Marijuana and Mental Illness

Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Steven Jobs allegedly smoked weed back in the seventies.

Sometimes I wonder if they made anything of their lives. I'll have a look if they're on Facebook and see what I can find out.
 
Carl Sagan was a user and advocate. He made some statement once about something or the other that no one understood. It proved mj had an adverse impact on his thought processes. ;)
 
Emet said:
Carl Sagan was a user and advocate. He made some statement once about something or the other that no one understood. It proved mj had an adverse impact on his thought processes. ;)
Click to expand...

As I recall he had articles in High Times posted under an alias which was revealed after he died.
 
GracefullyTalentless said:
Or the fact that when I used to smoke it, i'd often get panicky in social situations ranging from walking round town to being in the pub with friends, in which i'd otherwise not have any issue. The onset of these symptoms corresponded exactly to the periods when I used weed.

These increased in frequency as my usage of weed became heavier, until it got to the point where it didn't matter whether or not I smoked it, i'd be panicky practically all the time in such situations.

Since quitting, this panicky feeling has subsided greatly to the point where it's not a problem or even noticable.

But I guess my lack of anything other than anecdotal evidence means that some of you know my body and mind better than me, right?

What I meant when I said:

"This is one of the few subjects that I don't care what evidence exists."

is that whatever evidence does exist, from either camp, seems to be laden with confirmation bias to the point where it is preferable for me to trust my own experience with the drug.

I don't doubt that what Aepervius said about my having an underlying psychological condition could be true, though if it is then it is either now in a state of almost complete remission or i've been cured without counselling, drugs or a single visit to a GP.

I'm not saying "PUT DOWN YOUR BONGS PEOPLE, YOU'RE ALL GOING TO GO CRAZY!", I am quite aware that my physiome will have as much to do with how the drug interacts with my mind as the drug itself. But i'm also aware that regardless of how much of an individual i'd like to consider myself, i'm just not that special, and other people are likely to experience the same or similar effects to me.
Click to expand...
Paranoia is a side effect known to almost everyone who smoked regularly, including myself, it's right up there with the munchies. It's not clinical grade "you're crazy" type paranoia, it's more of a mild discomfort, ranging up to the panicky like you describe.
 
The_Animus said:
Yes. One only needs to look at the short time in US history in which alcohol was illegal to understand how things work when substances are made legal or illegal. When illegal there is a huge black market for the substance. Any industry which can make large amounts of money will attract people to capitalize on that money. If the industry is illegal then only criminals, mobs, crime syndicates, gangs, or whatever term you would prefer, will be the large suppliers.
Click to expand...

Halfcentaur pointed that out to me as well, and I have to admit that it's a valid argument.

As for driving while intoxicated I think that shouldn't be allowed. However, people drive intoxicated on alcohol, or on pot, or on meth, or any other mind altering substance. This tells us people will do it regardless of the legal status of the substance. People drive while sleep deprived and get in accidents too, but nonetheless I bet you'd think that mandatory sleeping laws or making driving while tired illegal is silly.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to say about that notion. Even if the number of road fatalities increased only "slightly" (say a couple thousand deaths), I think you'd find it hard to justify the legalization process to anyone victimized by it. I hear what you're saying, I"m just not sure it would go over with the public as well as you might imagine.
 
Last edited:
Another point. Supposing we had a mass roundup of marijuana dealers and smokers tomorrow. Could we deal with the 50 million or so criminal cases? Could we incarcerate all those people?

At $230 per day cost of incarceration (really!) that would be 11.5 billion dollars a day.

Is there any moral or ethical justification for keeping a crime on the books that is committed regularly by so many people?
 
Dancing David said:
Um, it is true but tolerance means they don't feel high. (But it likely explains the hangover effect I experienced.)

The levels exist for about thirty days after use, depending on the amount the blood levels can be substantial. So say they used a very sensitive test, there are probably trace amounts for a very long time. The gubermint takes a hair sample when they test you for employment, your urine is clean after a month, the hair has it until it falls off.
Click to expand...
Would it produce an intoxication of any significance as far as performance goes?
 
Can you back that up with something? I'm not doubting you, I just want to be on steady ground.
 
Marcus said:
Paranoia is a side effect known to almost everyone who smoked regularly, including myself, it's right up there with the munchies. It's not clinical grade "you're crazy" type paranoia, it's more of a mild discomfort, ranging up to the panicky like you describe.
Click to expand...


Do you suppose that being guilty of a federal and usually state crime for taking a puff might contribute to this mild paranoia?

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a certain level of paranoia was common among anyone who was even "holding", whether they were using or not. This could cast some doubt on the drug use being responsible for paranoia in situations like you describe.
 
quadraginta said:
Do you suppose that being guilty of a federal and usually state crime for taking a puff might contribute to this mild paranoia?

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a certain level of paranoia was common among anyone who was even "holding", whether they were using or not. This could cast some doubt on the drug use being responsible for paranoia in situations like you describe.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. All of the paranoia I've experienced when under the effect of cannabis was directly related to "getting caught" or being suspicious of people knowing I was high. If this wasn't a crime, I don't think I would have been. When in countries I've visited where it isn't a crime, it's quite liberating.

As for cannabis' effects, of course you're not high for 30 days straight. Even the best cannabis out there has no more effect on you after a matter of several hours. I've heard of people describe certain "hang over" effects, but the actual intoxication and pleasure does not last for as long as it's in your system. While yes, it can be there for up to a month, casual users I know pass a test after a week of abstaining. The notion of residual traces left for long periods of time being used against it as evidence of danger seems silly to me. You can be tested for opiate use for up to 48 hours after ingestion, but the high is certainly over long before that.
 
BenBurch said:
Another point. Supposing we had a mass roundup of marijuana dealers and smokers tomorrow. Could we deal with the 50 million or so criminal cases? Could we incarcerate all those people?

At $230 per day cost of incarceration (really!) that would be 11.5 billion dollars a day.

Is there any moral or ethical justification for keeping a crime on the books that is committed regularly by so many people?
Click to expand...

Of course; the morality of an action isn't decided by the amount of people doing it. If drug use is wrong, then it is ethical to criminalize it even if every person on the planet rolls it up.

What you have is an issue of practicality. Of course there would be no point in incarcerating all those people. But then, nobody is suggesting every drug user should go to jail. That's a typical strawman used to make it seem like all advocates of drug criminalization are crazy nazis hoping to send all potheads into concentration camps. They're not.

Instead, make that incarceration a two hundred dollar fine. Suddenly that ten billion dollars turns positive - easily enough to pay for the incarceration of the small percentage of people who really are dangerous in addition to being criminals. And indeed, in practice this is usually what is done (although in practice, not enough fines are collected to make the whole thing profitable).

It's pointless to claim the fact that a prison sentence can be given for possession means it always, usually or even often is. The facts are out there, and you're not fooling anyone but those who want to be fooled. There are several good arguments for decriminalizing drug use, but this isn't one of them.
 
BenBurch said:
And "wrong" is determined how?
Click to expand...

That's really a different issue. After all, I wasn't saying drug use is wrong, but merely pointing out that your point about criminalizing drug use not being ethical did not hold water.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I'm a utilitarian pragmatist. I believe high moral philosophy is irrelevant in high-level decision making, and we should simply attempt to choose the option that minimizes damage and maximizes benefit for the society as a whole and it's worst-off members specifically.

As to the particular issue of drug legalization, I'm currently on the fence. On one hand, I believe there could likely be some short-term benefits in legalizing some or all drugs, but on the other I'm not yet convinced it would be a good move in the long term. Several medical issues with drugs are real, after all, as are some social effects, and the research on both is still lacking. I'm also for the gradual criminalization of tobacco sale, and legalizing another smoked herb would be somewhat opposed to that.
 
Mirrorglass said:
That's really a different issue. After all, I wasn't saying drug use is wrong, but merely pointing out that your point about criminalizing drug use not being ethical did not hold water.

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I'm a utilitarian pragmatist. I believe high moral philosophy is irrelevant in high-level decision making, and we should simply attempt to choose the option that minimizes damage and maximizes benefit for the society as a whole and it's worst-off members specifically.

As to the particular issue of drug legalization, I'm currently on the fence. On one hand, I believe there could likely be some short-term benefits in legalizing some or all drugs, but on the other I'm not yet convinced it would be a good move in the long term. Several medical issues with drugs are real, after all, as are some social effects, and the research on both is still lacking. I'm also for the gradual criminalization of tobacco sale, and legalizing another smoked herb would be somewhat opposed to that.
Click to expand...

Then prohibit smoking it, and not ingesting it and inhaling the vapors of the vaporized product.

I think if we legalized everything and gave a thorough education to our children, without the fear mongering and dishonest inflation of often fabricated danger, things would be in a better place that they are today. Treating the dangers more as a health issue/epidemic and not a criminal issue is what I feel makes the most sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom