• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Marihuana's Insidiousness

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nexus_Tripper

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
490
I saw this on Reddit's /r/Drugs and wanted to x-post it here. It is 100% true.

Let me state up front that I will not be discussing the morality of the shitty stupid drug war, "gateway drugs", legalization, glaucoma or hemp. I will be evaluating it solely in comparison to other narcotics and mind altering substances.

Marihuana is an insidious beast. It has a tendency to insinuate its way completely into the everyday lives of its users. No, this doesn't happen to all users. Many many people only smoke once in awhile and never fall into the lifestyle of the habitual pot head, but the proclivity of marihuana to become a central part of its users existence is undeniable.

Some other drugs have this tendency as well, but the only ones that do so on the same level are opiates. Even though methamphetamine and cocaine are highly addictive they don't lend themselves to the same type of total, long-term personality saturation. Unlike the habitual marhjuana user, you can't take equivalent amounts of speed or coke every day for more than a couple years without totally destroying your life. They are drugs that reinforce the concept of moderation, at least among users who value their lives.

Sure, we all know that guy who spends entire weeks tripping, or the chick who goes clubbing on ecstasy almost every night of the week. The difference is that these people are the exceptions, and they never keep at it for very long. Their activities are more a function of age and transitory lifestyle than of the drugs themselves.

Some would argue that alcohol fits the same lifestyle-saturation pattern as marihuana and opiates like heroin. Some may even suggest that cigarettes fall into this category. What sets them apart is a matter of degree. Having a drink to relax is fundamentally different than getting a little stoned to relax. Even a little stoned is still stoned, and you still have glazed eyes, a stupid grin, and an inability to carry on a decent conversation with non-stoned people. Yes, there are alcoholics, but they are definitely a small minority. As for cigarettes, the narcotic effect is so minuscule as to almost not be worth mentioning.

The tendency of other drugs to enforce moderation in their users can usually be rightfully seen as corollary to their potential danger to the user. In this light marihuana may seem superior in that it doesn't present such a health risk. However, it is that risk that keeps those other drugs in their proper place.

A drug is something that alters you and changes how you react to the world. If you engage in drug use on weekends or special occasions then you are essentially taking a break from life. You are on a drug-induced vacation. But if you take drugs damn-near every day then your use takes on a whole different meaning. You are not doing it to have fun anymore, you are taking medication.

Are you a habitual marihuana smoker? Do you need daily medication from life? How did you get to this point? You started smoking with your friends when you were out having a good time. It enhanced the fun. What changed?

The above points can be addressed with the same answer to the question of what makes marihuana worse than heroin and opium. Unlike those drugs, marihuana lies. Every junkie knows that they are a junkie. Every person who wastes away each evening in an opium den knows that they themselves are also wasting away. Every other drug out there reminds its users that, no matter how much enjoyment they receive, there is a price to be paid. Every one except marihuana.

Marihuana tells you that you are a better person for having smoked marihuana. Marihuana tells you that you are more creative when you smoke marihuana. Marihuana tells you that it helps you concentrate. What marihuana doesn't tell you is that you feel more creative because you have lost the ability to judge your work from the vantage point of someone who isn't stoned. It doesn't tell you that it replaced your critical thinking skills with the naive wonder of a six year old. It doesn't tell you that your present vague awareness of your surroundings is not the same thing as being relaxed and at peace. And most importantly, it doesn't tell you that when you become an habitual user its effects persist even when you are not longer stoned.

The similarities of former marihuana smokers' testimonials should tell you something. "After two weeks it was like a haze was removed from my life." "I felt like I had finally woken up." "I couldn't believe how much more alive I felt after a month away from it."

Any drug that takes two to four weeks of non-usage before you even realize what a mess you were is seriously evil. Drugs that deceive are not to be trusted. If a drug's entire purpose is not to have fun, but rather to make the user believe that the drug itself is harmless and has little real effect, then what point is there in taking that drug?
 
I wouldn't say that it's 100% true.

Even a little stoned is still stoned, and you still have glazed eyes, a stupid grin, and an inability to carry on a decent conversation with non-stoned people.

To me this seems like a big generalization and maybe even an indication of a personal bias based on one individual's negative experiences. I know that I can get "a little stoned" and still function perfectly fine in normal society. I don't have any problem having a "decent conversation" with anyone, really.

Marihuana tells you that you are a better person for having smoked marihuana.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You know when marijuana has disrupted your life (whether through legal complications, panic attacks, generalized lethargy, or something else), at least most people do IMO, it's just up to you whether you want to abstain from further use or continue. Marijuana doesn't simply put you in a blissful fog with an inability to critically look at your habits...there are people who choose to live in such a manner, but you can bet that they've had doubts or critical thoughts about it (unless they're remarkably unintelligent).

The author says that marijuana, when used regularly, ceases to become recreation and starts becoming medication. I don't really see much of a problem with that, honestly, at least not in my case. I used to have fairly bad anxiety but over the last few years it's markedly improved (I've smoked weed more-or-less everyday for the past 5 years). Perhaps somewhat paradoxical given cannabis' reputation as an anxiogenic drug, but...

The only hesitation I have with classifying it as "medication" is that a lot of dumb hippies tell me that "these aren't drugs, this is medicine maaaaan..." I have no problem admitting to the fact that I like to smoke weed because I like to get high.
 
I'm with Burnt Offerings. This is absolutely not 100% true.

It is a bunch of tired generalizations straight out of the 1970s. It doesn't take into account any of the scientific advances of the last 20 years.
 
If a drug's entire purpose is not to have fun, but rather to make the user believe that the drug itself is harmless and has little real effect, then what point is there in taking that drug?

The drug 's "entire purpose"? It's a plant. When you are tripping you might have it talk to you directly and tell you in plantese what it's entire purpose for existing is;) but the truth is that, like any drug (plant or chemical) it is we who bring our own purposes to the drug. I use it for sleep and for laughter. Works great for both for me. My husband is using it for sleep and in his fight against lymphoma--who knows how it is working for that? My son used to use it to calm himself down from mania, one of his friends said that in him it triggered mania. Same plant, different purposes and different outcomes.

I can take your point that people don't always take their altered states seriously-particularly when they become completely habitual--but in my experience as well as by my observations of both my peers in the 70's and my kids and their peers in this century, alcohol would fit the "insidious" adjective far more than weed. I have seen many people that lack motivation who are habitual, daily smokers of pot but I have seen just as many very motivated and creative people who also smoke every day. People are different. Drugs do different things for different people. I think articles like this one shoot themselves in the foot by painting one broad brush stroke across millions of different experiences.

I'd have a lot more respect for it if it were written in the first person about what weed had been in the author's life--or even the author and his friends. But to try to make it apply to everyone is overboard.
 
"I saw this on Reddit's /r/Drugs and wanted to x-post it here. It is 100% true."

What a shit post
 
They have a point, TBH, but 100% true, no.

I've always held that marihuana (LOL at the "h", are we Henry Anslinger?) is more dangerous than potheads would have us believe, and less dangerous than the Anslinger-Nancy Reagens-DARE types maintain that it is. Research bears this out. But yeah, most chronic potheads are fucking socially insufferable. On that we can agree. And pot doesn't really deserve it's exemption in contemporary times from the stigma associated with serious drug abuse. OTOH, neither does alcohol.
 
They have a point, TBH, but 100% true, no.

I've always held that marihuana (LOL at the "h", are we Henry Anslinger?) is more dangerous than potheads would have us believe, and less dangerous than the Anslinger-Nancy Reagens-DARE types maintain that it is. Research bears this out. But yeah, most chronic potheads are fucking socially insufferable. On that we can agree. And pot doesn't really deserve it's exemption in contemporary times from the stigma associated with serious drug abuse. OTOH, neither does alcohol.
If you are refering to the text in the OP, I can barely make it through without being turned off by the inaccuracies.

Just one quote, "Every junkie knows that they are a junkie". Yet 99.99% of them never wanted to be a junkie when they first tried it and therefor there IS a period for junky denial JUST as much as there is for pot heads. So, NOT every junkie knows they are a junkie. It's wrong.

Fuck it. Do drugs.
 
Some of this is true but only for the very very small subset of true marijuana addicts. No not just mental these are people with an addiction background in their family and LOVE smoking pot, the ones who experience withdrawal.. Eventually they'll switch over to something else when the cannabis stops working.. But honestly in terms of available drugs pot is the best least harmful thing available for them. In an ideal world they would get help for their emotional and mental problems instead of using pot to cover up their problems but that's all drug addicts.

Of course it is still a drug and if you use it enough you will eventually have consequences. The truth is in the middle it's not as harmful as anti drug people say it is but it's not as harmless as stoners say it is. I've gone over this before but a lot of stoners think pot is magic.
 
I definitely fall into the "addicted" category. I don't think I've ever denied that with pot.

A very similar argument can be made with coffee. Yes, I'm a addicted to that too.

In fact, I'm a poly drug addict and my DOC is pot. Get the fuck over it.
 
This is ridiculous. The whole post is a series of unfounded opinions touted as universal facts.
 
In fact, I'm a poly drug addict and my DOC is pot. Get the fuck over it.


I like this so much that I'm sure you'll see me repeat it some time or other in the future.


I'll try to remember to give credit where it's due, but no promises.
 
ever been a junky and wished you just smoked pot?
UH,Yeah! I can't believe some people say this is even close to 100% true. Is Nexus Tripper a decendant of William Randolph Hearst? Watch Reefer Madness and report back on those "hard facts' of that movie for us.

I'd comment more on this but I couldn't get past the first few lines I felt like I was reading one of my wifes law books.


"If a drug's entire purpose is not to have fun, but rather to make the user believe that the drug itself is harmless and has little real effect, then what point is there in taking that drug? "-Nexus Tripper

If a posts entire purpose is to bore the shit out of us with inane and ficticious facts and leads the reader to believe the posts itself is harmless and has little effect then whats the fucking point of reading it?
 
Last edited:
Nexus_Tripper; just a wee bit of clarification that I'd appreciate it if you could. If not, no problem.

When you say 100%, do you mean it is your opinion that the content of that post is 100% true, or that it is 100% true that this was a post on Reddit. Really puzzled here.

You see, although I first started smoking recreationally in 1984, I was an occasional smoker. Once, maybe twice a week; always on the weekends. Never thought about it when I woke up, and it simply wasn't a driving force for me. More often than not, I would have minor panic or anxiety attacks when smoking. There must have been something I got out of it, because I kept this on again/off again habit until ~2000 or so, at which point I dropped it for 9 years.

Well, 9 years later made a big difference in my life; malignant hypertension, kidney failure, anemia and a double dose of arthritis. And all of a sudden I was medically disallowed from taking Aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Celebrex, Vioxx and other NSAIDS - because they don't play nice with my anti hypertensive meds.

My fiancee at the time suggested I smoke a bit of weed, and I found it worked wonders for joint mobility, pain reduction and reducing inflammation. My doctors were not opposed to my use of MJ, and then I became legal.

I became a daily smoker, progressing to the point where I've found a 0.1g bong rip once an hour makes me pretty close to symptom free. Yes, I am a daily user. I worry about running out. I worry about losing my ability to work because I need my hand dexterity to perform my job. I don't think I've ever smoked pot for fun. I *do* use it as medication; not to escape from life - but to escape from real, physical pain. And it works. I don't give a rat's ass about increased creativity or looking at the world with child like naive wonder; I care about my hands not curling up into a useless twisted mess. Can you dig that?

I smoke it at home. Only. Never driven high. Never gone into work high. Never sold it to anyone. Never stolen anything from anyone to pay for my pot 'habit'.

Is it a wonder drug? For me, yes. I am staunchly pro legalization *and* pro education. CRA (Canada Revenue Agency - Canadian IRS I guess) states that I can deduct the cost of my MJ from my income tax filings as long as I buy from a Health Canada approved company. And I've thought about it. But as long as I can afford to pay for my own medicine, I will.

I'm not offended by you, but I am offended by your post; it is wrong and pernicious on so many levels.

But ya know, I'd trade all the pot in the world to have my health back so that I wouldn't need it. I don't have that choice though. So I'll continue to smoke, and continue to hurt no-one.

respectfully.

Tom
 
Just one quote, "Every junkie knows that they are a junkie". Yet 99.99% of them never wanted to be a junkie when they first tried it and therefor there IS a period for junky denial JUST as much as there is for pot heads. So, NOT every junkie knows they are a junkie. It's wrong.

You may well be surprised at how many junkies I know wanted to be junkies because you know, heroin chic, rock and roll, Lou Reed, Billie Holiday, Alice in Chains, whatever, all that glamorous shit, all those role models. That had more of a role than I would like to admit when I first started doing dope but I was young and unbelievably stupid. Much the same a lot of stupid teens want to be potheads. For much similar reasons. Just look for the 14 y/os with the Pink Floyd and Bob Marley posters.

But yeah I'm pretty sure 99% of junkies know they're junkies, at least after the first tangle with serious withdrawal happens.

Obviously heroin is objectively more problematic than marijuana but marijuana gets a free pass way too often, it's psychological and social harms are way underrated.
 
Last edited:
You may well be surprised at how many junkies I know wanted to be junkies because you know, heroin chic, rock and roll, Lou Reed, Billie Holiday, Alice in Chains, whatever, all that glamorous shit, all those role models. That had more of a role than I would like to admit when I first started doing dope but I was young and unbelievably stupid. Much the same a lot of stupid teens want to be potheads. For much similar reasons. Just look for the 14 y/os with the Pink Floyd and Bob Marley posters.
Those kids wanted to be a FUCKING ROCK STAR, not a fucking junkie. There is a huge fucking difference.

But yeah I'm pretty sure 99% of junkies know they're junkies, at least after the first tangle with serious withdrawal happens.
And I'm pretty sure 99% of pot heads know they are pot heads.

Denial of drug use isn't the fault of the drug. It's the fault of the user.

Obviously heroin is objectively more problematic than marijuana but marijuana gets a free pass way too often, it's psychological and social harms are way underrated.
A free pass from who and from what?
 
I don't see how pot gets a free pass it's a schedule 1 narcotic according to the FDA which is worse then cocaine!Now that's ridiculous!
 
Those kids wanted to be a FUCKING ROCK STAR, not a fucking junkie. There is a huge fucking difference.

Not really, I mean, they identified with a certain scene or culture and saw heroin use as an integral part of it. Heck, some of them never even picked up an instrument. It's not like some DARE morality tale when they put on The Velvet Underground and Nico tried a little dope, and then wound up getting hooked. It's been in many cases I've seen much a more deliberate process.

And I'm pretty sure 99% of pot heads know they are pot heads.

But how many of them see being a pothead as wholly benign?

Denial of drug use isn't the fault of the drug. It's the fault of the user.

Yes

A free pass from who and from what?

Potheads, of course, but also pop culture and, increasingly, mainstream society in general, even dating back to Cheech and Chong and other media going back quite a long ways that is rather not in the Reefer Madness vein of depicting this particular drug.

I don't see how pot gets a free pass it's a schedule 1 narcotic according to the FDA which is worse then cocaine!Now that's ridiculous!

Of course it is. But if I wasn't clear I wasn't talking about the law, which in many places and situations, on a local level, even absent de jure decriminalization, is hardly enforced, at least with any vigour, these days.
 
Not really, I mean, they identified with a certain scene or culture and saw heroin use as an integral part of it. Heck, some of them never even picked up an instrument. It's not like some DARE morality tale when they put on The Velvet Underground and Nico tried a little dope, and then wound up getting hooked. It's been in many cases I've seen much a more deliberate process.
Sounds like a poor excuse to me. At some point you have own up to your responsibilities and stop blaming society for all your problems.

But how many of them see being a pothead as wholly benign?
How many people see peanuts as benign? Yet peanuts kill more people every year than pot.

Go troll a peanut forum.

Potheads, of course, but also pop culture and, increasingly, mainstream society in general, even dating back to Cheech and Chong and other media going back quite a long ways that is rather not in the Reefer Madness vein of depicting this particular drug.
Your answer is ambiguous. Is Cheech and Chong really the best defense you have? You sound jealous to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top