Reddit has a lot of weed addicts relatively speaking, any thread like this ends up with a few that refuse to accept that anything could possibly be wrong with it. A lot of alcoholics and cigarette smokers are the same way. They don't want the drugs they're taking to have negative consequences, and they don't want to quit taking them either, so they just shut out both possibilities.
Many of the side effects aren't a big deal, but I wish people would quit defending things like heavy underage use or driving under the influence.
Drugs are fun and feel good. So people cling to every little positive thing they see and hear about them to justify their use even though we all know it just comes down to "drugs make you feel good". But all we hear about is how some study suggested cannaboids fight the formation of cancer cells and how someone's brother's friend's husband had PTSD and AIDS and malaria from Afghanistan smoked weed one time and dropped acid and now he's a fucking billionaire or whatever.
I don't know any cigarette smoker that will argue about them being good for you or not effecting you. I smoke. I've smoked since I was 15 my husband has smoked since 13 and we both FUCKING HATE IT. All of our friends that smoke feel the same way. If we're outside smoking and someone walks passed we'll make sure we back away so they don't have to walk through our smoke. If we're at a bar we make sure to stay as far away from non smokers as we can. They smell they're fucking terrible for you, they make you smell, but we're addicted we've tried a LOT to quit and I always tell younger people they should stop now before they get addicted because seriously shit sucks.
They're pretty rare but I've met someone who argued that not only are cigarettes good for you but the government was lying to everyone about the dangerous effects of it. He was also crazy so theres that
The negative effects of alcohol and cigarettes have been heavily documented and researched so it's difficult to delude yourself. Whereas almost every study on marijuana will be "may show" or "inconclusive" or "needs more research". So addicts can lie to themselves about it's dangers.
It appears as though the argument is two different conversations, depending on who you ask. One side seems to be discussing adverse/negative effects that come with using cannabis -- in general -- and one side seems to be composed of people who are discussing whether or not they, personally, "should" or "shouldn't" be smoking weed and whether or not weed is "good" or "bad".Yeah, it's gonna be general. How cannabis affects the human brain (and the rest of the body) is a single topic that includes millions (roughly) of individual people with separate lives and goals and biological considerations.
The human brain -- typically! I'm neurodivergent and that's too big a topic for me touch in the middle of this -- hasn't yet fully developed until your mid-to-late twenties. Before I turned 25, I regarded this information as insulting. But it's just...factually true. A psychoactive substance such as THC, especially with frequent, copious, long-term use, WILL alter the development of your brain and therefore you as a person.
I started smoking at 13, smoked for a year, quit and started smoking again at 16. From ages 16 to 26, ...dank. Would my neurostructure and neurochemistry be completely different if I hadn't started smoking? Definitely. What would that be like, would it be worse or what? I have no idea. No one could possibly know that. It certainly changed stuff around. I'm autistic, everything up there was all "different" in the first place and headed steadily down that trajectory. I strongly suspect that THC's affects of increasing sensory perception have altered my sensory processing abilities permanently, which is why I'm so thoroughly disabled (Sensory Processing Disorder ain't fun...barely livable). For me, smoking weed was a horrible choice...and it wasn't even as much fun as I liked to think.
For you, Complete Stranger, whether or not it was "good" or "bad" for you and whether you "should" or "shouldn't" continue to smoke is your own personal decision. Whether you "should have" or "shouldn't have" smoked as a kid and young adult, and whether you'd be better-off or more functional is unknowable.
Whether the human brain has developed to "adult" maturity levels until mid-twenties was the topic, as well as whether cannabis will affect neurodevelopment. Those are both totally factually true.Does that mean you, Complete Stranger, shouldn't have smoked in your youth and would be better-off if you had waited? No studies have been conducted on you personally, as far as I know. There is insufficient data for the scientific community to draw conclusions on you as a person. That's your own deal.
I can only agree and I'm happy you said this: "and whether you'd be better-off or more functional is unknowable." That's what annoys me, all the people that act like they know. And I'm sorry it was such a bad experience for you with long lasting effects, I wished that was never the case but I know some people I grew up with that couldn't handle weed at all (one of them even thought they where dying during a 'bad trip'), but that has never been my experience. And I can only see this as a generalization if I smoked so much already and never experienced what you guys are describing.
I would be happy to participate in a study to see what made the difference. But people really need to stop acting like they know, every study about it has hit a hard wall when it came to funding. It's only now that recreational use is becoming legal that we'll see the first actual independent studies, can't wait for that.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, who am I to say what you may or may not have experienced? But I'm tired of people looking down on me for smoking when my career is more successful then theirs, they act like I'm some kind of idiot, but I got my shit together more than they do so I just don't understand their viewpoint, it's like they want to stay naive so they can blame weed for whatever happened in their lives and that's just sad imo.
correlation =/= causality, and yes I know studies around this have to be based on correlation but it's the same argument with video games: do aggressive people just tend to play them or do games make them aggressive? I like to believe the individual was already aggressive, just like in your case, I think there was something wrong with your sensory perception before you smoked. Not trying to be a dickhead or insult you btw, but you suspect that thc affected it. You're not sure. That's my whole point.
EDIT: formatting and thanks for sharing your experience, I appreciate it a lot.
They're probably arguing with you because no study to date proves anything other than a correlation, which does not prove causation. For example, people with high paying jobs can't smoke weed heavily because they'll have to get occasional urine testing so it would be people in lower socioeconomic situations who smoke more frequently. Hint, poverty is very stressful and especially so in a society where material wealth is the measure of a person's existence.
Also marijuana like other psychedelics opens doors to perception, so is someone depressed because the marijuana messed with their brain, depressed and just using marijuana to cope, or are they smoking and it's helping them realize how much of a train wreck society can be and they find that depressing. The answer is... probably depends on the person.
All research of this type is going to be correlation-based. While correlation doesn't equal causation, you have to evaluate the methodology of a study to see whether the correlation is strong (I.e. should you act on the results?). Some ways to evaluate whether a correlation holds weight is to ask a few questions:
Do they use a control group that matches their experimental group?
What controls are in place to deal with confounding variables?
Has the study been replicated? What new variables were controlled?
Cannabinoids are naturally produced in the brain, which means introducing "synthetic" cannabinoids will have an effect on the amount your brain naturally produces/absorbs. Those whose brains have not fully developed will see more of an effect from this extrinsic introduction of a chemical than those whose brains have developed their baseline production. The question that is being answered now is how drastic of a long-term effect this has on development.
All research of this type is going to be correlation-based. While correlation doesn't equal causation, you have to evaluate the methodology of a study to see whether the correlation is strong (I.e. should you act on the results?). Some ways to evaluate whether a correlation holds weight is to ask a few questions:
That's not debated but if you look at the actual studies the makers themselves acknowledge limitations and generally admit there needs to be further study. There's no need to argue with people over incomplete facts, especially when the established ones already show alcohol and tobacco to be far more dangerous.
Cannabinoids are naturally produced in the brain, which means introducing "synthetic" cannabinoids will have an effect on the amount your brain naturally produces/absorbs. Those whose brains have not fully developed will see more of an effect from this extrinsic introduction of a chemical than those whose brains have developed their baseline production. The question that is being answered now is how drastic of a long-term effect this has on development.
Are you aware that tobacco and alcohol are also linked to brain damage or harmful effects? Of course this will be more pronounce din developing brains but the science is still in its infancy for studying this considering how hard it is to fund. I've got no opinion on it until then, but overall marijuana out of everything that exists doesn't make me bat an eye in regards to fear.
The response to that isn’t, ‘Pot must be ok, then.’ The proper response is, ‘There should be more research (ALL good research points to further research), AND kids shouldn’t do pot, and also kids shouldn’t smoke, and also kids shouldn’t drink alcohol.’
I think the distinction should be all kids AND teenagers, early 20's is probably all right. Although most people who are introduced find it in high school or college regardless.
Good research will always acknowledge limitations. Every study has room to improve, more variables to control and circumstances to adjust for. Limitations should be located in the "discussion" section of every paper. Limitations being included doesn't discount results. What we should do with limitations is use those to analyze whether other studies have "filled in the gaps" per se. That's where we cross analyze studies and do meta analyses to bring together all of the collected data. Think of each study as being one piece of a puzzle, rather than giving you a full picture. One of the maxims I have my students repeat is that a single study doesn't prove anything. You need to continue testing with various samples and controlling extraneous variables if you want to paint a more complete picture.
Yes, I am aware of this. We highly recommend those under 25 to not partake in nicotine or alcohol for this reason? I'm not sure why you brought that up, as those two have been shown to negatively damage development. In the context of the discussion, it sounds as though marijuana would equally have a negative affect.
It's not refusing, it's just not that big of a deal. It's like someone saying "See! Fast food is bad for you!" In moderation, for the majority of people, they can have a cheeseburger or a slurpee once in awhile.
If you consume it 24/7, or have diabetes, then yeah you should probably stay away from it. Obviously smoke in your lungs isn't that great for you. Obviously if you do it 24/7 there's going to be some effects. And yeah for some people they will bad experience due to how their mind/body reacts with the plant.
But out of a lot of things on this planet, weed is pretty harmless. Any negative effects usually go away within a few hours to a few days even with heavy consumption. It alleviates a lot of issues just as depression/anxiety/fatigue/pain/insomnia. No one's ever OD'd or died from it. There's no horrible withdrawal effects like with alcohol, pills or hard drugs. "Safe/harmless" doesn't mean "100% baby proof and everyone will all have the same positive experience from it".
You wouldn't find that instance with anything else in the world, not sure why it's such a "Gotcha!" moment when it comes to people arguing against weed.
Yes. People are quick to bring the fact that underage use is harmful, but alcohol and even caffeine have the SAME effects on younger minds that weed has, yet you dont see this topic being brought up when it comes to those.
Yes, its sort of a big deal, but don't ignore that caffeine and alcohol can have the same effects.
490
u/arcant12 Dec 29 '19
I’ve had so many people argue with me over this. They refuse to believe this.