Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#31

Post by cluckindan »

altairprime wrote: post #19
butlike wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: I don't need you to police my behaviors or protect me from myself. I know what I need better than you do.

This turns out to be false for addiction-class things like cigarettes, alcohol, and opium where a chemical dependency is statistically likely to form across an entire population. Oxycontin (for example) trivially overwhelms “I know my needs” and virtually the entire population is vulnerable, barring those very few of us with the anti-addiction adaptations (who then also tend to lack a working feeling of completion-su…

Listing the three most addictive, dependency-inducing and mortally dangerous substances used by humans to temporarily achieve a stress-free mental state doesn’t mean cannabis belongs in the same neighborhood.

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#32

Post by cluckindan »

dh2022 wrote: post #30
ratelimitsteve wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

funny, because I started smoking marijuana and it actually got me out of my parents' house. I got my degree, got a career, got clean from everything else, got married and bought a house. i now work every day with other well-paid and well-regarded professionals and the preponderance of us that smoke weed every day just like Dr Dre ordered would be shocking to your sensibilities. maybe stereotypes aren't a good place f…

You obviously did not smoke / are not smoking enough!

About a hay bale’s worth a day should do them in!

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#33

Post by cluckindan »

comprev wrote: post #17

It's a psychological addition of being stoned and slightly detached from reality - no different to people munching pills every weekend at a rave or drinking enough to be tipsy (or wasted, if that's your thing) It's escapism, pure and simple.

The majority of people addicted to drugs have neurodevelopmental issues from childhood. A significant part have preexisting mental illness of one sort or another.

You can call it escapism because that would make sense to you if you were doing drugs, but for most addicts, it’s about being able to feel and act normal, like the others.

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#35

Post by cluckindan »

summarybot wrote: post #11

[flagged]

So can many other things. People who suffer from psychoses will eventually have an episode, but those who use cannabis in moderation tend to suffer less cognitive impairment than the abstinent or the heavy users.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221500131...

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#36

Post by altairprime »

cluckindan wrote: post #31
altairprime wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This turns out to be false for addiction-class things like cigarettes, alcohol, and opium where a chemical dependency is statistically likely to form across an entire population. Oxycontin (for example) trivially overwhelms “I know my needs” and virtually the entire population is vulnerable, barring those very few of us with the anti-addiction adaptations (who then also tend to lack a working feeling of completion-su…

Listing the three most addictive, dependency-inducing and mortally dangerous substances used by humans to temporarily achieve a stress-free mental state doesn’t mean cannabis belongs in the same neighborhood.

Simply denying regulatory authority over an intoxicant, as proposed by the devil’s advocate argument I replied to, is obviously incorrect: all intoxicants are intoxicating and intoxication carries a risk of addiction. Where to set regulatory hurdles versus illegalities is much less obvious, and worth considering, but it’s never ‘fully unregulated’ in a prosocial society; if one provides a substance of altered mind, then some subset of those altered will suffer addiction. That’s the downside of our relationship with poisons: sometimes they poison our willpower.

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#37

Post by Henchman21 »

hahn-kev wrote: post #22
dweinus wrote: post #21

"As with other drugs, some people can be casual dabblers; other people, well, can’t." I think this is true. Unfortunately people (this article included) tend to talk about it as purely benign or unmitigated poison. I think the reality is that the dose, the frequency, and the role it plays in someone's life make it a positive or a negative. I wish we could get out of the hyperbole to be honest about the pros and cons.

Dose, frequency and role. Exactly like alcohol.

Like any intoxicant

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#38

Post by LocalH »

altairprime wrote: post #36
cluckindan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listing the three most addictive, dependency-inducing and mortally dangerous substances used by humans to temporarily achieve a stress-free mental state doesn’t mean cannabis belongs in the same neighborhood.

Simply denying regulatory authority over an intoxicant, as proposed by the devil’s advocate argument I replied to, is obviously incorrect: all intoxicants are intoxicating and intoxication carries a risk of addiction. Where to set regulatory hurdles versus illegalities is much less obvious, and worth considering, but it’s never ‘fully unregulated’ in a prosocial society; if one provides a substance of altered mind, t…

Too bad we live in the opposite of a "prosocial society"

Re: I didn't think I could get addicted to weed

#39

Post by altairprime »

LocalH wrote: post #38
altairprime wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply denying regulatory authority over an intoxicant, as proposed by the devil’s advocate argument I replied to, is obviously incorrect: all intoxicants are intoxicating and intoxication carries a risk of addiction. Where to set regulatory hurdles versus illegalities is much less obvious, and worth considering, but it’s never ‘fully unregulated’ in a prosocial society; if one provides a substance of altered mind, t…

Too bad we live in the opposite of a "prosocial society"

That our society’s economic strategy is effectively “how close can we skirt the line to serfdom and slavery” has no bearing on the devil’s advocate proposal of wholly-unregulated intoxicants that I’m replying to. The state will tend to deregulate so long as the intoxicant leaves workers inefficiently functional when they’re at work, but to strictly regulate when it impacts the job market; yet, neither of these tendencies have any bearing on whether we should regulate or not, they’re just inherent biases to be aware of when discussing our society.

As well, take care not to assume that to regulate is to make illegal, make medical-only, impose punitive taxes, etc. Sometimes the outcome of regulation is refusing to get involved — but even then, you do generally (at least, if prosocial societal goals are given sufficient precedence) see societies tend to impose some kind of either age limits or mandatory mentor or religious process onto intoxicants with regard to however they define ‘minors’, so that teenagers have to work for it, can be statistically discouraged en masse without tripping their biological contrarian responses, can be chaperoned by wiser adults, etc.

Post reply on HN