Study Suggests That Marijuana Is More Dangerous Than Thought

[Ice_nine]

lol... Yeah, people's experiences are stupid.  I'd rather rely on accumulation of anecdotal subjective feedback interpreted based on an arbitrary definition of what "high" means by people that have never actually been high.

 

well it is a problem when anecdotes contradict each other. I've never thought anything was a "good idea" as you phrased it while under the influence of marijuana that I haven't done or thought about when I was stone cold sober. Do I know people who have? I don't really have a wide social circle but more often than not it's alcohol that's caused the people I know to do questionable things not marijuana. Not saying marijuana can't cause people to do stupid crap, but I've honestly not seen someone I know go sleep with a random guy because she smoked a little too much, I have seen people do that from being under the influence of alcohol though.

 

I also disagree about your description of getting high being more or less compared to an on and off switch, an all-or-nothing approach, while assessing alcohol intoxication on a gradient. Yes, the purpose of smoking weed is "to get high," and before I ever tried it I thought "getting high" was this big scary jump off the cliff, but I've found it comparable to being partially sleep deprived and knocking down a glass of wine. And I've gotten to the point where I've used too much and been "too high" but that didn't affect my reasoning as much as it was unpleasant. It's almost as if every bodily sensation becomes amplified to annoyance and you just have to sit there and deal with it.

 

I always love how defensive people get when marijuana use is questioned or criticized. 

 

 

I do kind of resent how anti-marijuana people can be as it does have its benefits. I deal with chronic anxiety and a sleeping pattern that has always been jacked up and taking a few hits to wind down and get to sleep at night every now and then helped. Also it was an enjoyable way to enhance music and movies, like how certain foods taste better with a bit of alcohol. It kinda sucked knowing that a lot of people might judge me for using on occasion, even though their rationale is something that contradicted my experience, and much of the research I've read. That's basically why I quit. Nothing the drug was doing but because so many people were like "zomg such sin." And then if I tried to explain benefits people were all "zomg you're using it as a crutch!" So I used to get really ticked off lol. I can admit that.

 

Now that I'm not a raging pothead anymore I'm a bit more level-headed ;)

 

 

To Nihil, research involving scheduled substances is tricky to get approved by review boards so I've heard, so you might be waiting a long time for numbers. Experimental research, which could help us infer causality, is guaranteed impossible with human subjects and is still quite a difficult feat with lab animals.  There was a study being run out of a Harvard some years ago where they were using some type of pill that was like marijuana (I know because I participate in research to get some $$$ sometimes), but again that's different than the real stuff.

 

And, maybe this goes without saying, but you always gotta look at who is funding the research ;)

[NotreDame]

Let me try to explain this a different way....

 

Alcohol has varying effects that are distinct from each other.  You can enjoy the drink itself.  There is an immediate relaxing effect which increases into the first drink or two, but then the buzz begins.  The "buzz" will increase to affect motor skill, reasoning, and memory.   At a certain point at the beginning of your "buzz" phase your reason has less control over your passions - in fact your passions could be said to increase, but there are distinct aspects to the alcoholic experience prior to that.

 

Most recreational drugs do not have phases where reason is unaffected.  There is just a "high" that is more or less on a continuum from low to high (although certain drugs do have "peaking" phases where this continuum is exponential rather than linear.) This means that once you feel the drug working, you are feeling the "buzz", which with drugs is called "the high."  Your reason is affected and your passions increase.  There is no introductory phase where you just get some benefits separate from the "high".  This is what I meant when I said drug use can't be moderated like alcohol can.  Does that make sense?  This is also why drug use is immoral and moderated alcohol use is not. 

 

As for studies versus experience...  "Science" is not at a point where they could correctly isolate any of these feelings & affects without relying on the subjective feedback of patients and the studier's interpretation of the experience.  You can weigh a person,  measure quantities consumed, do motor skills and cognitive tests, but that's the limit of what could be done objectively.

 

There are still many areas where the opinion of the experienced practitioner trumps "scientific studies."  Fitness & nutrition is a good example.  "Science" in this area has been horrible.  It's arguably contributed to today's obesity crisis.  Research into sex and drugs just started ~50 years ago - and what stage is that science at now?  Well, "science" has been saying that weed has no positive effects, but oxycotin does...  Hmm... So basically drug science today is driven by the FDA/Pharma crowd and it also sucks. 

 

What happens when people's anecdotal experience differs?  Happens all the time, but some people's experiences matter more than others.  Lots of people work out, but you aren't going to ask everyone's opinion on the subject. 
 

[Ice_nine]

 

Alcohol has varying effects that are distinct from each other.  You can enjoy the drink itself.  There is an immediate relaxing effect which increases into the first drink or two, but then the buzz begins.  The "buzz" will increase to affect motor skill, reasoning, and memory.   At a certain point at the beginning of your "buzz" phase your reason has less control over your passions - in fact your passions could be said to increase, but there are distinct aspects to the alcoholic experience prior to that.

 

So is this "buzz" something sinful? I've read the summa on drunkenness, various quotes from saints, that seem to indicate no. Yet some folks think it's venially sinful. I've also just read a combox that said drinking WITHOUT getting a buzz could be considered sinful. I scratched my head at that one. Let me try to find it . . .

 

" It can be a sin not to drink. For instance, when one believes it is sinful and persists in that error culpably. Or when not drinking goes against sobriety (the standard the Angelic Doctor uses is that if someone were to drink so little as to not sense the good of it, he may sin)."

 

Yeah, I really don't know what the hell that's referring to, but someone more learned than me can take a stab at it.

 

Irregardless (lol) ND, or anyone else who cares to answer, is drinking to "feel it" or to "get a buzz" immoral? Why the hell else do people drink? Even good Catholic folk.

 

 

I guess, according to Aquinas, I shouldn't drink anyway because I'm a woman ergo I have a weak mind :shrug:

Edited June 22, 2014 by Ice_nine

[Perigrina]

I guess, according to Aquinas, I shouldn't drink anyway because I'm a woman ergo I have a weak mind :shrug:

 

I think that we weak-minded women might as well drink because it won't make a difference.  

[NotreDame]

So is this "buzz" something sinful? I've read the summa on drunkenness, various quotes from saints, that seem to indicate no. Yet some folks think it's venially sinful. I've also just read a combox that said drinking WITHOUT getting a buzz could be considered sinful. I scratched my head at that one. Let me try to find it . . .

 

" It can be a sin not to drink. For instance, when one believes it is sinful and persists in that error culpably. Or when not drinking goes against sobriety (the standard the Angelic Doctor uses is that if someone were to drink so little as to not sense the good of it, he may sin)."

 

Yeah, I really don't know what the hell that's referring to, but someone more learned than me can take a stab at it.

 

Irregardless (lol) ND, or anyone else who cares to answer, is drinking to "feel it" or to "get a buzz" immoral? Why the hell else do people drink? Even good Catholic folk.

 

 

I guess, according to Aquinas, I shouldn't drink anyway because I'm a woman ergo I have a weak mind :shrug:

 

My understanding is that drinking to the point where it affects your judgement is sinful. 

 

Didn't you say that you've never been drunk?  If that's the case then it might be hard to explain. 

 

If you drink there is an area where you can get a relaxing, jovial effect without getting "buzzed."  It varies from individual to individual and it can vary with an individual depending on their tolerance (which can change depending on how often they are drinking.)

 

Drinking specifically to get buzzed is considered a sign of alcoholism.  In moral terms I'd consider it a disordered passion.  It's sort of what they currently refer to as "binge drinking." 

[superblue]

how dare you blasphemers have an opinion on such an issue, merely look at your catechism and listen to the Pope for the answer and nothing more, and if you don't think that marijuana is bad and immoral, then you should be labeled " phishy" because we know the enlightened ones here such as myself are the only ones who may speak on such issues and more over really do know who is really catholic. 

 

thank you.

 

:dead2:

[AccountDeleted]

I haven't read this thread so maybe someone has already answered my question but,

 

If marijuana is more dangerous than thought...

 

What kind of thoughts is it more dangerous than?

 

Is mj more dangerous than heretical thought?

 

Is mj more dangerous than pornographic thought?

 

Is mj more dangerous than adulterous thoughts?

 

Is mj more dangerous than murderous thoughts?

 

Is mj more dangerous than ????? [insert type of thought here] thought?

 

 

 

I just thought it would be good to clarify if there were any thoughts more dangerous than mj or if we can safely say with certainty that mj is more dangerous than any and all thought. 

 

 

Enquiring minds want to know, you know. :p

[Ice_nine]

idk thought is pretty dangerous. I usually try to stay away from it all together. I'm a straight-edger in that regard.

[Not The Philosopher]

I think a lot. I like to live dangerously.

[WillT]

"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man."
Bertrand Russel

[Ice_nine]

My understanding is that drinking to the point where it affects your judgement is sinful. 

 

Didn't you say that you've never been drunk?  If that's the case then it might be hard to explain. 

 

If you drink there is an area where you can get a relaxing, jovial effect without getting "buzzed."  It varies from individual to individual and it can vary with an individual depending on their tolerance (which can change depending on how often they are drinking.)

 

Drinking specifically to get buzzed is considered a sign of alcoholism.  In moral terms I'd consider it a disordered passion.  It's sort of what they currently refer to as "binge drinking." 

 

I understand and appreciate the difficulty in explaining the highly subjective experiences of drug and alcohol use. The ambiguity of the word "buzzed" is not helping though. (People I hang out with tend to refer to a buzz as when you get a little stupid and/or happy, or maybe I don't know because I haven't "crossed that line" into hangover territory). I think the concrete examples you touched upon are more illustrative and useful, even though they weren't exhaustive. Anyhow I enjoy the discussion even though we seem to be the only two continuing at this point.

 

I think every activity you could ever do "affects your reason" to some degree. What you call a jovial, relaxed feeling is a chemically-induced change in your psychic state. If you're elated from drink you may find it more difficult to dwell on your problems, suffer some coordination and cognitive impediments. You could spin around really fast and have the same effect as drinking a glass of wine or two, although it wears off quickly. You could do extreme sports or hop on a roller-coaster for an adrenaline rush. Sometimes a concert can "blow your mind." Thing is, in an elated state you perceive things differently and the decisions you make in that state will be effected by the dominant emotion/mental state you're experiencing. Conversely, stress, competitive sports, sleep deprivation (all these things I've listed are typically not sinful, yes?) Can also affect your reasoning and judgement. You've probably seen how athletes can be overly violent and aggressive "in the heat of the moment."

 

I guess the point I'm attempting to make here is that you cannot say that participating in activities wherein your reason becomes affected automatically constitutes sin. All sorts of activities can give you "less control over your passions" as you phrase it. Hell caffeine use can make people a little edgy. Obviously marijuana affects someone's judgment, that almost goes without saying, however the degree to which it does is dependent on a number of other factors. I guess where we mainly disagree is that you believe any and all circumstances affect a person's reason to a degree that is sinful whereas that is not my belief based on my experience. 

 

 

I don't know why my experience, and others who have had similar experiences, tend to get written off so easily. I acknowledge that people have done or thought stupid things under the influence of mj that they would not have done otherwise. I know people who have been adversely affected. But somehow I never achieved the level of stonerdom that makes my experience valid. "Youngster I've smoked more joints than days you've been alive yada yada and let me tell you . . ." seems to go a far way in these discussions, which I find unfortunate. Perhaps your experience with the drug is strongly tied to partying, binging, and debauchery but mine has not been. I'm a really boring person who hates partying and has no exciting stories of revelry to share with you fine folks. I was usually that annoyingly responsible buzzkill. Not to say I've never done anything stupid under the influence, I have, but they're the same vices I struggled with sober. I don't believe the drug made it any harder to avoid sin.

[add]

No good can come from smoking dope

Edited June 23, 2014 by add

[Perigrina]

I haven't read this thread so maybe someone has already answered my question but,

 

If marijuana is more dangerous than thought...

 

What kind of thoughts is it more dangerous than?

 

Is mj more dangerous than heretical thought?

 

Is mj more dangerous than pornographic thought?

 

Is mj more dangerous than adulterous thoughts?

 

Is mj more dangerous than murderous thoughts?

 

Is mj more dangerous than ????? [insert type of thought here] thought?

 

 

 

I just thought it would be good to clarify if there were any thoughts more dangerous than mj or if we can safely say with certainty that mj is more dangerous than any and all thought. 

 

 

Enquiring minds want to know, you know. :P

 

This joke was already made on the first page.  Clearly marijuana use has slowed your reaction time.  :)

[AccountDeleted]

This joke was already made on the first page.  Clearly marijuana use has slowed your reaction time.   :)

 

 

Actually, too much thought has slowed down my reaction time. I don't do mj (just pjs).

[Perigrina]

Actually, too much thought has slowed down my reaction time. I don't do mj (just pjs).

 

Just don't go smoking those pjs.