She actually was on a prescription that was supposed to increase her appetite … but it just made her sleep. All day. Which meant she wasn’t eating several small meals every few hours like she was supposed to, so it was actually worse than nothing.
Actual conversation today:
Daughter: Mom, if you go to the store I want some cheese.
Me: …Didn’t I just buy you a big thing of cheddar a couple days ago?
Daughter: Yeah but I got stoned last night and ate it all.
Oh God to be young and be able to eat all the cheese.
I have a few stories about how cheese “impacted” me when I was younger.
Poe’s Law may have played strongly in joeair’s comment. I read it as dripping with sarcasm.
Oh, I did too. So I guess I was kind of agreeing with the … truth of his sarcasm? I don’t know, it’s been a long day and I woke up way too early.
I said it merits further study, and that the precautionary principle seems like a reasonable measure. I never claimed that it is definitively carcinogenic. I said the studies to-date show potential.
Not really. I originally wrote something like “the tobacco-specific nature of cigarette smoking is not the sole factor in increasing your tobacco risk”… or something clunky like that. Then I revised the sentence with the intention of pointing out that nicotine itself is probably not carcinogenic, but left part of the original sentence in tact and made a hash out of it at around one in the morning. In other words: long explanation to explain very little. Especially because it doesn’t change my point even a little, that inhaling burning plant matter is usually considered a cancer risk, whether it’s wood in a fireplace or tobacco in a cigarette. It’s not the nicotine part of the cigarette that matter (at least not directly) so why assume that pot is any different?
Yes, there’s the dose, but I never claimed that pot would match tobacco as a risk, only that by extrapolation from what we know of tobacco is there credible reason to conduct some study, and those studies will be conducted, whether or not you or I want them to- because it’s an open question. The assumption here seems to be that nothing would be please me more than to find a reason pot is unhealthy. The reality is that the reverse is true, but seems to me unlikely. Might I be wrong? Sure. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again, because being wrong is part of the human condition. It’s not like someone will do a long term well conducted prospective study and discover that pot presents no cancer risk and I’m going to fall to the ground weeping and defeated. It’ll be. “Oh. Well that settles that, then.”
I’d rather sound canned than like a haughty douche. I didn’t intend to publish what I wrote, so I wasn’t hung up about using pejoratives. Referring to potheads as potheads isn’t a “move” it’s a familiar descriptive and I wasn’t wearing a three-piece (note the daintily applied dash) suit when I wrote it. What a dick.
Stay free.
Surely, this no different from any other addiction? People who abuse alcohol, also tend to have other problems–that is the nature of addiction?
All this happened in Berlin, Germany, where health care provision is still better than in the US, so while I am not denying that the incident was multi facetted and complex, it is unhelpful to deny that “devil weed” as you put it was part of that multi facetted complex situation. It’s just not black and white, which is not an argument against decriminalisation, but an argument for a multi facetted discussion.
[quote=“Phrenological, post:37, topic:77915, full:true”]
I very much doubt that having a multi facetted conversation will hurt any kid. No idea why you are so precious & black & white on this. Some people smoke and become Nobel Prize Winners and Oscar Winning Movie Directors and who knows what, some people smoke and their life is a mess, and maybe the smoking is a tiny part of that mess (or even no part at all) or maybe it’s a huge part of it, and maybe it’s all down to epigenetic and their predisposed addictive personality–
But there is nothing wrong with talking to kids / teenagers at that about the complexity of human life and choices. Telling them on the other hand that people on pot do not ever hallucinate is not particularly helpful as blatantly untrue.
p.s. there was no alcohol involved but decades of smoking and probably other very complex issues. Who the knows what triggers such action in that moment. I sure don’t pretend to.
The violence suffered by the community from “hallucinating stoners” would have to be the single most negligible threat I can imagine. Up there with runaway circus elephant trampling.
Seriously, provide some evidence for the significance of this issue other than what “happened to your friend at this one party this one time”, or GTFO.
I don’t doubt that shitty things happen at parties, or that pot can exacerbate mental illness among someone already predisposed. I do doubt that someone was only stoned and committing acts of violence, though. Alcohol (or worse substances) are a more consistent party to those outbursts.
Sure, I just find it hard to imagine any sensible discussion of cannabis use and risk that starts with the words “Hallucinating stoners do physically threaten and damage others.”
Sad that a person wouldn’t think to question what hallucinogens the stoner was using at the time, but yes.
Fucking Family Guy
“Cannabis is a hallucinogen, like a mild form of LSD”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
