Social Question

Avangelo's avatar

Why is it that every time a marijuana myth is debunked a new problem is suddenly an issue?

Asked by Avangelo (250 points ) May 29th, 2012

It just seems that every time it’s proven that marijuana is good for “this” and doesn’t cause “that”, you start to find some “new problems” that it causes. Is anyone else seen this? If I can get links that prove pot causes schizophrenia, maybe I’ll believe them.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

ETpro's avatar

Marijuana prohibition is meant as a racial suppression tool and to protect certain well-heeled industries that pour financial support to those that make the laws. The absurdities of some of the claims against it are enough to tip us of that some hidden agenda is at work in marijuana prohibition.

JLeslie's avatar

As far as I am concerned MJ should be treated the same as alcohol. The problem is big big business, big pharma, does not want it legalized. So, there is probably lobby money spent to keep it illegal at a federal level, and who knows what sorts of side deals are going on. Anyway, keeping all the possible scary information out there about pot helps the public support against legalizing it, which makes it easier for politicians to keep reinforcing the laws against its use and distrobution. It might contribute to some mental illness in some people, who knows. I know people who insist it is not addictive, and I am hear to say everyone I know who used it daily was an addict. That is my nonmedical opinion. They were not happy people without their pot.

ETpro's avatar

Perhaps the Incarcerex Movie says it best.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Marijuana (the scourge of drugs) is/was a made-up issue by law enforcement in cahoots with the liquor/beer/wine industries and various monied interests.

The whole illegality, enforcement, war on drugs, DARE program (since discredited) was based on economic interests and not any real danger.

And it continues 70 years later.

Bill1939's avatar

Marijuana does not cause schizophrenia. However, my experience working in a mental hospital has proved to me that people who have schizophrenia can experience a psychotic break when they smoke it.

LuckyGuy's avatar

I know the textbook studies say MJ is not addictive. Yet, from my admittedly purely observational studies while in university, the very few guys who smoked it daily did so because, for whatever reason, they needed to. Not one of them graduated and one even ended up in prison for killing someone in a road rage incident. Of the guys who didn’t smoke daily, (the overwhelming majority), most graduated, got decent jobs, and as far as I know, none ended up in prison.

I agree this is not a cause and effect relationship and you cannot predict success or failure from that one characteristic. But, if you were going to bet some money on who would graduate, which group would you bet on: the smoke daily group or the non smokers? As an employer, given the choice, which group would you hire?
I feel the same way about alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs.

LostInParadise's avatar

Marijuana is often compared to alcohol. Are there any cases where a normally mild mannered pot smoker turns abusive in the same way as some alcoholics do? Is there anything equivalent to a barroom brawl among pot smokers?

gorillapaws's avatar

@LuckyGuy that all may be true, but don’t forget the outliers like Steve Jobs who literally changed the world and attributed psychedelic drugs as part of his success: ”“Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life.”

LuckyGuy's avatar

@gorillapaws Yep. I wish we all could be Steve Jobs. Sad fact is – we’re not.
Oops He died of cancer recently. Forget about me wishing I could be him.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I don’t know, but I think it’s all completely ridiculous. Marijuana should be legal, just like cigarettes and alcohol. I have smoked pot, and I did inhale, and I drove better than I do sober, because I was paranoid everyone knew I was high! :D

Bill1939's avatar

@LuckyGuy, if not addictive, all pleasurable pursuits are potentially habit forming. Excessive behaviors, regardless of what is being abused (including sex), will compete time wise with responsibilities.

Paradox25's avatar

(maybe I’m talking out of my a$$ here) Probably because the war on drugs is funded by various resources, the same special interests that have more to gain than not, by resorting to the perpetual debunking of all that may be good about marijuana. The antipot figureheads will always be plotting a new idea to make weed look badder than what it is.

ETpro's avatar

@LuckyGuy The smartest guy I know liked to smoke weed. He did all the coursework for a PhD in psych, but decided he didn’t want to bother with writing a thesis. Instead, he founded a software company, built it up, ans sold in for $35 million. Certainly not a Steve Jobs story, but if you’re collecting anecdotal evidence, there’s one more anecdote.

I think @Bill1939‘s got the right answer on why some people decide to become pot-heads.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro Smoked weed daily?

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie He smoked just about daily back when I was on the West Coast and new his day-to-day activities. He already had his software firm growing. But he was the most live-wire guy I have ever met. He was so hyper his shrink had him on 10 mg Valium and he would pop then throughout the day with seemingly no effect. A couple of them and I would be nodding off in 15 or 20 minutes.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro Maybe he was bipolar? Sounds like he was self medicating with the pot. One guy I dated was basically a daily user, or close to it, and he had a masters degree and a good career, but he wound up being violent, and now I realize very very insecure. The other guy I know was a great guy, funny, nice. He was younger than me, we went to university together, and were introduced because of a loose connection from where we had both grown up. He would call me when he had questions at school, or to hang out sometimes. What I know is when he wasn’t high he was not as happy seemingly. I have no idea how successful he was.

In general I think anyone who needs to do something daily is addicted. (I consider myself addicted to fluther for now.) I pretty much am on the same page as @LuckyGuy, which I had written way up on my first answer, but of course there are people who are exceptions. People who drink, smoke, toke, caffeinate themselves daily are miserable when they don’t get their drug of choice. It is mood altering and definitely a dependency. Some dependencies are worse than others. Some are more grounded in avoidance and inability to cope than others.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Back in the day, (early 70s) weed was $35 per oz., a ridiculously high sum. That group not only expended precious time but also $ on something that at best did no harm.

@ETpro Imagine where your friend would be had he spent the time starting a second company, or perfecting the first.

Knowing what you now know about weed, try this thought experiment:
If you were preparing for an Olympic event, would you smoke a joint 20 minutes before the starting gun?
If you were on ETrade and planning to research and invest $10k on an option position, would you blow a stick 20 minutes before entering your password?
If you were going to a job interview would you show up baked?
If you were going to test drive the new Kawasaki Ninja would you light a blunt first?
If you were a doctor would you see a patient after blasting a roach?

I’m guessing the answer is “no”. Why? Because we agree it affect our physical and mental states – and, in general, not for the better. Same is true for alcohol.

Of the folks who smoked every day, from my limited experience, there are way more people who came out on the short end of the stick.

josie's avatar

See @LuckyGuy
Maybe it is not terminally harmful, but absent any and few supposed medicinal benefits, what good does it do? I smoked it plenty in my stupid kid life, and am really no bettter for the experience. All I did was laugh, eat, and sleep. I do those things anyway. What is the point?

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie, @LuckyGuy & @josie I’m not saying I think smoking pot daily is a great idea. I don’t think smoking ANYTHING (with the possible exception of Lox and smoked pork) is a good idea. But @LuckyGuy, try your own thought experiment but just slide in 2 shots of liquor for the joint. What I object to is the US having by far the highest per capita incarceration rate of any nation on Earth. We think human rights are abysmal in places like North Korea and China where you can get locked up for harboring political ideas the Dear Leaders don’t like. But we lock up far more people and their only crime is enjoying themselves using a drug that is arguable far less harmful than alcohol.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro I’m with you there. I support decriminalizing weed. Although, a few jellies have said where drugs are legal things are worse not better. I remember one said he voted in favor of medical MJ in Cali, and now he thinks it was a mistake after seeing what is happening. I still am in favor of making pot legal though.

As far as the two shots, two shots daily, I still pretty much think that person is most likely addicted, I don’t see it as any different than the weed. Can be two drinks of anything, wine, beer, shots of hard alcohol. You name it. I am pretty square on the topic. They might be able to get along just fine, functioning well, no major mood changes, but probably still addicted, would miss it and be uncomfortable for at least a short while if they had to give it up. Some others on that small amount might actually have serious mood changes and be very addicted, each individual is different.

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie For what it’s worth, men who consume no more than two drinks per day and women who consume no more than 1 substantially outlive those who are teetotalers. It’s true whether the drink be beer, wine or spirits. But red wine has the greatest health benefits. The risk is that for a certain number of individuals, 2 will turn to 3, then 4, and on till they can’t even count how many any more.

Also, moderate consumption of coffee is a life extender.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro I really don’t feel sure about these studies. Do they account for social class, access to health care, etc.? Are they looking at what else is being consumed when the alcohol or coffee isn’t? In America I doubt it is always tea, and half the people who do drink tea are probably drinking sweet tea. It’s like the supposed reduction in cholesterol if you eat oatmeal. Well, yeah, if you oatmeal instead of most other breakfast foods you will reduce your cholesterol, but you can also eat whole wheat cereal and get the same benefit. Plus, I am not against people having a drink now and then, and especially not against caffeine consumption. I had quit caffeine for 10 years, kind of went back to drinking very small amounts in the last few years. I don’t drink coffee though. Caffeine drinkers who don’t drink coffee drink soda usually, not great for your health, and then there are the tea people also. Red wine is the most suspicious to me. Medical science says the chemical in it thought to benefit us most needs to be taken in huge doses. The wine drinker I assume is middle class or better and probably more fit/healthy in general.

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie I have no idea how the studies were conducted or what they controlled for. Do as you feel is right for you.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro I agree people should do what they feel is right for them. I hope I did not come across as argumentative or disrespctful? I just have questions about those studies and the only one I did some research on is the oatmeal and other grains.

Bill1939's avatar

Though I believe that a government’s role is to protect its citizens from harm (FDA regulations for example, if they were for the benefit of the public and not corporations), protecting people from themselves is going too far. While requiring manufacturers to provide seat belts in vehicles is a proper roll that serves the public’s interest, laws requiring their use is not, (such regulation is more to serve insurance companies than a real concern for safety). Law should serve individuals (the only real people) not the financial benefits of businesses (legal and illegal) as anti-drug laws do.

ETpro's avatar

@Bill1939 You’re a delight to my libertarian heart.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther