues in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten-year period, no measurable effects were noted. >In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Ineffective Primary Prevention Programs". >In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science. It was, at best, ineffective. At worst it was harmful.
  - iforgot22 2y ago
    Kids didn't listen to it, but it was right. It painted weed and harder drugs as pointless and dangerous, which they are.
    - amrocha 2y ago
      It literally encouraged drug use through exposure
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      >It painted weed and harder drugs as pointless and dangerous It painted weed as something that if you took a single toke you'd end up shooting heroin shortly after. The hyperbole, similar the parent comment insinuating that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life, is ridiculously counter-productive.
    - Gud 2y ago
      Ok. Personally I think weed saved my life.
    - piva00 2y ago
      Pointless is quite wrong though. Drugs can be dangerous and because of it should require a lot of thought, education about, and respect if you partake on it but they are definitely not pointless. If used in ways that doesn't affect someone negatively (and here is where the danger, education, and respect part comes in) it can provide life experiences that you could never, ever have by being sober. Doesn't mean that a sober experience is subpar, it's just different, and it's ok if you want to live that way but it's not the only and "right" way to live a life.
      - iforgot22 2y ago
        There isn't much to be educated about. Scientific research about the long-term effects of any of these is inconclusive, even on alcohol and tobacco which is everywhere. All they know is smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.
- cwalv 2y ago
  Putting the affects of marijuana abuse in the same category as meth or heroin is dishonest and dangerous. It destroyed their credibility.
- raincole 2y ago
  One interesting I noticed is that the common sentiment online on "War on drug failed" is "so we'd better surrender to drug".
  - iforgot22 2y ago
    The related "legalizing weed will make people use it less" was a common argument before it was legal. We were actually taught that in college. Did not seem like a good-faith argument.
ameister14 2y ago
You have a bunch of anecdotes where the only successful people from the same school and friend group are the ones that regularly smoked and still smoke weed? They have the best memories of the people you know? >Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either. Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >You have a bunch of anecdotes where the only successful people from the same school and friend group are the ones that regularly smoked and still smoke weed? I have a bunch of anecdotes where people I knew who regularly smoked weed throughout high school now range from successful to wildly successful. I know a bunch of people that abstained and yet they work dead end jobs, have developed mental issues, and/or live with parents still. Hence my conclusion that there might just be some other (more important) factors.
  - ameister14 2y ago
    Sure, that makes sense. If the risk of something is 1 in 10, 10 people do it, you have 9 examples of people who have no problems and 1 example of someone with an issue. I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed, where others similarly situated were unsuccessful having not smoked it.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      >I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed No, and I'm not disputing that weed is harmful. What I took issue with in the parent comment is that it insinuates that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life. I disagree with the weight of the harm they imply. There is a lot of other factors involved, and a lot more nuance and context to consider.
- watwut 2y ago

iforgot22 2y ago

D.A.R.E. was right

ziddoap 2y ago
>In 1998, a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use." [...] The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use. >A ten-year study was completed by Donald R. Lynam and colleagues in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten-year period, no measurable effects were noted. >In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Ineffective Primary Prevention Programs". >In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science. It was, at best, ineffective. At worst it was harmful.
- iforgot22 2y ago
  Kids didn't listen to it, but it was right. It painted weed and harder drugs as pointless and dangerous, which they are.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    It literally encouraged drug use through exposure
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >It painted weed and harder drugs as pointless and dangerous It painted weed as something that if you took a single toke you'd end up shooting heroin shortly after. The hyperbole, similar the parent comment insinuating that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life, is ridiculously counter-productive.
  - Gud 2y ago
    Ok. Personally I think weed saved my life.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Pointless is quite wrong though. Drugs can be dangerous and because of it should require a lot of thought, education about, and respect if you partake on it but they are definitely not pointless. If used in ways that doesn't affect someone negatively (and here is where the danger, education, and respect part comes in) it can provide life experiences that you could never, ever have by being sober. Doesn't mean that a sober experience is subpar, it's just different, and it's ok if you want to live that way but it's not the only and "right" way to live a life.
    - iforgot22 2y ago
      There isn't much to be educated about. Scientific research about the long-term effects of any of these is inconclusive, even on alcohol and tobacco which is everywhere. All they know is smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.
cwalv 2y ago
Putting the affects of marijuana abuse in the same category as meth or heroin is dishonest and dangerous. It destroyed their credibility.
raincole 2y ago
One interesting I noticed is that the common sentiment online on "War on drug failed" is "so we'd better surrender to drug".
- iforgot22 2y ago
  The related "legalizing weed will make people use it less" was a common argument before it was legal. We were actually taught that in college. Did not seem like a good-faith argument.

ameister14 2y ago

You have a bunch of anecdotes where the only successful people from the same school and friend group are the ones that regularly smoked and still smoke weed? They have the best memories of the people you know? >Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either. Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.

ziddoap 2y ago
>You have a bunch of anecdotes where the only successful people from the same school and friend group are the ones that regularly smoked and still smoke weed? I have a bunch of anecdotes where people I knew who regularly smoked weed throughout high school now range from successful to wildly successful. I know a bunch of people that abstained and yet they work dead end jobs, have developed mental issues, and/or live with parents still. Hence my conclusion that there might just be some other (more important) factors.
- ameister14 2y ago
  Sure, that makes sense. If the risk of something is 1 in 10, 10 people do it, you have 9 examples of people who have no problems and 1 example of someone with an issue. I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed, where others similarly situated were unsuccessful having not smoked it.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed No, and I'm not disputing that weed is harmful. What I took issue with in the parent comment is that it insinuates that smoking weed is a guarantee of a shitty life. I disagree with the weight of the harm they imply. There is a lot of other factors involved, and a lot more nuance and context to consider.
watwut 2y ago