Weed: Been There. Done That.

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened our friendships.

But then we all sort of moved away from it. I don’t remember any big group decision that we should give up weed. It just sort of petered out, and, before long, we were scarcely using it.

We didn’t give it up for the obvious health reasons: that it is addictive in about one in six teenagers; that smoking and driving is a good way to get yourself killed; that young people who smoke go on to suffer I.Q. loss and perform worse on other cognitive tests.

I think we gave it up, first, because we each had had a few embarrassing incidents. Stoned people do stupid things (that’s basically the point). I smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning.

We gave it up, second, I think, because one member of our clique became a full-on stoner. He may have been the smartest of us, but something sad happened to him as he sunk deeper into pothead life.

Third, most of us developed higher pleasures. Smoking was fun, for a bit, but it was kind of repetitive. Most of us figured out early on that smoking weed doesn’t really make you funnier or more creative (academic studies more or less confirm this). We graduated to more satisfying pleasures. The deeper sources of happiness usually involve a state of going somewhere, becoming better at something, learning more about something, overcoming difficulty and experiencing a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

One close friend devoted himself to track. Others fell deeply in love and got thrills from the enlargements of the heart. A few developed passions for science or literature.

Finally, I think we had a vague sense that smoking weed was not exactly something you were proud of yourself for. It’s not something people admire. We were in the stage, which I guess all of us are still in, of trying to become more integrated, coherent and responsible people. This process usually involves using the powers of reason, temperance and self-control — not qualities one associates with being high.

I think we had a sense, which all people have, or should have, that the actions you take change you inside, making you a little more or a little less coherent. Not smoking, or only smoking sporadically, gave you a better shot at becoming a little more integrated and interesting. Smoking all the time seemed likely to cumulatively fragment a person’s deep center, or at least not do much to enhance it.

So, like the vast majority of people who try drugs, we aged out. We left marijuana behind. I don’t have any problem with somebody who gets high from time to time, but I guess, on the whole, I think being stoned is not a particularly uplifting form of pleasure and should be discouraged more than encouraged.

We now have a couple states — Colorado and Washington — that have gone into the business of effectively encouraging drug use. By making weed legal, they are creating a situation in which the price will drop substantially. One RAND study suggests that prices could plummet by up to 90 percent, before taxes and such. As prices drop and legal fears go away, usage is bound to increase. This is simple economics, and it is confirmed by much research. Colorado and Washington, in other words, are producing more users.

The people who debate these policy changes usually cite the health risks users would face or the tax revenues the state might realize. Many people these days shy away from talk about the moral status of drug use because that would imply that one sort of life you might choose is better than another sort of life.

cont at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/brooks-weed-been-there-done-that.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
 
David Brooks’ Polluted “Moral Ecology”

A privileged white man professes remorse for smoking pot. But it’s not privileged whites who would pay for his sins.

I will live a long time and not forgive the Internet for making me read David Brooks’ New York Times weed opus.

If you missed it, I apologize in advance. This week Brooks responded to Colorado and Washington state’s recent decriminalization of marijuana with a retrospective on his own experience smoking the wacky tobacky. In “Weed: Been There. Done That,” Brooks makes a case for a “moral ecology” that curbs individual freedom for the collective betterment of potheads who would be better served devoting their energies to higher aspirations like running track.

If you think I’m minimizing his argument to be glib, I dare you to read his piece. That is his argument. He is dismayed by legal marijuana’s base “moral ecology,” arguing that a healthy government “encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.”

It’s typical PREAM linkbait. But in linkbait there are often unexamined body counts, and the bodies are often brown.

Last summer the ACLU released a report, based on federal arrest data and self-reporting, that examined racial disparities in marijuana arrests. It found that more than half of all drug arrests in 2010 were for marijuana possession. Self-reports of drug usage show that whites use marijuana just as much as blacks, yet blacks are more than 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana use.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...s_pothead_sins.html?google_editors_picks=true
 
This is the only case of IQ loss documented with teenage pot smoking. Either that, or he has always been a dipshit.
 
Although they don't tend to hang around websites like this one, you might be surprised how many people there are who'd agree with David Brooks entirely. In my experience, the population of people who are unimpressed with weed is not nearly made up entirely of people who've never tried it. In fact, if the studies that show that over half of all American adults have toked at least once are to be believed, Americans who have used it, but whose view of it is more negative than positive, may actually outnumber Americans who've never tried it and view it negatively. After all, if 10% of Americans are currently marijuana users (have used it before and anticipate using it again), that means 40% of Americans have used it before and do not anticipate using it again. They may not feel as strongly as David Brooks does, that is, not strongly enough to put their opinion in writing somewhere. But if shown this article, they'd be inclined to say it rings true, and would admit if pressed that the pluses of marijuana don't outweigh the minuses, at least not anymore.

It may just be the circles I've run in, but I have to say most people I've ever smoked marijuana with have eventually eased into an opinion similar to David Brooks: It was fun, but it was a cheap immature thrill that I've left behind as I've grown up, and would hope others my age would have the wisdom to do the same.

As with most drugs except tobacco and opiates, I've noticed that people who got into it seriously in high school tended to be the ones who were the earliest to give it up, condemn it as immature, and judge people who continued (or started) using it at later stages in life.

In short, I'd say among Americans who accept recreational marijuana use at all, most consider it something you "experiment with" during your "youthful rebellion" phase, before you wise up and get serious with your life. I see this cultural stance toward weed remaining a sizable minority in the general population, and nearly unanimous in a lot of social circles in this country, no matter how far this drug's legality expands. I predict this because alcohol is viewed in a roughly similar way. In many social circles in America, occasions where you can get away with drinking an amount of alcohol that noticeably impairs you get markedly fewer and farther between once you're past your early 20s. There are also a surprising number of social circles in America that are nearly or completely devoid of alcohol use, and likewise, I think think there will always be big segments of the American population that will never accept marijuana use among its members, even if it becomes entirely unrestricted.
 
Why isn't booze just a phase? Why is alcohol the mature drug? Why don't people decry stupid drunk's? I can do anything anything high that i can do straight including working. Just because the authour can't that means no one can? I am sick of people who used to get high who now support the war on some drugs while they get drunk. I consider booze immature and it's users mostly idiots. I don't write op-ed's on it though.
 
"Third, most of us developed higher pleasures. Smoking was fun, for a bit, but it was kind of repetitive. Most of us figured out early on that smoking weed doesn’t really make you funnier or more creative (academic studies more or less confirm this). We graduated to more satisfying pleasures. The deeper sources of happiness usually involve a state of going somewhere, becoming better at something, learning more about something, overcoming difficulty and experiencing a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment."

And some of us didn't think so black and white.. and did all these things and also liked to get blazed to the gills once and awhile.


The author sounds like such an elitist asshole. Develop passion for literature? LOL.
QFT+1, not to mention the amount of good literature written by drug users and drug drinkers is really astonishing.

Why isn't booze just a phase? Why is alcohol the mature drug? Why don't people decry stupid drunk's? I can do anything anything high that i can do straight including working. Just because the authour can't that means no one can? I am sick of people who used to get high who now support the war on some drugs while they get drunk. I consider booze immature and it's users mostly idiots. I don't write op-ed's on it though.
maybe it because it does make you funnier.. cause we act like lobotomized moron clowns when drunk.. clowns are funny.
 
Last edited:
Why isn't booze just a phase? Why is alcohol the mature drug? Why don't people decry stupid drunk's? I can do anything anything high that i can do straight including working. Just because the authour can't that means no one can? I am sick of people who used to get high who now support the war on some drugs while they get drunk. I consider booze immature and it's users mostly idiots. I don't write op-ed's on it though.

Because alcohol is enjoyable in company. A fine wine with dinner, a glass of champagne in celebration or a round of beers at the football. A very small minority of drinkers are the boozing brawling idiots, especially once you out grow the clubs and bar scene. Now I enjoy a spliff once and a while but weed for me is never really a social drug compared to alcohol. Conversation will often go from idiotic jabbering to uncomfortable silence, particularly if someone suffers from cannabis induced anxiety. Not failing to mention society has moved on from smokey enclosed rooms in the name of health and safety.

I am pleased that public opinion has shifted but more for the reasons that young people will no longer be handicapped by unfair legal consequences for an otherwise victimless habit. I'm sure you will see an underclass of daily tokers develop and there will be some teething problems as the genie is unleashed. Hopefully it won't take too long for sensible habits to be established that advocates moderation and respect of relatively harmless drug use. Otherwise a generation of heavy weed smokers will cause the same sort of derision that you have towards alcohol.
 
This portion of this article reposted into this thread could have been written by me (if I could write an article worth a damn). That's how much I agree with it. I think marijuana is just fine and am thrilled that it is legalized and hope that it leads to the legalization of more drugs. But I base my choice of which drugs to do and when I'll do them on what I get out of it vs what I put in or what I sacrifice to do it. For me, the trade-off just isn't worth it with weed, for most of the same reasons as the author's.

I don't agree at all with the bit after it though, the part that discourages the legalization. It should absolutely be up to every individual how they want to spend their free time, regardless of whether I (or anyone) find it to be the best way to spend it.
 
Last edited:
Now I enjoy a spliff once and a while but weed for me is never really a social drug compared to alcohol.

If I could be bothered I'd go back to a post of yours that says you enjoy smoking pot in public. Whatever. Once in a while I like to care, this isn't such an occasion.

Does the author of this article cite any sources for his many claims?
 
This portion of this article reposted into this thread could have been written by me (if I could write an article worth a damn). That's how much I agree with it. I think marijuana is just fine and am thrilled that it is legalized and hope that it leads to the legalization of more drugs.

Then if this is true, then you DO NOT agree with his article...his whole point to the article is that the laws should never have been passed because the laws are what mold us as a people, society and culture. He feels that by the government passing these laws for legalization of marijuana (and if he feels that way about MJ I guaruntee you he wouldnt condone further legalization of other drugs) that the govt is encouraging us all to become lower class citizens who trade smoking MJ for developing any type of real culture and that because of this the govt is also encouraging/allowing us (because we all know we damn sure wouldnt know how to act if the govt didnt tell us how) to turn into a bunch of heathens.
He states, "I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

This implies that since they ARE encouraging us rather than discouraging us to become a bunch of stoners that we will NOT be a "temperate, prudent and self governing" society. And since MJ will be legal and we will be encouraged to be stoners and therefore couldnt possibly be temperate, prudent and self governing we will all become the opposite..the opposite, by definition of temperate is:disagreeable, harsh, hateful, nasty, nervous, unpleasant, excessive, uncontrolled, violent etc. The opposite of prudent by definition is: careless, inattentive, nonsensical, rash, reckless, stupid, unwise and for self-governing, it is the opposite of being subservient and dependent. (definitions from http://http://thesaurus.com/browse/).

The point of his article being (and I guess this is the part you agree with) that weed is something for kids to try out and then outgrow. Because of this (and this is his main point) it is ridiculous and irresponsible of the government to legalize weed and therefore "encourage" the citizens to smoke weed and be stoned instead of doing their job and encouraging its citizens to enjoy more worthwhile pleasures such as "enjoying the arts or being in nature". Of course we all know, that by MJ being legal now, everyone who indulges will no longer enjoy these other higher, more worthwhile pleasures...we just arent capable of such.

His last comment being, "In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing individual freedom. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.. This is a perfect example of someone who feels that the government really needs to tell us how to act or we wont act the right way on our own....especially now that we are being encouraged (allowed legally) to smoke weed. I mean, he says it is just going to make it so much harder for us to be the person that we really want to be..you know, because we just have no self control. Now that it is legal that is all everyone is going to want to do. I am sure he is one of those that feels without the government telling us how to raise our kids and the laws that make sure we do it their way none of us would be responsible parents or that if we do not have laws limiting how much fattening food we can eat at a fast food restaurant then we would all just eat ourselves to death (and yes, granted, we have a lot of obese people in the US who do just that..but by God, who is the government to tell people what they can or cannot eat!!!)

Not that I am picking on you Scureto1 (though I do think that by your comments you did not read his article through or understand what his main point was..not that weed is something you outgrow-his main point was it was irresponsible of the government to pass such a law if they wanted this society to have any chance of not turning into a bunch of lazy, wild, violent pot smokers who would have no other interests in developing any type of higher culture or intelligence) it is just that people like this drive me nuts..we are just too stupid to make our own decisions and really need the government telling us how to live our lives day to day. What an arrogant prick the author is..
 
If I could be bothered I'd go back to a post of yours that says you enjoy smoking pot in public. Whatever. Once in a while I like to care, this isn't such an occasion.

Does the author of this article cite any sources for his many claims?

No he doesnt and that is because it is all based on his own closed-minded, personal opinion..one by someone who thinks we need the govt to tell us how we should act and what we should do day to day and if they dont then we will all become a bunch of dumb, lazy, uncultured morons.
 
Why isn't booze just a phase? Why is alcohol the mature drug? Why don't people decry stupid drunk's? I can do anything anything high that i can do straight including working. Just because the authour can't that means no one can? I am sick of people who used to get high who now support the war on some drugs while they get drunk. I consider booze immature and it's users mostly idiots. I don't write op-ed's on it though.

Maybe it's just because it is so widely available, and there is such a wide choice of different drinks and settings to consume it in? It's not a "mature" drug compared to anything else, but due to it being legal and regulated I'm more likely guaranteed a similar experience each time, so until that it true of all substances I can see why people choose to stick with it over other things. That in itself is a fairly mature decision really.

I take both alcohol and weed and find latter to be the far more unpredictable of the two, but then again I know exactly what I'm getting with booze. I don't go near vodka or beer etc because I don't like the effects, whereas when I drink rum I tend to have a good experience pretty much every time. With weed I find that sometimes I get a strain that sits really well with me, and other times get something that makes me feel awful. Even if I can identify a strain I like do I really know I'm getting it every time I ask for it? And even if I do will the quality be the same every time. Highly unlikely.

Buying cannabis (or any illegal substance) is the equivalent of walking into a pub, asking for "alcohol" and being served something completely random each time. Maybe I'll get the rum and coke I most desire, or I could just get a glass of gin. I might be wrong but I think this definitely has a huge effect on peoples overall perception of the substance.
 
Hundreds of thousands of poor, mostly minority kids should stay in jail so this asshole can feel good about the fact that people are pursuing 'higher pleasures.' Yup.

Also: I don't buy for a second that people are going to be paying $30 an ounce (or whatever the fuck 10% of the current price of an ounce of weed is, in the states). Suppliers aren't going to price themselves out of existence, and even if they are, governments aren't going to give up that kind of tax money.
 
Even if I can identify a strain I like do I really know I'm getting it every time I ask for it? And even if I do will the quality be the same every time. Highly unlikely.

Buying cannabis (or any illegal substance) is the equivalent of walking into a pub, asking for "alcohol" and being served something completely random each time. Maybe I'll get the rum and coke I most desire, or I could just get a glass of gin. I might be wrong but I think this definitely has a huge effect on peoples overall perception of the substance.

You should look at some of the dispensaries on the West Coast... they are anything but vague in their labeling of strains. Many even give you percent THC and CBD by weight figures too.

Part of the reason for the variability of marijuana is most, ahem, suppliers, don't want to afford the risk of operating with multiple growers at once. With legalization that's gonna change.
 
You should look at some of the dispensaries on the West Coast... they are anything but vague in their labeling of strains. Many even give you percent THC and CBD by weight figures too.

Part of the reason for the variability of marijuana is most, ahem, suppliers, don't want to afford the risk of operating with multiple growers at once. With legalization that's gonna change.

That's definitely progress and I'm happy for anyone who is a smoker and lives in those places (you lucky buggers!) but unfortunately that isn't true for the majority of the worlds smokers, and definitely not over here in the UK. If I want that level of reliable information I'd have to head over to Holland, but even then it can be a bit flaky due to the fact the overall trade is still illegal there.

Are these dispensaries only available to locals or can anyone head over and get a prescription? If so I'll be seeing you soon =D
 
I read the first 4 sentences of this article and already know where it is most likely going... Marijuana isn't ADDICTIVE to ANYONE! Anyone that says or thinks they are addicted to marijuana i want them to go pick up some opiates and use them for 12 days straight (12 days of getting HIGH) and stop immediately on day 13. then come back and tell me you still think marijuana is "ADDICTIVE".. lol its ridiculous!
 
I read the first 4 sentences of this article and already know where it is most likely going... Marijuana isn't ADDICTIVE to ANYONE! Anyone that says or thinks they are addicted to marijuana i want them to go pick up some opiates and use them for 12 days straight (12 days of getting HIGH) and stop immediately on day 13. then come back and tell me you still think marijuana is "ADDICTIVE".. lol its ridiculous!

Tbf any activity has the potential of being mentally addictive. Wouldn't argue that physical addiction isn't a whole different level but to say that people cannot get addicted to weed simply isn't true. I know of many people including myself who have formed a negative habit around it.
 
Top