muerteverde said:
That response of don't knock it till you try it is nonsense. It is adictive and harmful. If you try it, it may be hard to stop. It is proven that these things are unhealthy- smoking anything, drinking too much alcohol. I am perfectly capable of saying this without having ever tried any of them.
I don't smoke or drink for a few reasons:
1) They are unhealthy. You can debate how unhealthy, but we can all agree that they are unhealthy (alcohol in moderation isn't that bad I suppose).
2) They are addictive. I do not want as few dependencies (pot is a dependency and not an adiction I ahve heard) or addictions as possible. They control your life and can get expensive.
8) For a number eight, it is similar to number 4. I do not want to escape. I want to live my life and be here for every waking moment. If I want to escape sometime, I will do it permanantly and won't come back (swimming the atlantic, eating a bullet, slitting my wrists) but I cannot imagie a scenario right now in my life where I would want to do that. I don't want to escape.
This is the best post by a non-user, but if you'll listen to what I have to say, I'm pretty sure I can illuminate for you some of your own prejudices you have retained as well as some irrational outlooks (I can tell you're someone who does his best to make this decision by grounding it in REASON, and for us users, that is terribly refreshing). I understand I must unavoidably have some of my own prejudices and such, but this post isn't about me, it's about you.
1) Unhealthy.
No. The Kaiser study is the only large-scale, long-term study that was not only peer-reviewed but cross-indexed each subject's marijuana usage against other habits (you would be amazed to learn that nearly every study that concluded marijuana has negative effects on the respiratory system-and there aren't many-
did not cross-index for cigarette usage That's unbelievably corrupt).
What was the only difference after 29 years between the group that used marijuana and the group that didn't? Those using marijuana were substantially less likely to have cancer. This property of marijuana has been suggested by other studies involving cannibanoids: believed to be the anti-cancer agent in marijuana. But the Kaiser study was a huge associative study- not a theoretical lab approach- that confirmed this.
I'm not saying I think it's good for your training. People who smoke five times a day, it's not difficult to notice they have a cough. I'm sure there are short-term conditions, like pneumonia and colds, that marijuana users are at a higher risk of contracting. Mainly, in my opinion, it adversely affects the immune system, but I have no evidence to support that assertion that isn't anecdotal. I wouldn't include it as part of my regime, but obviously there are pro athletes out there who do and still dominate. NBA Player after NBA player has rumored that anywhere from 1/3-2/3 of the league is using. You scoff? People scoffed when David Wells said 75% of the MLB was juicing ten years ago.
My point is there has never been a study that proved marijuana was even bad for your health. I think there are negative effects of marijuana that haven't yet been proven, but until they are, you can't say, "It's unhealthy" as if it were known. It isn't.
You'll learn that studies that issue negative results are (much more frequently than those that don't) engineered to realize those results. I remember I once saw a study that was funded by a Christian Group. Gimme a break, there's no conflict of interest there. More often that that, though, it's how they PRESENT the results to you. The classic example of what I'm talking about is the study that came out a couple years ago that reported (EGADS!) that marijuana contains four times as many carcinogens as cigarettes. That's true. There's over 400 in marijuana and something like 101 in cigarettes. What they DIDN'T tell you is that there are several key types of carcinogens in cigarettes that are far more lethal and, most importantly, in much greater quantity. Think of it this way: you give me a 1mL vial of 4 different wasp killers, and I give you a 1/2 gallon jug of just one kind of rat poison. Who's going to die?
Furthermore, the stress on one's respiratory system can be reduced/negated with the use of a vaporizer. Vaportech makes the best one. They've won at Cannabis Cup (the product cup) several times. That's the best route for athletes, IMO, besides total abstinence.
Alcohol: 1-2 glasses of either red wine or unfiltered microbrewed ale with your dinner has been proven to have a positive effect on the cardiovascular system. Once again, I think volume is essential to consider. Obviously, unlike marijuana, alcohol has been proven to be unhealthy with heavy usage, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to be healthy with moderate use. If you aren't drinking a glass of red wine with your dinner, you should start. The only difficulty is accounting for the empty calories.
Tobacco: cigarettes are the worst thing in the world for you. The absolute worst. You're right on this one. But pure tobacco actually isn't that bad.
2) Addictive.
Absolutely not. "Dependency" is an empty word invented by the hardline-right to maintain a negative stigma of the drug because they know they can't truthfully call it addictive. Only two major federally subsidized studies have been done on marijuana, one during Nixon's presidency (confiscated tapes reveal he basically told the scientists on the project to come back with a negative report, or not come back at all) and one during Clinton's presidency. Both concluded that marijuana cannot be termed (according to the medical definition) either physically or psychologically addictive. Furthmore, the study done during Clinton's reign also investigated the claim/fear that marijuana is a "gateway" drug, and concluded decisively that it is not.
Marijuana definitely gets expensive, though, bro, you're doing yourself a favor there. But I'm kind of pissed about that. Why is it expensive in the first place? You've stumbled into another reason it's so pointless that marijuana is illegal.
8) If you've never done it, how do you know people take it "to escape?" Some describe it that way, but most of my friends don't. Besides, it seems to be your opinion of drugs in general. You have to understand this is humorour to someone like me who has done a lot of drugs: to hear non-users make assumptions as to why we do it. I find weed to be numbing, but it doesn't actually make my problems go away, so I don't see how I could escape anywhere with it.
But have you ever tried LSD? What people don't understand is with most drugs you HAVE TO BE A MENTAL WARRIOR. People who are mentally weak freak, I've seen it time and time again. LSD is an odyssey inward: into your fears, into your ability to deal with the fact you don't control your own consciousness. It's not a pill you pop on a Friday night to make the time pass. You have to gear up for an LSD trip. You have to mentally prepare for it the way you would a fight. If you're not ready, you will break, and someone will have to babysit/restrain you. And it's funny, because it's so easy to see beforehand who has the solipsistic stamina to endure the watershed of heaven and hell the drug will throw at you. But if you think it's weakness that drives someone to do a hardcore hallucinogen, you have really no understanding of the subject of your criticism.
Also, your comments on suicide are insensitive. I appreciate your candor, but you obviously don't understand the nature of a serious suicidal struggle.