Accused Of Eating Man's Pot Brownies, Bragging About It .......

[Guest justluck]

Sorry Mr. Luck. Lighten up

Sorry I had missed your next reply. I did go back and edit that post.

[Murgatroy]

It's YOUR study, and the results are close to mine.

For some it isn't good enough unless you can back it up with a link to a college or LEA study.

I know what you are saying though.

[mikegideon]

Sorry I had missed your next reply. I did go back and edit that post.

No biggie

[Guest justluck]

Will get back later - have to pick up the granddaughter.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Haven't kept up with the research and maybe demographics have changed the results nowadays. Causation would be difficult to establish between various drugs including tobacco, caffeine, alcohol. But IIRC there is correlation or association which may have more to do with individual inclinations, rather than use of one drug "causing" use of another. There are social and cultural influences on individual behavior, but on the other hand everybody is wired a little different and some are naturally more inclined to behavior A versus behavior B or whatever.

Unless findings have recently changed, people who use one mind-altering drug are more more likely to use additional mind-altering drugs. A person who routinely smokes tobacco is more likely to also use meth or heroin, compared to a person who does not routinely smoke tobacco. A person who routinely takes heroin is more likely to also smoke pot, and vice-versa. In addition, people who routinely take drugs are more likely to engage in other risky behaviors, and vice-versa.

Most people do not have drug issues--

1. Some people never try a drug because of indoctrination, fear, independent personality, or having seen pitiful addicts and not wanting to risk becoming one.

2. Some people try a drug but do not like it, so they never develop a habit. Why do something that makes you feel bad?

3. Some try a drug and like it but are too stingy or cautious to routinely take the drug. If it costs too much or is too legally risky, then many people will avoid a drug even if they like it.

4. The vast majority who try it, like it, and develop a habit-- Eventually over a few months or years they get bored with the drug. When ready to quit, they easily quit of their own accord requiring little if any assistance.

Then we are left with the minority who try it, like it, develop a habit, and never want to quit or they find it difficult/impossible to quit-- Among that most-visible minority, if the guy is a cocaine addict then he has probably tried everything else that came his way, and most likely would try them again given the opportunity. Same for a heroin or meth addict. Some tobacco, alcohol or pot addicts are too "proud" to take "hard drugs". But then you find a few heroin addicts who are too "proud" to drink alcohol. Sometimes addicts of drug A want to feel superior to addicts of drug B or C.

If a child has been raised and educated to avoid everything from coffee on up, then maybe the "soft drugs" work as a de-programming agent. Among the minority who eventually try hard drugs and become addicts, it would appear that coffee caused tobacco caused alcohol caused pot caused LSD caused heroin. Though the majority who experiment with the hard stuff either don't like it or get bored and quit. When kids get inaccurate drug info it might accelerate the de-programming. If a kid has been trained that pot causes more woe than it really does-- If the kid tries it anyway and doesn't experience the promised horror, he concludes that everybody was lying to him. Then it is natural for the kid to conclude that maybe the parents and teachers were also lying about heroin or meth.

[Guest justluck]

When I was growing up (which was before many on TGO were born), my little segment of world didn't use pot. I remember advertisements (indoctrination) against pot use. It would make you become, after all, a stark raving lunatic and worse - alcohol was OK. So in my time, we used alcohol and I'm very familiar with the ramifications of that product/use.

Having never experienced pot (and I never intend to), I was curios as to some of the feelings and ramifications involved with that product/use. I am most appreciative of those who shared - some even in a most candid way.

Thanks everyone.

Note: Cut third paragraph because it was gibberish - too opinionated.

Edited September 29, 2011 by justluck

[mikegideon]

When I was growing up (which was before many on TGO were born), my little segment of world didn't use pot. I remember advertisements (indoctrination) against pot use. It would make you become, after all, a stark raving lunatic and worse - alcohol was OK. So in my time we used alcohol and I'm very familiar with the ramifications of that product/use.

Having never experienced pot (and I never intend to), I was curios as to some of the feelings and ramifications involved with that product/use. I am most appreciative of those who shared - some even in a most candid way.

My own feelings about it being a gateway drug is that it probably is, not because of the drug itself, but because of the environment it introduces the user to. And, I think that is what others have said. But, I also believe that there is a mind altering aspect (maybe physiological altering aspect would be a better term) to it just like other drugs, and it may be permanent (but I'm not a doctor/researcher).

Thanks everyone.

I think Willie Nelson is about your age, and he smokes more weed than ls3's entire graduating class :-). Hasn't done anything to him except make his pigtails grow faster.

[Guest justluck]

I think Willie Nelson is about your age, and he smokes more weed than ls3's entire graduating class :-). Hasn't done anything to him except make his pigtails grow faster.

:up:

[Murgatroy]

When I was growing up (which was before many on TGO were born), my little segment of world didn't use pot. I remember advertisements (indoctrination) against pot use. It would make you become, after all, a stark raving lunatic and worse - alcohol was OK. So in my time we used alcohol and I'm very familiar with the ramifications of that product/use.

Having never experienced pot (and I never intend to), I was curios as to some of the feelings and ramifications involved with that product/use. I am most appreciative of those who shared - some even in a most candid way.

My own feelings about it being a gateway drug is that it probably is, not because of the drug itself, but because of the environment it introduces the user to. And, I think that is what others have said. But, I also believe that there is a mind altering aspect (maybe physiological altering aspect would be a better term) to it just like other drugs, and it may be permanent (but I'm not a doctor/researcher).

Thanks everyone.

I grew up in a time when it was accepted. It is even more accepted today than it was back then. Your generation (no offense meant here) is an anomaly to me. In my generation, it is rare that you find someone that hasn't tried marijuana. Probably on in ten, maybe a little more, but not much. That is not to mean they habitually used it, but they have some experience with it.

Where I grew up, when I grew up, there was not a lot to do. There wasn't a farming industry, there were only a few places for kids to work, there were no 'hangouts.' As much as I despise some of the modern country for the actions it romanticizes, that was how we grew up. Finding an old dirt road and having a get together. When you take the boredom of small town living, with kids growing up that don't have anything to do, well that is what happens. They find ways to occupy themselves.

I was baling hay at twelve, mowing lawns wasn't an option, a paper route wasn't an option. You could only sling hay bales a few weeks a year. I started swinging a hammer around the same time I started running a chainsaw. However with school being a requirement, I couldn't do either full time. Which made it difficult to keep at them with any regularity. My uncle ran a logging crew, but he couldn't always afford to pay me if he had a full crew. I was always welcome to work, but after so long, you don't work for free. I had another uncle that ran a construction business, same story. It kept me out of trouble and I learned valuable skills, but if I wasn't making money, I wasn't going to do it for free forever.

I got a job bagging groceries when I was sixteen.

That was the 'gateway' we have all been looking for. Without the moral guidance of my elders (my uncles/stepfather etc...) I was at the whims of those who had no morals. Kids my own age. I was never pressured, or made to do things I didn't want to do, but we had some fun.

I have always worked. I have always been responsible. I have always paid my debts. I have always stuck to my word. I haven't always been moral.

As I watched those around me make poor decisions and start to fail, I walked away from where I was, I moved a couple hours north and started a new life.

Not everyone can be that strong. And those that can't, fail.

That is why I don't drink or use drugs. I have seen first hand what it can do, and what it can cost you.

With that said, I don't consider marijuana any more dangerous than alcohol.

[Guest justluck]

Just one more point of clarification: when I refer to "drugs", I'm lumping alcohol in to that term too.

[Guest justluck]

When I was growing up (which was before many on TGO were born), my little segment of world didn't use pot. I remember advertisements (indoctrination) against pot use. It would make you become, after all, a stark raving lunatic and worse - alcohol was OK. So in my time, we used alcohol and I'm very familiar with the ramifications of that product/use.

Having never experienced pot (and I never intend to), I was curios as to some of the feelings and ramifications involved with that product/use. I am most appreciative of those who shared - some even in a most candid way.

Thanks everyone.

Note: Cut third paragraph because it was gibberish - too opinionated.

[ls3_kid]

Not everyone can be that strong. And those that can't, fail.

That is why I don't drink or use drugs. I have seen first hand what it can do, and what it can cost you.

With that said, I don't consider marijuana any more dangerous than alcohol.

This I believe some people can't let go of drugs (alcohol included). In high school I never knew why my friends couldn't quit because I could drop anything we did cold turkey. Now I'm a little older (not much) and have understood why people can't quit. Unfortunately I have only found out because I can not seem to quit dipping (chewing tobacco as some of you call it). I've been trying for about two years but I always slip up, within the first week. I'm still determined. Day 3 right now.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

When I was growing up (which was before many on TGO were born), my little segment of world didn't use pot. I remember advertisements (indoctrination) against pot use. It would make you become, after all, a stark raving lunatic and worse - alcohol was OK. So in my time, we used alcohol and I'm very familiar with the ramifications of that product/use.

Having never experienced pot (and I never intend to), I was curios as to some of the feelings and ramifications involved with that product/use. I am most appreciative of those who shared - some even in a most candid way.

Hi justluck

I'm not too far behind ya. Those were the good old days when TV doctors would chain-smoke in the examination room. Maybe even in surgery!

In the ideal case one might think no drugs of any kind would be best. That may really be true. There are many contradictory studies and occasional studies indicate that vices have certain health benefits. Not all studies are correct of course, so it is difficult to make conclusions.

When doctors discover some apparent benefit to a vice, they usually couch the results with disclaimer that the drug overall does more harm than good. Tobacco might help with alzheimers or aggression/anger/anxiety/mental focus issues, but on the other hand it increases the odds of heart and lung disease. Alcohol might help with heart disease but it doesn't do your brain or liver any favors. They keep changing their minds whether coffee is good, bad or indifferent for your health. Some population studies have suggested that chronic pot smokers may have lower incidence of lung cancer and possibly other kinds of cancer. On the other hand pot makes many people lazy and stupid. It is strange because individuals are wired different and pot makes a few people smarter and more focused. I'm allergic to pot and allergic to being arrested so I stay away from it. Meth is incredibly evil stuff unless one has serious ADHD or serious narcolepsy. In that case Meth is almost a miracle drug.

Apparently there is even an "ideal" dose of radiation. The health effects of radiation have been charted as a U curve. Zero radiation is apparently less healthy than a slight amount of radiation. The U curve is "slightly high" at zero radiation, then drops to a minimum with modest radiation, and then of course keeps rising with increased radiation. Maybe people living in unusually low radiation areas would benefit from taking routine radiation treatments?

Anecdotal-- My parents and wife's parents are both about the same age in their 80's. Wife's folks are life-long strict vegetarians who never smoked, drank, and never even drank coffee. Physically they are surprisingly healthy but mentally they are going downhill fast. My folks were lifelong meat-eaters and smoked for decades (though they eventually quit), and did occasional drinking in the past and they still drink massive amounts of coffee. They are surprisingly mentally alert but physically they are in bad shape. Dunno if there have been population studies on this. Maybe kentucky fried chicken, bacon and cigarettes are good for the brain but bad for the body? Which way would you want to fall apart in old age? Mentally first, or physically first?

There are the jokes that you can live a clean life and be miserable for a long time, or have vices and enjoy life for a shorter number of years. Maybe it is only a joke or perhaps there is some truth to it? A person's occasional pleasures have to be worth something?

On the policy issue, however-- Could be wrong but I believe that drug enforcement costs more money and personal misery than no drug enforcement. I do not think that drug use would necessarily increase if decriminalized. Drug use would become more visible if decriminalized, possibly giving the average man on the street the impression that drug use had increased. But the percentage of our population prone to addiction-- Most of them are already addicts regardless of the law. Dunno if decriminalization could increase the number of people who have "the craving" for those vices (which presumably would have a strong genetic component). Dunno if changing a law would affect people's genes!

[Guest GunTroll]

interesting read of your guys opinions here.

Specially you senior citizens

[MacGyver]

I don't drink, smoke or do any type of drugs (immoderate amounts of coffee, butter and half-and-half excluded). That said, I'm mostly of the opinion that so long as you don't bother me about my guns, I'll leave you alone with your pot.

This book has been out of copyright for decades, so I'll post the text of one of my favorite stories. If you haven't ever read Mark Twain's travel epilogue Following the Equator, do yourself a favor and go pick up a copy. You won't be disappointed:

The brightest passenger in the ship, and the most interesting and felicitous talker, was a young Canadian who was not able to let the whisky bottle alone. He was of a rich and powerful family, and could have had a distinguished career and abundance of effective help toward it if he could have conquered his appetite for drink; but he could not do it, so his great equipment of talent was of no use to him. He had often taken the pledge to drink no more, and was a good sample of what that sort of unwisdom can do for a man - for a man with anything short of an iron will. The system is wrong in two ways: it does not strike at the root of the trouble, for one thing, and to make a pledge of any kind is to declare war against nature; for a pledge is a chain that is always clanking and reminding the wearer of it that he is not a free man.

I have said that the system does not strike at the root of the trouble, and I venture to repeat that. The root is not the drinking, but the desire to drink. These are very different things. The one merely requires will - and a great deal of it, both as to bulk and staying capacity - the other merely requires watchfulness - and for no long time. The desire of course precedes the act, and should have one's first attention; it can do but little good to refuse the act over and over again, always leaving the desire unmolested, unconquered; the desire will continue to assert itself, and will be almost sure to win in the long run. When the desire intrudes, it should be at once banished out of the mind. One should be on the watch for it all the time - otherwise it will get in. It must be taken in time and not allowed to get a lodgment. A desire constantly repulsed for a fortnight should die, then. That should cure the drinking habit. The system of refusing the mere act of drinking, and leaving the desire in full force, is unintelligent war tactics, it seems to me. I used to take pledges - and soon violate them. My will was not strong, and I could not help it. And then, to be tied in any way naturally irks an otherwise free person and makes him chafe in his bonds and want to get his liberty. But when I finally ceased from taking definite pledges, and merely resolved that I would kill an injurious desire, but leave myself free to resume the desire and the habit whenever I should choose to do so, I had no more trouble. In five days I drove out the desire to smoke and was not obliged to keep watch after that; and I never experienced any strong desire to smoke again. At the end of a year and a quarter of idleness I began to write a book, and presently found that the pen was strangely reluctant to go. I tried a smoke to see if that would help me out of the difficulty. It did. I smoked eight or ten cigars and as many pipes a day for five months; finished the book, and did not smoke again until a year had gone by and another book had to be begun.

I can quit any of my nineteen injurious habits at any time, and without discomfort or inconvenience. I think that the Dr. Tanners and those others who go forty days without eating do it by resolutely keeping out the desire to eat, in the beginning, and that after a few hours the desire is discouraged and comes no more.

Once I tried my scheme in a large medical way. I had been confined to my bed several days with lumbago. My case refused to improve. Finally the doctor said, -

"My remedies have no fair chance. Consider what they have to fight, besides the lumbago. You smoke extravagantly, don't you?"

"Yes."

"You take coffee immoderately?"

"Yes."

"And some tea?"

"Yes."

"You eat all kinds of things that are dissatisfied with each other's company?"

"Yes."

"You drink two hot Scotches every night?"

"Yes."

"Very well, there you see what I have to contend against. We can't make progress the way the matter stands. You must make a reduction in these things; you must cut down your consumption of them considerably for some days."

"I can't, doctor."

"Why can't you."

"I lack the will-power. I can cut them off entirely, but I can't merely moderate them."

He said that that would answer, and said he would come around in twenty-four hours and begin work again. He was taken ill himself and could not come; but I did not need him. I cut off all those things for two days and nights; in fact, I cut off all kinds of food, too, and all drinks except water, and at the end of the forty-eight hours the lumbago was discouraged and left me. I was a well man; so I gave thanks and took to those delicacies again.

It seemed a valuable medical course, and I recommended it to a lady. She had run down and down and down, and had at last reached a point where medicines no longer had any helpful effect upon her. I said I knew I could put her upon her feet in a week. It brightened her up, it filled her with hope, and she said she would do everything I told her to do. So I said she must stop swearing and drinking, and smoking and eating for four days, and then she would be all right again. And it would have happened just so, I know it; but she said she could not stop swearing, and smoking, and drinking, because she had never done those things. So there it was. She had neglected her habits, and hadn't any. Now that they would have come good, there were none in stock. She had nothing to fall back on. She was a sinking vessel, with no freight in her to throw over lighten ship withal. Why, even one or two little bad habits cou1d have saved her, but she was just a moral pauper. When she could have acquired them she was dissuaded by her parents, who were ignorant people though reared in the best society, and it was too late to begin now. It seemed such a pity; but there was no help for it. These things ought to be attended to while a person is young; otherwise, when age and disease come, there is nothing effectual to fight them with.

[Guest justluck]

An absolutely great/funny story. Thanks

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks McGyver, hadn't read that. Twain was a smart guy. One of my favorite quotes is Twain's "It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times." Your quoted prose puts it into better perspective.

There does seem something to the caffeine-nicotine connection to mental work capabilities. The old photos of famous scientists/engineers designing atom bombs or rockets-- crewcuts, tobacco, coffee, slide rules and papers everywhere. There has been some research confirmation of the effect. Alcohol also does seem to lubricate the gears for the artistic types. At least some of the artistic types.

Am not advocating such. Only noting lots of anecdotal evidence.

Then there is such as this--

xkcd: Ballmer Peak

[mikegideon]

That explains alot!