Hacker News Reader

Comment by zer8k | Hacker News Reader

Ever since it became legal I have friends who spend majority of their day high. Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

It's a comparison problem. It won't kill you like alcohol withdrawals will or make you agitated like nicotine will. So then it must be okay right? These same potheads will quote studies and news articles talking about the benefits or just how risk free it is.

Its very similar to the way a functional alcoholic will justify their drinking. They even use avoidance language. 20 years ago we called it weed, now we call it "cannabis". Oh, you're not addicted to weed you're just using cannabis every hour of every day. I think legalization didn't help, nor hurt, but the re-branding of weed as "cannabis" while biologically correct gave these type of people a get out of jail free card. If you don't believe me, say to yourself "I smoke weed 8 times a day" versus "I use cannabis 8 times a day". One of them makes you sound like a degenerate, one of them makes you sound like you take a medication. That difference is very important in justifying addiction in the mind of an addict.

View on HN

> Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

this has to be more nuanced, because according to this logic 100% of all humans have this addiction. If you confront a non-addict, they too will tell you that they don't have a problem.

Yes, everyone has addictions.

For example, smiling can be addictive. Now, most people aren't "problem smilers", but for some it becomes a crutch and takes over their personality.

They weren't talking about a smiling addiction (whatever that means) or any other random addiction. Denying that you have a cannabis addiction says nothing at all about any other addictions you may or may not have.

They were talking specifically about cannabis addiction, and suggesting that denial that you have a cannabis addiction is a sign of having a cannabis addiction. (However, this doesn't really make sense because people who are not addicted to cannabis will equally claim to not be addicted to cannabis.)

Re-read the full context. He said they spend "the majority of their day high". That's a "very serious" addiction, because their dependence of the drug is erecting defenses in the conscious mind to the denial of the reality that they probably can't stop. On the contrary, if for example I need to take an SSRI to keep depression at bay, I would be perfectly content to tell you that I had a major depressive disorder, and that the drug helps me stay functional - I'm diagnosed, treated, and aware of the fact. Also contrarily, if I smoke a joint every Friday night with my wife after the kids go to bed because we want to relax, but if we can get a baby sitter we'll jump at the chance to go out for a night on the town without weed, then I'm not addicted - I just use the drug situationally because it's my preferred option.

Would you say the same thing if we're talking about caffeine? I know many productive members of society that spend all day drinking coffee. They would even suffer actual withdrawal symptoms if they tried to stop.

I certainly would.

People do weed to combat major depressive disorder to stay functional. Your comment and the original are filled with assumptions and give way too much credit to the pharmaceutical industry to not be screwing us over with these psychiatric meds. I don’t push my anti-psychiatric meds personal feelings on any one except people who are super judgmental about weed. I haven’t looked studies up for any of this stuff but I have enough personal experience to understand what works well enough for me.

A relative drinks tea all day. They tried to compare another relatives cigarette smoking and their tea drinking to my weed usage. Both of those people can’t go a day without their substance. That seems to be an addiction.

> As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

Isn't denying an addiction when told one has an addiction also the first sign of not having an addiction? "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" works well and good for a play, but doesn't really meet the traditional standards for evidence.

Yeah, this sounds like a Catch-22 of substance use: If you deny you have a problem, that proves the problem exists. If you affirm you have a problem, that's also proof the problem exists.

> There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

-- Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Or if you prefer the Monty Python version [0]:

> "Will you please listen!? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? HONESTLY!"

> "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!"

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo

I think we can agree that using a substance every waking moment is a major red flag.

Of course (well, there's some arguments to be made here with regard to prescribed drugs, but let's leave them aside for the minute). The only gripe I was addressing here was the idea that denial = guilt.

That’s not quite how I read it. My guess is that the OP meant something closer to “constant consumption paired with the denial that it could perhaps be unhealthy is a strong predictor of addiction.”

Going by that charitable interpretation, I think his point stands.

I don't think the denial relates to the guilt so much as it relates to the probability the person will be able to ditch this habit when they need to. Given that someone has an addiction problem, they're far more likely to overcome it if they acknowledge it is a problem. If they don't currently acknowledge, then things will probably get worse before they can get better. So perhaps OPs statement should be framed moreso as "realization is the first step to recovery", but I get where they are coming from.

I'd think their specific behavior is the sign of the problem.

Is this a non sequential fallacy? I think the worst offender of this argument that I see on the internet is, "if this offends you, it proves that I'm right".

> Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

The first sign of an addiction (at least, the first which is visible to an outside observer) is that it interferes with your life and you won't stop. Until about a week ago, I was a heavy daily cannabis user for a very long time (more than ten years). If you had asked me if I had an addiction, I would have said no.

Recently I came to believe I had Cannaboid Hyperemesis Syndrome, a disease for which the only cure is to quit cannabis. So I quit - immediately. I have a gigantic pile of weed in the house (I had just bought more when I started having symptoms), and I pass by it everyday. I just shake my head and go, "darn, wish I could smoke that," and go about my day.

That's not a story you're going to hear from an addict.

That's not to minimize the experience of people who do experience a cannabis addiction. I have known people I suspect have a problem. But no, cannabis and alcohol continue not to be comparable as far as their harm and addictive potential.

(And I have absolutely no regrets about my consumption, it was an incredible medication for my anxiety.)

How is your anxiety now, if I may ask? Have you tried any alternatives?

Okay. I'm having a fairly high rate of anxious thoughts but it's bearable. So far they're of the type that can be shaken off easily. I'm sure if I leave it untreated for a few months I'll have some form of breakdown, but while I haven't tried any alternatives yet, I'm looking for a psychiatrist & intend to find a different medication.

Probably better than benzos.

As a fellow anxiety-sufferer, I strongly encourage you to pursue sleep hygiene to the utmost. It doesn't fix everything for me, but it makes things way more manageable

Any feedback on CBD oil? Dosing? Type? I've never used cannabis at all, but I intend to try CBD.

[ES: Personal experience. I am not a doctor or qualified to give medical advice.]

I appreciate the advice.

I'm honestly a terrible person to ask, I preferred THC strains and never tried CBD products, and I mostly bought the most potent stuff which was on sale. It's also hard for me to judge dosage because I have developed a really high tolerance.

When I first started smoking it had a completely different effect on me, including visual hallucinations. Over time & with heavy use (which I don't necessarily recommend) the effects mellowed out a lot. So take things with a grain of salt, my experience may not be indicative of what your experience with CBD products would be.

I would say to make sure you're purchasing from a reputable dispensary, start with the smallest dosage (I've noticed people sometimes even cut up their gummies to get a smaller dose than is commercially available, for example.), and experiment. I know that's very generic advice, but the older I get and the more I learn, the less confident I am that I can understand how cannabis will effect other people. If I had to recommend a starting dose to someone, knowing very little about them, I'd probably say 5mg. But again I have low confidence in my ability to recommend a dose.

For me it had two primary benefits:

1.) As a "rescue inhaler," it could terminate panic attacks and sometimes shorten depressive episodes by helping me escape repetitive cycles of thought. I cannot promise it will work this way for everyone, for some people it could make them paranoid and ruminative.

2.) Reducing the incidence of repetitive anxious thoughts like, "I should have worded that email differently, they're going to think X of me, this is just like that time you did something embarrassing in high school." Again, cannot promise anything.

Most of us who drink coffee or tea are in the same boat. We do it every day, sometimes multiple times a day. There is withdrawal. There is tolerance. The half-life is so long that even if we stop in the morning, we are spending the majority of the day high.

Just to add a little more complexity to the equation. Note that there is a weird level of approval for some substances ( coffee, uppers, whatever NY brokers and med students use ), because they help some corporate goals, while those that do not increase bottom line and are even detrimental to it ( alchohol, pot and so on ) are frowned upon, because they lead to downtime.

I am mostly thinking out lout.

And if you pay attention to how you actually respond to caffeine, it actually has a HUGE effect on your state of mind and how you react to things. Not always in a bad way, but it easily can affect you as much as weed.

it easily can affect you as much as weed

How so? Comparing relatively normal doses, the effects of caffeine seem subtle in comparison.

After going off caffeine for a day or two, drinking a strong cup of coffee or tea on an empty stomach will give me a fair bit of a buzz, to the extent that it feels like my head is floating. Two cups and work can become difficult and I can't sit still. If I drink three cups by mid-afternoon, I begin to feel anxious and slightly paranoid, as if I'm forgetting something important. It also impairs my sleep.

If you're a habitual user, you may not even realize how it effects you, and you'll need more dosage to get effects.

I'm a very long way from the folks on r/decaf, most of whom I think need some serious help, but it's much more impactful than you may realize.

Hearing a friend describe how he reacted to caffeine made me realize that some people have wildly different responses than I do.

Caffeine doesn't make me feel particularly great, and I feel almost no compulsion to have more than one cup, but it made him feel amazing, and he felt compelled to drink more.

I can stop drinking coffee for a week without any annoyance, but if he tries to pull back or stop drinking caffeine, he experiences 2 weeks of crippling headaches.

My takeaway: work your way into any drugs tentatively, and don't listen to people who tell you how much "everyone" responds to it.

For me, caffeine induces a wonderful sense of euphoria (as well as increased energy, increased focus, increased ability to sleep soundly, and decreased appetite), yet I simultaneously feel no impulse to consume it and usually don't.

I have to actively remind myself to consume my caffeine when I really need the boost in focus. The euphoria is a pleasing side effect, but not something I think about when I'm not experiencing it. It's common for me to go weeks at a time without having any, just because I didn't think to.

I think there could be a genetic factor here. Addiction (to alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, etc.) seems to be fully absent in my family history.

I'm sure there's a genetic factor.

I have an espresso superautomatic, beer in my fridge, and prescribed stimulants, and I often go months without partaking in any of that because it has to be a conscious decision and sometimes it never crosses my mind. I'm uncomfortable leaving my baseline.

It's like wearing fancy clothes. It's enjoyable for a few hours, but I wouldn't want to wear them frequently.

Reading just this comment, I'm inclined to think your friend is likely correct. You very clearly have a dangerous bias against THC and it's clear in your rhetoric, for example:

> while biologically correct gave these type of people a get out of jail free card.

Yikes.

I think part of the problem is ever since legalization weed became more mainstream (potentially dangerous) but weed-conservatism (i.e. exaggerating real risks of THC) also became much more common to encounter (also potentially dangerous). The reality is somewhere in between. I do not use THC, but as someone who used it previously and it tremendously helped me, my current mental model and set of anecdotes say you're likely wrong and exaggerating the real risk your friend is under.

How is being conservative about weed dangerous?

Because THC is shown to be an effective care for many mental and physical problems. THC itself can be dangerous or even very dangerous (psychosis risk etc) but this doesn't warrant being so overly cautious that we miss the forest for the trees. Facts show THC can be a very effective palliative tool, and it's unclear how much damage you can do with short-term regular use.

It likely corresponds with supporting bad drug laws.

Incarceration is dangerous

> You very clearly have a dangerous bias against THC and it's clear in your rhetoric

On the topic of biases, I wonder why you consider theirs to be "dangerous".

Regardless, their biases to seem to stem from a certain personal experience with marijuana, particularly their friends' habits with it. It's possible this person's "friends who spend majority of their day high" have a substance abuse problem even if not everybody who uses the substance abuses it.

I responded to a similar question below:

> Because THC is shown to be an effective care for many mental and physical problems. THC itself can be dangerous or even very dangerous (psychosis risk etc) but this doesn't warrant being so overly cautious that we miss the forest for the trees. Facts show THC can be a very effective palliative tool, and it's unclear how much damage you can do with short-term regular use.

To add, it also leads to apologism of (or apathy for) locking people up for consuming THC.

The context here is "friends who spend majority of their day high". Call me conservative or "dangerously biased", but doesn't strike me as healthy.

"Potheads", "get-out-of-jail-free", "degenerate", etc.

"Ever since it became legal I have friends who spend majority of their day high. Of course, when confronted"

Maybe you should quit interrogating your friends to prop up your own puritanical moralities. All I see when I read your post is how much you hate people who use weed.

I didn't read that intent in his post. I don’t think anyone is pointing fingers at you.

I do know several people who develop temporary or permanent paranoia from weed, so maybe that's where the pointy fingers are coming from...

C’mon, let’s not do that…

"Hey man have you tried going a couple days without smoking weed?" is not interrogation. It's concern.

I don't understand this attitude. Do you not care about the people around you? I'm not smashing my friend's joints or tossing their bongs. I'm asking because I am concerned about their health.

What I enjoy about the comments to my comment is it demonstrates how deeply ingrained this righteous indignation is in the "cannabis community". I don't understand your insults. "Puritan", etc. For some reason having concern for friends is now puritanical...what a world. Your focus on dissecting my use of idiom as some sort of in-built hatred for weed smokers is honestly so on point for the HN commenter community its actually almost funny.

"Of course, when confronted"

"Hey man have you tried going a couple days without smoking weed?" is not interrogation. It's concern."

Or maybe it is both?

Your friends are probably old enough to no want to be controlled by you. Tell them your opinion, it might do them good, but maybe don't tell them what to do. They should figure that out on their own.

A question of "Have you tried..." might be the precursor to an offered opinion. Maybe their friends have been successful at that exact thing and the opinion is moot. But if the answer is no, perhaps that's the point at which it might be suggested to try.

There's no controlling that is necessarily suggested by their comments. Certainly such questions can be asked in bad faith but it might be assumed that OP isn't doing that.

Well, it is also about intention yes, but my point was just that people do not like to be treated as children (especially when they are acting as such). To reach them, I first have to respect their choices.

This is a reasonable position, which is not something that can be said about the "war on drugs" type of person that I've encountered. That person is much less likely to be critical about why they question the use and, in my experience, will often assume that "use" is "abuse" regardless of the actual effect it has on the user.

The comment rightly calls out that it is a personal take about your friends but that is also something which might be done by someone with more pointed and less honest intentions. Certainly assumptions can be more charitable, however. I don't mean to justify these complaints of your comment but hopefully they're more understandable.

I suggest you send your comment to one of these friends and ask them if they feel like this is overbearing or not.

If when considering this, you feel hesitant to show them what it is you wrote about them, then I think that's something to reflect on.

"For some reason having concern for friends is now puritanical" -- it's difficult for me to reconcile your claim to have concern for your friends while also vilifying them for being "potheads" or "degenerates"?

Not really trying to insult you, that wasn't my intent, but in an era in society where personal autonomy and agency is becoming paramount to societal influence it makes damn near no sense that you're so worked up over someone else's personal choices.

Notice I don't disagree with the presented findings, how cannabis addiction isn't a boogeyman or false flag, it's can become a chemical dependency, but I do disagree with your stance of wanting to police the behavior of others to fit your own perspective, despite calling it 'concern' or 'caring about the people around me'.

If you were my friend, I'd tell you to mind your own business then eventually lose your number. I'm an adult, I take my own calculated risks and understand the consequences of my actions.

That’s an incredibly depressing way to look at friendship, frankly.

OP is clearly not upset about “personal choices” — they are sad to see their friends become visibly worse versions of themselves.

Expressing concern about troubling patterns of behavior is one of the greatest things a friend could do for me.

Asking someone to get off weed for a few days isn’t expressing concern. If I did that to everyone I know who can’t stop caffeine, I’d be the asshole.

Visibly worse versions of themselves, according to whose standards? Apparently the standards of someone who doesn’t use cannabis on any level, so thereby doesn’t really have the authority to determine whether his friends who are high are better off or worse off. I just can’t see anything other than someone making value judgements of their “friends”.

Apologies in advance if I'm taking your comment wrong. Anecdotal here, but I've had two friends in particular who at one point completely blew their lives up because of their inability to stop using THC. At the right time I would bring it up to both of them, and made it clear I would support them and be there for them no matter what. At this time one has been THC free for over two years, while the other is still in over their head. Both have always been appreciative of what I had to say, and I'm still great friends with them.

If a friend is becoming unhealthier and squandering opportunities because of a plant, substance, or whatever, it is completely okay to bring it up to them in a tactful way. The kind of friend who is unwilling to tell you the truth when you may need it most is the kind who's number you need to be throwing in the dumpster.

> Your focus on dissecting my use of idiom as some sort of in-built hatred for weed smokers is honestly so on point for the HN commenter community its actually almost funny.

I don’t know about that, I swear that ever since the Reddit drama the temperature has been dialed way up in the comment section if HN. More downvotes, more pithy comments, more line by line comment dissections.

> "Hey man have you tried going a couple days without smoking weed?" is not interrogation. It's concern.

It's still telling them what YOU think they should do, no matter how nicely and concerned you phrase it. At some point you have to walk away; they're full adults, they're not your responsibility, they're able to make their own choices, and unless they affect you directly it's ultimately not your job to fix them.

That does sound like an interrogation. You didn’t ask why they are doing it. Or how they feel without it.

Do you verify with people on other optional meds and caffeine etc to get off that stuff for a week just to be sure?

Friends are people you can show concern for. If you only ever have softball easy conversations with then they're probably not a friend, they're an acquaintance. Sometimes hard conversations are necessary.

> Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

No, saying you don’t have an addiction may be a common thing addicts (and non-addicts!) do, but its not even close to the first sign of addiction. Or even a recognized symptom. Or even a recognized danger sign that would call for more intense screening. Its not a useful indicator of addiction at all.

> 20 years ago we called it weed, now we call it "cannabis".

“Weed”/“pot"/“ganja”/etc. are sonewhat vague slang. “Marijuana” and “hemp” are legal categories. “Cannabis” is a correct, precise term that encompasses both hemp and marijuana.

> Ever since it became legal I have friends who spend majority of their day high. Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

Before it became legal, I'm willing to bet those friends spent a majority of their day doing something equally unproductive. Be it playing video games, or watching tv, whatever $couch_potato_activity. And they're probably just doing the same stupid thing while high, because it's even more fun that way.

It's easy to villify a drug for what would happen either way, you're not proving a causal relationship. Pot and being a lazy slob dovetail quite nicely, just like pizza and beer. Nobody blames pizza and beer for the fat stained-shirt slob who never gets off their ass.

> Of course, when confronted, they say it's not addictive and they dont have a problem. As we know this is the first sign of a very serious addiction.

We don't know anything of the sort.

It's common for addicts to think they aren't addicted. But it's also common for non-addicts to think they aren't addicted, because, you know, they aren't.

It's just difficult in many cases to tell whether someone is addicted, and your confidence that you know isn't warranted, nor does it make you particularly helpful to addicts.

From a practicality perspective, a decent litmus test I think is "does the behaviour cause problems in your life?" and a follow-on to that is "do you want to stop but feel that you're unable to?"

I am addicted to tobacco. It causes me social and relationship grief. It's very hard to stop. Health-wise I don't need a lecture on the long-term harm I am doing, but in the short-term I'm generally going pretty good. Great cardio, decent blood pressure, shrug. I low-key want to stop, but it's not urgent.

I am likely addicted to caffeine as well, although suffer virtually zero obvious negative consequences from that other than needing a cup or two throughout the day to feel alert.

Someone else in this this thread mentioned losing multiple jobs because of weed. They're likely addicted to it, or suffering from some other kind of mental condition that results in them having poor impulse control/pleasure-seeking behaviour.

I agree with most of what you're saying here about this being a comparison problem.

The one area of major disagreement is regarding the "cannabis" designation. For me, this term is associated with the opposite connotation. When I started taking its effects more seriously, I started using the cannabis word because I feel it lends more respect to the plant. This wasn't originally my idea, and so I'm not alone in this.

This respect was part of my own mindset shift on usage away from habitual use. A way to remind myself to take it seriously, and to partake intentionally if/when I do.

Most people I know are pretty aware of their "problem" but have no intention of changing it. Calling it one thing over another might be a form of self deception for a few, but self deception will always find some answer.

> It won't kill you like alcohol withdrawals will or make you agitated like nicotine will. So then it must be okay right? These same potheads will quote studies and news articles talking about the benefits or just how risk free it is.

I do think we have major issues with how we paint these different groups. When someone is an alcoholic, they gain sympathy and support from society proportional to their maladaptive behaviors and/or willingness to address the issue.

"Potheads" is almost always derogatory, and I don't think people who struggle with this are seen in the same light as people who struggle with other drugs of abuse, and it's not surprising considering the pretty clear misconceptions the public has about cannabis as a whole.

And I think this is important to note, because one of the #1 emotional factors that leads to continued maladaptive substance use is shame. Society has progressed quite a bit towards supporting and celebrating people who struggle with drugs/alcohol. I don't think society has done the same with cannabis. Attitudes are closer to "they're just lazy and it's not even addictive so what's their problem?".

This is how "drug education" has failed us.

The status quo is "drugs are bad, m'kay?" and "drinking is fine, everybody does it, just don't drive when drunk".

The way forward should be understanding the following:

  * Let's use the word "drug" for any compound that alters your state of mind for recreational purposes.
  * Some of these drugs have medical value, but in this context it is about recreational use.
  * Everybody is different in how they respond to a drug
  * Most drugs are dangerous when consumed to excess
  * Most drugs can impair your thinking and should not be used in unsafe conditions
  * Some drugs can be dangerous due to adulterants (e.g., fentanyl)
  * One should be mindful in how they consume drugs (not under peer pressure, not appropriate time/place, etc)
  * If you are going to use a drug, treat it as dessert rather than a meal

  * Addiction is possible/likely when one consumes a drug frequently in a short amount of time, or by consistent use of it
  * Addiction can be overcome but it requires serious effort and can be *very* discomforting
  * The first high is often the "best", and trying to capture that again can lead to addiction
  * If you think you have a problem with drugs, you probably do, and should seek help in addressing your problem
  * If you are an addict and you break your addiction you cannot return even once to using again

I'm sure there's room for improvement there, but it's a start.

Edit: tweaked a tad based on input

I think this is a great list. I would point this out.

> * Let's use the word "drug" for any compound that alters your state of mind.

> * If you are going to use a drug, treat it as dessert rather than a meal

Consider that your definition rightly includes things like antidepressants, but people for whom antidepressants are working should take them regularly (which I assume is the distinction you're drawing with dessert versus meal).

Thanks for the input! Yes, that definition should be for the context of "recreational" use.

The cultural roots of drinking are deep, and while I agree that alcohol enjoys a seemingly protected status, I don't know that blanket labeling everything "drugs" is a step forward.

I think this kind of abstraction is what gets people into risky situations. I'd rather we raised awareness across the board about the benefits and repercussions of the popular substances of choice. Some general rules of thumb are good, but less compelling than direct information about the ways things can go wrong, and ultimately not useful in the moment of choosing "do I partake?".

I think most people understand that some drugs are dangerous and some are not. But the drug conversation has been so dishonest for so long, that people struggle to assess what is real/true, or what to take seriously. I don't think people will take seriously anything that collapses mind altering substances under that single umbrella.

I think there are strong arguments to be made that psychedelics - especially psilocybin - deserve to remain in a category of their own. To associate them with "drugs" broadly seems counterproductive at a time when we're finally seeing research dollars pour into the field, and the effects of these compounds doesn't seem comparable with other recreational drugs. And no one gets addicted to psilocybin, but there are some very real risks that users need to know about.

I could have done better on the initial definition -- the key context is "recreational" use.

It's incredibly important that we collectively recognize that alcohol is a drug. More so, recent research shows that it has zero health benefits. We need to understand the extensive damage it does to society -- not to demonize or prohibit it, but to give context to when pearl clutching happens about other drugs.

Likewise, people should understand the history of the War on Drugs and be aware of the real reason they came about (spoiler: to oppress their users).

It is true that psychedelics can have incredible therapeutic value, but they can also be a lot of fun (I certainly consumed them in that context when I was much younger). Cannabis can be added to that list, as well as others.

So yes, let's be entirely honest about the subject (which I'm trying to do). We can't wish them away, so let's deal with it like rational adults and minimize the risks of harm.

> alcohol enjoys a seemingly protected status

Well, the US tried Prohibition. Drunkenness went down and crime went up.

I'm not arguing for prohibition. The point was more that despite its ills, society does not treat people who consume alcohol as harshly as society treats people who consume other substances that are arguably no worse, or possibly less harmful.

Not a value judgement, just an observation about current attitudes around mind altering substances.

Maybe not an addiction in the sense that they get shakes and sweats when they quit cold turkey (or risk death), but definitely a dependence that I see in a lot of people; a dependence on weed just to be able to relax.

But the side effect of being high all the time is indifference. Things can wait.

I don't think the wording makes much of a difference, that's like saying "I drink" vs "I imbibe alcohol". Or as South Park said it, "I'm not having a glass of wine, I'm having six, it's called a tasting and it's classy".

But it does become dangerous when people think of it as medicinal, as a kind of self-medication. Some people need it, for sure, but for a lot of people it's self-medicating without dealing with the root issues.

But then there's plenty of examples of self-medicating, ranging from sugar, energy drinks, video games, alcohol, sex, work, etc.

None of this is true for me or a few other people I know.

I had a rough childhood. I didn’t get help. I tried, but I have debilitating anxiety and the system expects you to be able to manage getting help even if that’s what you need help with.

The pandemic broke my brain. The amt of complaining every one did about the lockdowns. All people were talking about was a life I was forced to subsist in because I was never given help. Last year I tried weed and it has helped a lot.

I don’t need to say I smoke weed X a day to myself. I’ll just say it to you or anyone else. Sound like a degenerate to who? You? Judgmental people?

I got tired of proving I’m not a “degenerate”. I would get off weed to prove to people around me I don’t need it, but it’s never enough. If you don’t think weed is medication then that’s on you.

> the re-branding of weed as "cannabis"

Clearly "weed" is the slang term and "cannabis" is the name of the plant!

> These same potheads

This seems more like branding to me :P

The ultimate denial has to be the people with ADHD, because of course the only cure for ADHD is daily meth amphetamine use. "It actually calms me down"

> The ultimate denial has to be the people with ADHD, because of course the only cure for ADHD is daily meth amphetamine use.

Pedantically, that's a treatment, not a cure.

lol

Do they have a good reason not to get high? Alcohol is different because it’s much less healthy, more expensive, and causes hangovers. I can’t think of any side effects of non-smoked cannabis that last beyond the evening except for the stuff that matters in 30 years

> As we know…

this was the moment.

or was it? no, it was earlier.

> Of course, when confronted…

of course…

Nicely captured. L'essence du puritain.

I smoke weed 8 times a day and I smoke cannabis 8 times a day. Sounds the same to me. Why the hell would the word you use matter?

Take your morals and shove them. Go look in the mirror and judge yourself if you want to judge somebody but leave me out of it.

"I'm innocent!"

That's exactly what a criminal would say!

"I smoke cannabis 8 times a day.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com