3 ms·

Happy for you, seriously. Getting this subthread back on topic, the study defines heavy (or medium) use - i.e., the problem categories in the study - as 1000+

Happy for you, seriously. Getting this subthread back on topic, the study defines heavy (or medium) use - i.e., the problem categories in the study - as 1000+ (or 11-1000 days of usage). Are you a medium-heavy user? I don't think you being an exception disproves the parent's generality that on the average heavy weed usage doesn't correlate with people in your position.

ghfhghg 2y ago
Based on the content of their post (started at 13, uses daily) they are WAY over 1100 days
- Clent 2y ago
  It's 1100 times not days. Anyone who smokes every couple of hours is averaging around 8 times a day and hits that in under five months. People who do not smoke weed have no idea how heavy, heavy really is.
  - ghfhghg 2y ago
    I'm not sure what your are arguing here. Even if they are 30 they are well over 1100
    - Clent 2y ago
      I wasn't meaning to argue anything beyond perhaps bringing to light how naïve these studies are. We don't count alcohol consumption this way. Is someone that smokes once per week for 20 years a heavy user? Would anyone consider someone that drinks once per week for 20 years a heavy drinker? Why do these studies assume weed is cumulative but alcohol isn’t? Is it because most researchers have experience with being drunk but zero to little experience with being high on weed? It seems likely there is a difference between someone who is buzzed all day every day for years vs someone that smokes several times each weekend, but these studies all group them together as one. Most likely because the researchers don't understand what they are studying and produce results that do not match the lived experience of their research subjects.
      - ghfhghg 2y ago
        Oh I see. Yes I would definitely agree with that. Thanks for the clarification
  - caminante 2y ago
    Fair point, but not material for the parent's case. To your point, AFAIK, the study doesn't differentiate potency of weed. Not all cannabis is created equal and the strands commonly available now are way more potent (with more arrows pointing to addictiveness) than "your dad's weed."
milkshakes 2y ago
I believe his generality has more to do with his friends than the drug itself. I am a heavy user. Remembering names sometimes is hard upon first introductions, but besides that my short-term memory seems to function just fine. I have had many coworkers in similar situations at the organizations I've been a part of. We've stayed friends, they're doing just fine. Some are in happier work situations and no longer consuming to cope. I've been actively trying to find my own balance as well. But generalizing stoner -> loser is a harmful, limited, and ignorant perspective in my opinion.

ghfhghg 2y ago

Based on the content of their post (started at 13, uses daily) they are WAY over 1100 days

Clent 2y ago
It's 1100 times not days. Anyone who smokes every couple of hours is averaging around 8 times a day and hits that in under five months. People who do not smoke weed have no idea how heavy, heavy really is.
- ghfhghg 2y ago
  I'm not sure what your are arguing here. Even if they are 30 they are well over 1100
  - Clent 2y ago
    I wasn't meaning to argue anything beyond perhaps bringing to light how naïve these studies are. We don't count alcohol consumption this way. Is someone that smokes once per week for 20 years a heavy user? Would anyone consider someone that drinks once per week for 20 years a heavy drinker? Why do these studies assume weed is cumulative but alcohol isn’t? Is it because most researchers have experience with being drunk but zero to little experience with being high on weed? It seems likely there is a difference between someone who is buzzed all day every day for years vs someone that smokes several times each weekend, but these studies all group them together as one. Most likely because the researchers don't understand what they are studying and produce results that do not match the lived experience of their research subjects.
    - ghfhghg 2y ago
      Oh I see. Yes I would definitely agree with that. Thanks for the clarification
- caminante 2y ago
  Fair point, but not material for the parent's case. To your point, AFAIK, the study doesn't differentiate potency of weed. Not all cannabis is created equal and the strands commonly available now are way more potent (with more arrows pointing to addictiveness) than "your dad's weed."

milkshakes 2y ago

I believe his generality has more to do with his friends than the drug itself. I am a heavy user. Remembering names sometimes is hard upon first introductions, but besides that my short-term memory seems to function just fine. I have had many coworkers in similar situations at the organizations I've been a part of. We've stayed friends, they're doing just fine. Some are in happier work situations and no longer consuming to cope. I've been actively trying to find my own balance as well. But generalizing stoner -> loser is a harmful, limited, and ignorant perspective in my opinion.