• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Marijuana Harmless?

joobz said:
Probably inspired him about as much as me playing Puzzlequest on my DS has inspired my research.

It's an escape. A pleasurable activity to break the monotony. It can serve to aide in eureka moments, but that's not its function. Smoke if you want, but don't pretend it gives special powers. I think the lesson from Sagan (and many who posted here) is that responsible pot use doesn't significantly impact the productivity of individuals.
Click to expand...

I don´t need a justification to smoke it other than : I like to.
Where did I pretend it gives special powers? Or do you think inspiration is a special power? I don´t think so. It´s a "power" everybody has and that can be enhanced by drugs.

But let´s see some evidence:

Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never admitted this publicly during his life. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, whose editor was Lester Grinspoon.[7] In his essay, Sagan commented that marijuana encourage and enhanced experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention.[8][9][10]
Click to expand...

taken from wikipedia.
Care to comment?
Maybe some weed would help you to control your agressive behaviour.....
ETA: O.K., not really agressive I have to admit. But still not justified.
 
Last edited:
......and some more:
· I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, un-available to us without such drugs.
o published in Dr. Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana Reconsidered (1971)
· ...The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.
o published in Dr. Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana Reconsidered (1971)
· There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day.
o published in Dr. Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana Reconsidered (1971)
Click to expand...

taken from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

your turn, joobz
 
´twas a translator machine thingy innit!

I should be doing work too. But it´s soooooo boring. I wish I could smoke now but in this job but it´s not possible. When I did repetitive menial (manual?) work in night-shifts, though, there was nothing better than the old "porro"!

Ok bye now... thanks for the interesting stuff about Sagan, I didn´t know any of that!
 
Georg said:
I don´t need a justification to smoke it other than : I like to.
Click to expand...
This was my point. Wanting to is its own end. You don't need to have any additional reason for smoking.

I disagree with people who attribute additional reasons for pot to be legal. The fact that responsible users can have a productive life is enough of a reason for it to be legal.

To state that it is somehow going to make people smarter, cure diseases, safe the world...weakens the argument.

Georg said:
Where did I pretend it gives special powers? Or do you think inspiration is a special power? I don´t think so. It´s a "power" everybody has and that can be enhanced by drugs.
Click to expand...
The post I responded to made it sound like pot had a unique role in inspiration, which I contend it doesn't.

Taking a good shower can be the right impetus for inspiration. Anything that stimulates pleasure and allows someone to relax thier thoughts will have this effect. this is why I gave my puzzle quest example. I've had several good research ideas while veging playing video games. but I don't think there is anything unique about this effect.
Georg said:
But let´s see some evidence:

taken from wikipedia.
Care to comment?
Maybe some weed would help you to control your agressive behaviour.....
ETA: O.K., not really agressive I have to admit. But still not justified.
Click to expand...
I'm interested as to where you think I was being aggressive. Also, why are my comments not justified? I think the cut to the heart of your point. I was simply highlighting that there is no reason to assume that Sagan's contibutions to science are linked to his perferred forms of recreation.

Charles Manson also smoked pot. Should we assume that his murderous tendencies are tied to this as well?
 
Georg said:
Thank you as well. Even if you don´t know if there was a causation between beeing stoned and the accident, the saying of cuddles still true. As a father of a 18 month old daughter I´m not sure if I´d need a definite causation if someone would hurt or kill her while driving under influence and I could lay my hands on the driver.... But as mentioned before, driving stoned since a long time isn´t the thing I do. And I´ll avoid the exceptions as well.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, you get it. I'm a parent myself. Becoming a parent is a basic "aha" moment.

:)



joobz said:
This was my point. Wanting to is its own end. You don't need to have any additional reason for smoking.


To state that it is somehow going to make people smarter, cure diseases, safe the world...weakens the argument.


The post I responded to made it sound like pot had a unique role in inspiration, which I contend it doesn't.

Taking a good shower can be the right impetus for inspiration. Anything that stimulates pleasure and allows someone to relax thier thoughts will have this effect. this is why I gave my puzzle quest example. I've had several good research ideas while veging playing video games. but I don't think there is anything unique about this effect.

I'm interested as to where you think I was being aggressive. Also, why are my comments not justified? I think the cut to the heart of your point. I was simply highlighting that there is no reason to assume that Sagan's contibutions to science are linked to his perferred forms of recreation.

Charles Manson also smoked pot. Should we assume that his murderous tendencies are tied to this as well?
Click to expand...


This has taken a somewhat scholastic turn. When we speak of a certain drug, we should be speaking of it in accordance with its character, not hypothetically. Its character is known.

Someone around here who speaks with the voice of some authority is DancingDavid experience-wise, even though his posts seem like they were typed at breakneck speed on the train on the commute home or something...through the chicago suburbs...
 
calebprime said:
This has taken a somewhat scholastic turn. When we speak of a certain drug, we should be speaking of it in accordance with its character, not hypothetically. Its character is known.
Click to expand...
Please explain what you are saying here. I am not following your point.:o
 
Cuddles said:
Exactly. IzakDavidxXx, do you have some way of distinguishing between natural chemicals and manmade chemicals? If not it seems a rather pointless distinction to be making.
Click to expand...

Cuddles & Professor Yaffle
My appologies, I ment Natural chemicals Vs Man Made artificial chemicals.
My bad, it is 3:00 am Down Under.
 
joobz said:
The post I responded to made it sound like pot had a unique role in inspiration, which I contend it doesn't.

Taking a good shower can be the right impetus for inspiration. Anything that stimulates pleasure and allows someone to relax thier thoughts will have this effect. this is why I gave my puzzle quest example. I've had several good research ideas while veging playing video games. but I don't think there is anything unique about this effect.

I'm interested as to where you think I was being aggressive. Also, why are my comments not justified? I think the cut to the heart of your point. I was simply highlighting that there is no reason to assume that Sagan's contibutions to science are linked to his perferred forms of recreation.

Charles Manson also smoked pot. Should we assume that his murderous tendencies are tied to this as well?
Click to expand...
Bolding in the quote is mine.

With my edit I took back the term aggressive. I did that clearly before you answered again. I admitted I was wrong. Not justified? That´s easy. As written before, you said I pretended that weed gives “special powers”. I didn´t. It was your wrong interpretation. So it was not justified. Would you please admit that?
The inspiration part: If you read post 243 you´ll see that there actually is a reason to assume that he saw this drug as something inspiring. Or do I misunderstand the word “insight”?
The Charles Manson argument is quite weak as long as you don´t show evidence about him saying the weed inspired him to do what he did.
 
joobz said:
To state that it is somehow going to make people smarter, cure diseases, safe the world...weakens the argument.
Click to expand...

But I don´t agree on that one. As long as it is supported by evidence, there´s nothing wrong with it and it even strengthens the argument. And cannabis has a lot of potential for medical use. Evidence?

http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/nav/home-science.htm

Just click the second link on that page and read a bit.
 
I smoked very strong weed pretty solidly for many years. It seriously messed with my memory which I'm not convinced has recovered. I spent quite a lot of the time feeling anxious. My motivation levels were very low. My aggression levels were very high when not stoned. I suffered from some quite nasty mental swings and inability to see things clearly and so deal with those swings. Although I smoked it neat I also suffered from a bout of bronchitis and poor lung function. I was what I would consider to be addicted to it in that I had to smoke every day, couldn't sleep without it, thought about it all the time, talked about it and couldn't imagine life any differently.

These days I rarely smoke the stuff. Now I could have a bag of the stuff in my house and not think about it. Before (quite a few years ago) that would have been unimaginable. I can't remember how I changed from then to now to be honest but I'm very glad I did.

Most of my friends all smoked a lot too. Some it hardly affected some it really affected. All have pretty much given it up (maybe smoke a J at a party or something).

So for me I wouldn't say it was harmless at all. It had a detrimental effect on my life that I struggled very hard to get over. But having said that, I am not in it's clutches now and I don't mean like a recovering alcoholic. I can still smoke it but then not touch it again for 6 months and not think about it in between. So I don't think the addition, for me, was like other drug addictions people describe.
 
IzakDavidxXx said:
Cuddles & Professor Yaffle
My appologies, I ment Natural chemicals Vs Man Made artificial chemicals.
My bad, it is 3:00 am Down Under.
Click to expand...

Woahhhhh................I´m really psychic! I predicted that in post 234!

Trying to be Psychic: I´m quite sure he meant the distinction between natural and artificial drugs.
Click to expand...

I´m better than the claws!
So, sorry folks, the show is over. Close down the forum, the JREF and hand over the million, mission accomplished.
 
IzakDavidxXx said:
Cuddles & Professor Yaffle
My appologies, I ment Natural chemicals Vs Man Made artificial chemicals.
My bad, it is 3:00 am Down Under.
Click to expand...

But that was the whole point. Why do you distinguish between "natural" and "artifical" chemicals? If a chemical acts in a certain way, your body doesn't care where it comes from. Many chemicals can come from either natural sources or be synthesised artificially, but there is no way of telling which is which. The distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is a completely pointless one to make, and is often very misleading.
 
Fair point, Cuddles.

***

I´m curious. Anybody here approves illegalisation of Marijuana?

(a bit off topic but related anyway and don´t want to start a new one)
 
Last edited:
There´s a poll somewhere on this forum. Last time I looked more than 90% of the people who voted wanted to see it legalised.
 
Cuddles said:
But that was the whole point. Why do you distinguish between "natural" and "artifical" chemicals? If a chemical acts in a certain way, your body doesn't care where it comes from. Many chemicals can come from either natural sources or be synthesised artificially, but there is no way of telling which is which. The distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is a completely pointless one to make, and is often very misleading.
Click to expand...

Trying to be psychic again: I´d say he meant the difference between drugs/chemicals that occur in plants and artificial drugs/chemicals that don´t.
I don´know if that distinction makes any sense. Does somebody know?
 
Georg said:
Trying to be psychic again: I´d say he meant the difference between drugs/chemicals that occur in plants and artificial drugs/chemicals that don´t.
I don´know if that distinction makes any sense. Does somebody know?
Click to expand...

As I said, no it does't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom