David Brooks: I enjoyed pot, but you shouldn't

boing
41

David Brooks is a conservative hypocrite who thinks pot was ok for him but should be illegal for everybody else. Barack Obama is a liberal hypocrite who thinks pot was ok for him but should be illegal for everybody else. The Republicans enforce their political correctness by saying that pot is illegal, therefore it’s evil, therefore you’d better not advocate legalizing it. The Democrats enforce their political correctness by saying “But what about the Children!”. The Democrats are a bit better about it than the Republicans, but only a few of their politicians are willing to stand up for the principles they ought to have.

Bill Buckley was a conservative who wasn’t a hypocrite about it; he smoked pot and advocated legalizing it. (“Where’t you get the pot if it was illegal?” “I grew it on my boat, outside the 3-mile limit”…)

4 Likes
42
I have seen studies indicating that imbibing alcohol makes people more creative. Since cannabis has the sort of dissociative effects tied with increased creativity, I'd assume it's at least as effective in that regard.
A lot of writers sure seem to think that alcohol helps with their writing, that's for sure.

As far as pot goes, I think it depends on the strain. Some indicas aren’t that great for creativity, while some choice sativas can spur it very nicely.

Then again, it’s probably not a good idea to use any drug to spur creativity on a regular basis or it might become a pathetic crutch and an eventual liability. Many musicians have learned that the hard way.

3 Likes
43
Incorrect, says the anthropologist, culture molds law.

This really can’t be emphasized enough. Politicians love to think that they are courageously leading the way and grandstand accordingly, but the reality is that laws are lagging, not leading, indicators.

1 Like
44
Adults wearing sweatpants (or pyjamas) in public is also an adult's free choice, but not something I'd care to see become more common around me.

5 Likes
45
46

Brooks is toeing the company line with his fake statistics. See also: the current drone sitting in the office of Drug Czar.

1 Like
47
Personally, I am not thrilled at the idea of marijuana usage becoming more common around me.
Well, here in Denver you won't have to worry about it too much. It's still illegal to partake in public. I helped (despite the many naysayers) with the push for the successful legalization here, but I (among many others) also insisted on good, common sense regulations as well.

This comes with your container of pot you purchase:

The only strong side effect of being around us in Denver is there’s better educated kids from all the heavy pot taxes that are going towards our educational system. Oh, and the general bump to our economy that makes us probably kick the ass of the city you live in. :wink:

6 Likes
49

Well that’s just like you’re opinion, man.

6 Likes
50

I don’t think Gyrofrog is the same poster as tlwest, don’t let one speak for the other.

From my own perspective, not wanting something to become more commonplace has nothing to do with “disapproving” or anything moral-based at all, it’s merely a statement of preference, which is what I took Gyrofrog’s flippant response to mean as well. This does not mean anyone who doesn’t really want to see something become more commonplace around them supports the criminalization of said thing (I certainly don’t) - that’s basically Brooks’ disconnect on the subject. It also doesn’t mean they think there’s anything objectively wrong with said thing, either. We’d just rather, if we were being honest, not have it suddenly become more prevalent in our day to day social interactions, but if the alternative is criminalization then as tlwest originally stated, that would be ridiculous. I’m also not personally thrilled that drinking is a common part of any large group gathering, that’s a statement of preference, but not a stance that anything should be done about it.

3 Likes
51

Part of Brooks enjoyment of marijuana was the fact that it was illegal, and that a person of lesser status than he might end up in jail for a long time if caught with it by the authorities.

Very similar to his current enjoyment of [redacted in case anyone is eating dinner], which would similarly land any of us in jail but most likely simply cost him a few million in hush money.

52

My dislike of marijuana usage is based on the personal and the social effects. Personally, I appreciate it about as much as smoking, and for much the same reasons, although I find the sickly sweet smell even worse. I’m not looking forward to riding the subway with the person beside me reeking of marijuana - cigarette smoke is bad enough.

On the social side, I find increased marijuana usage about as attractive as increased alcohol usage for much the same reasons (although I find alcohol even worse). Certainly I don’t think that society benefits on the long run from people using artificial means to escape problems rather than solve them. And once again, it will be the lower socio-economic classes that will pay the biggest price for those individuals who become heavy users. The middle-class and higher can give kids who destroy their education a second chance, have family to give heavy users the opportunity to rebuild their life, have family to economically support those who make themselves unemployable, are more likely to have a job that will excuse the occasional inebriation, can hire care-givers and have good schools to support parental mishaps, etc.

Again, all of these apply even more so to alcohol, and I’m certainly not a fan of increased alcohol usage.

Anyway, I support efforts to discourage usage of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana (especially public usage), but I do not support criminalization, which has costs way above any possible personal benefits.

And yes, I do support banning all sorts of things that bother me personally that other people might enjoy. Animal abuse for one.

2 Likes
53

turns out it’s a parody:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2014/01/03/3118171/brooks-greenberg-marijuana-parody/

4 Likes
54
I don't think that society benefits on the long run from people using artificial means to escape problems rather than solve them.
Not all people consume marijuana to "escape problems" in replace of solving them. I think you're getting it mixed up with alcohol there. I've witnessed many people smoke a good sativa and still end up being quite productive by the end of the day. Alcoholics... not so much.

4 Likes
55

There are plenty of totally functional alcoholics out there, too.

56

This is a classic example of the banality of evil. You know, not actual sadistic malice per se, just a moralistic jackass with no sense of compassion or ability or willingness to actually think through the real world consequences of anything.

2 Likes
57

What he said. (Thanx.)

58
There are plenty of totally functional alcoholics out there, too.
Agreed, probably more than [we'll ever know][1]. I'm just not sure that they function anywhere near as well as those that consume marijuana as regularly. For one, *most* people can stop regularly consuming pot with little or no side effects. Certainly nothing like delirium tremors, etc. that almost all alcoholics have to deal with when/if they quit.

Also, I think that brain functioning is superior on pot than it is with alcohol. Lots of “functioning” alcoholics have injured and killed themselves and other people while working dangerous jobs:

http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Health-impacts/Factsheets/Alcohol-accidents-and-injuries.aspx

You don’t see that with most marijuana usage. You also don’t see violence and menacing with marijuana like you do with alcohol usage:

Granted, there’s anomalies and I’m sure there’s some dangerous potheads out there who’d be much higher functioning without marijuana, but I don’t think that’s the norm. There’s research that supports this as well:

" … The Scripps scientists discovered that eleven months of binge alcohol consumption that produced a blood alcohol level sufficient to be considered intoxicated decreased neurogenesis by more than fifty percent! Furthermore, the decrease in neurogenesis lasted for many weeks of abstinence. You might think that alcohol binging also caused more cells to die; actually, this did not happen. That old urban myth is simply not true. The only change observed was a decrease in the production of new neurons. The authors suggested that these changes might produce a long lasting vulnerability within the hippocampus that may well predispose these young adults to neurodegeneration later in life.

In contrast to the effects of alcohol, a series of publications during the past few years suggest that stimulating the brain’s marijuana neurotransmitter system appears to have the exact opposite effects upon neurogenesis in the hippocampus of both young and old laboratory animals and humans, i.e. neurogenesis is increased by stimulation of our brain’s marijuana receptors.

When we are elderly, our brain displays a dramatic decline in neurogenesis within the hippocampus. This decline may underlie age-associated memory impairments as well as depression. Research in my laboratory has demonstrated that stimulating the brain’s marijuana receptors restores neurogenesis. Thus, later in life, marijuana might actually help your brain, rather than harm it. … "

Source for quotes above … read more here:
Alcohol vs. marijuana in the brain

EDIT: You might also find this interesting:

Source for quotes below (A very good read and VERY well sourced, IMO):

" … Alcohol at 0.75 g/kg (slightly less than four standard drinks) causes high levels of impairment in psychomotor performance and medium-to-high levels of impairment in such tasks as critical flicker fusion and short-term memory. Alcohol impairs pursuit tracking, divided attention, signal detection, hazard perception, reaction time, attention, concentration, and hand-eye coordination.

Alcohol also reduces the perceived negative consequences of risk-taking, which can increase willingness to take risks after drinking, the amount of risk-taking behavior while driving, even at low alcohol doses, and the incidence of road traffic accidents while driving drunk.

…

Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests. Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.

Many investigators have suggested that the reason why marijuana does not result in an increased crash rate in laboratory tests despite demonstrable neurophysiologic impairments is that, unlike drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to underestimate their degree of impairment, marijuana users tend to overestimate their impairment, and consequently employ compensatory strategies.

Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious, and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightly less than two “standard drinks” of a can of beer or small 5 oz. glass of wine; half the legal limit in most US states), driving performance was impaired even though drivers rated themselves as unimpaired. Binge drinkers are particularly likely to rate themselves as unimpaired, possibly because they tend to become less sedated by high doses of alcohol. … "

6 Likes
59

So if you do both, how does that work out? How much booze does it take to inhibit neurogenesis, anyway? Is there a link for that?

60

How the hell would I know? I’m drunk!

:wink:

http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2012/20121015koob.html

3 Likes
61

Are you sure the lower socio-economic classes actually have the means to solve their problems? It seems to me that there are many systems in place, both deliberate and accidental, which prevent them from doing so.

5 Likes