Cannabis Access and Academic Performance • Hacker News Board

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#111

Post by sv123 » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 3:25 AM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #91

sv123 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misinformed, there were over 700,000 arrests made for marijuana last year. Even without jail time, a possession charge can have serious consequences for young people. Being ineligible for federal financial aid, losing your job, and losing public benefits just to name a few. Imagine what better things our police officers could be doing if they didn't have to churn a kid through the system every 51 seconds.

You don't get it. Those people get hit with narcotics charges because the cops and D.A. know exactly who they are and the long list of other crimes they've committed. People who simply use or sell some marijuana and that's the extent of their "illegal" activity, they don't wind up in prison. Doesn't happen.

Nothing can be called "de facto legal" when hundreds of thousands of people are arrested for partaking in it each year. Prison time or not, possession charges can have serious consequences for many.

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#112

Post by palmer_eldritch » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 8:14 AM UTC

duaneb wrote: post #94

acomjean wrote: post #46

I think things like drugs and alcohol are worse for growing brains. From a NYC teacher (One reference point) "I’ve taught high school for 25 years and I hate what marijuana does to my students. It goes beyond missing homework assignments. My students become less curious when they start smoking pot. I’ve seen it time and time again. People say pot makes you more creative, but from what I’ve seen, it narrows my student…

I think this is a phase. It doesn't last past a few years. Marijuana becomes boring for people, just like other things. Alcohol is far worse because you can become dependent on it in a way marijuana doesn't really allow.

> Alcohol is far worse because you can become dependent on it in a way marijuana doesn't really allow.

Well, I've seen more people become dependent with hash/pot than with alcohol. I'd say that's because it's much harder to be functional drunk than stoned.

There might not be physical cravings or withdrawal but when someone starts hitting the bong several times a day, all this talk about hard and soft drugs is bullshit. And once they want to stop, the biggest difference is that they don't have the excuse of being in pain physically.

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#113

Post by omginternets » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:45 AM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #102

andrepd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you extend that reasoning to heroin, for instance?

It's my body, so yes. It's legal to kill an unborn fetus that lives in my body, but it's not legal to grow some poppies and ingest them? That's ridiculous to me. It's my body. Don't make some substance illegal because I might commit some other crime while pursuing my addiction. Arrest me if and when I commit some other crime. If shit were legal, it'd probably be pretty cheap anyway because we'd be able to grow our ow…

To play devil's advocate, if you apply the same reasoning to seatbelt laws, the flaws become obvious.

It's your body, yes, but it's our society. Your reckless endangerment costs money and ties up limited resources.

The fact that prohibition is not an effective strategy makes for a good argument, but "it's my body" rarely does, IMHO.

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#114

Post by _98fj » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 10:37 AM UTC

thenerdfiles wrote: post #87

_98fj wrote: post #6

It appears that regular cannabis use [0] decreases dopaminergic brain-activity [1]. Dopamine is often referred to as "pleasure"-transmitter, but it's function in certain parts of the brain is better thought of as "regulating expectation", therefore influencing drive & motivation. It makes it possible to work on stuff you don't particularly enjoy by focussing on an expected long-term reward. This works by enabling you…

It makes it possible to work on stuff you don't particularly enjoy by focussing on an expected long-term reward. This statement asserts causation where only correlation, particular of neural correlates, only justifies. That part of the brain plays a role in the process of expectation — it does not, by itself, make it possible. Language, other brain functions, social inertia, etc. makes expectation possible, and there…

That is true. Once a rather famous illustrator told me that he couldn't have done a certain ad showing a lion because … "Drawing hairs for hours and hours was just too boring, so I smoked".

In my experience cannabis especially lowers the motivation for physical activity, but also the "motivation" to process and work on bad emotions.

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#115

Post by PeterWhittaker » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #113

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my body, so yes. It's legal to kill an unborn fetus that lives in my body, but it's not legal to grow some poppies and ingest them? That's ridiculous to me. It's my body. Don't make some substance illegal because I might commit some other crime while pursuing my addiction. Arrest me if and when I commit some other crime. If shit were legal, it'd probably be pretty cheap anyway because we'd be able to grow our ow…

To play devil's advocate, if you apply the same reasoning to seatbelt laws, the flaws become obvious. It's your body, yes, but it's our society. Your reckless endangerment costs money and ties up limited resources. The fact that prohibition is not an effective strategy makes for a good argument, but "it's my body" rarely does, IMHO.

if you apply the same reasoning to seatbelt laws, the flaws become obvious

No, not quite: When one drives, one most often drives on shared public roads, and one's action can directly increase risk to others, costs to those who maintain the system, etc. E.g., if you are in an accident and unrestrained, your being unrestrained may place me at greater risk. Your being more seriously injured due to being unrestrained will have greater social costs (financial cost of first response, possible PTSD to first responders, etc.).

One can hardly but drive in a public space, one can hardly ever drive in a private space.

While similar arguments re costs of first response, e.g., can be made about drug use, drug use can be practiced wholly privately, and, with quality drugs and with appropriate delivery systems, including training, risks kept manageable, likely social costs kept low, etc.

Just to play devil's advocate, as you say.

Re: Cannabis Access and Academic Performance

#116

Post by WorldWideWayne » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #113

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my body, so yes. It's legal to kill an unborn fetus that lives in my body, but it's not legal to grow some poppies and ingest them? That's ridiculous to me. It's my body. Don't make some substance illegal because I might commit some other crime while pursuing my addiction. Arrest me if and when I commit some other crime. If shit were legal, it'd probably be pretty cheap anyway because we'd be able to grow our ow…

To play devil's advocate, if you apply the same reasoning to seatbelt laws, the flaws become obvious. It's your body, yes, but it's our society. Your reckless endangerment costs money and ties up limited resources. The fact that prohibition is not an effective strategy makes for a good argument, but "it's my body" rarely does, IMHO.

The "my body" argument is the central thrust of Roe v Wade and it is the very reason that abortion is no longer illegal. So that argument is absolutely worthy of consideration here.

Indeed, the stronger point is "Don't arrest me because I might commit some other crime." If we applied drug law logic to things like politics, we'd be arresting anyone who became a politician because they might be corrupting our society worse than any drug.

And I don't get your seatbelt argument. If I don't wear my seatbelt, I'm not harming anyone else - even if I get in an accident and get hurt or die due to my lack of wearing a seatbelt. Seatbelt laws are as unconstitutional as are the drug laws IMO. (Although, after reading about seatbelt law constitutionality, I see two decent arguments - 1) the driver can become a deadly projectile in an accident and 2) the driver is more likely to retain control of the vehicle with a seatbelt on. Those are good arguments, but I still don't think they're common enough occurrences that they should limit my personal freedom.)