Marijuana makes people feel good. Apart from making people feel good marijuana may have some other positive effects – glaucoma remedy, pain relief, cancer cure (yeah right), etc. but overwhelmingly the effect of smoking marijuana is that it makes people stupid and lazy – and I’m not just talking about immediately after smoking it – people that smoke regularly are stupid and lazy on a full time basis.
“Stupid and lazy” might be overstating it for some but a regular dope smoker is certainly less intelligent and less motivated than they would be without it.
The truth about marijuana is that it is predominantly harmful.
16 thoughts on “The truth about marijuana”
“The truth about marijuana,” says Reed, is that “people that smoke regularly are stupid and lazy on a full time basis.”
It’s a grand claim. Am I really more stupid and more lazy than I care to admit? Or don’t I in fact smoke enough to qualify as a regular smoker? Or is Reed simply wrong? Before pondering these questions any further, perhaps I should ask Reed, “Are you sure?”
Affirmative. Reed says, “a regular dope smoker is certainly less intelligent and less motivated than they would be without it.” (my emphasis)
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence … I’ve cited some anecdotal evidence. Private research conducted by Bill Hicks that seems to suggest that not all drugs are good. Anecdotal evidence isn’t much, but at least it’s something.
Yeah right, Reed, or cite your references! 🙂
My claim is no more grand than this :-
Not convinced that marijuana is predominantly harmful?
Oh well… not my problem… and my belief that marijuana is predominantly harmful is not your problem.
What is your problem is that those who believe that government has a duty to protect you from harm believe that marijuana is predominantly harmful. It will be difficult to convince them that marijuana is harmless – mainly because it’s not.
Government’s duty is the real issue.
Government’s duty is the real issue? But your post is about the safety of marijuana.
Does the government have a duty to protect people from harm? The government has a duty not to allow misinformation to inform its actions.
We all have a duty not to allow misinformation to inform our actions.
Stoners Have Better Cognition Than Non-Smokers
Stoners Are Well Educated and Make a Lot of Money
Is smoking cannabis completely harmless?
I wrote this post at the same time as the post about the question of government’s duty. This post was intended to act as a filter so that the other thread did not get tied up with whether it’s factually correct that dope is harmful.
Also I think you and Tim have been sucked in by the “harm” argument – and that is why you don’t acknowledge marijuana harm – even to the extent of promoting it as purely beneficial.
Smoking cannabis can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mild cognitive impairment and, in a minority of vulnerable individuals, it can trigger permanent psychosis.
Did you mean
Reed, we live in a climate of prohibition, where the harms of cannabis are blown way out of proportion by the MSM. Please excuse me if I overcompensate for this in my drug-induced rantings.
I’ve noticed defenders of the “legal highs” industry doing exactly the same thing. Downplaying the harms of (some of) the synthetic cannabinoids. In the face of hysterical opposition.
Polarisation is bad, mmmkay?
Again, I don’t think so.
Tim is emphatically against the “harm minimisation” approach. He won’t compromise and won’t get involved.
I’m on record (sort of) as eschewing the “harm minimisation” approach. Unfortunately, “harm minimisation” is the only language prohibitionists and non-libertarian DLRers speak. What am I to do?