Aspergers and Marijuana

[slimjamin]

Hello

Didn't read the whole thread, but just thought I'd add my experience. I posted in the other marijuana thread a few months ago. Good to hear you're feeling better OP.

The tipping point in my life was when I started to smoke marijuana. I was an angry binge drinker from the age of 15 - 20 and I suffered from depression and anxiety. It was a horrible cycle that kept getting worse. After a failed suicide attempt that I don't remember due to severe intoxication, I thought it might be time to change a few things. But being sober was extremely difficult to maintain socially, so a female friend of mine offered to hang out a bit and smoke some weed.

From age 20 - 21 I lost 20kg, which brought me back into a healthy weight category. My marks at uni went up from low 60s to high 70s/low 80s. And, the greatest thing that has happened to me in my life thus far also happened: the introspection, self evaluation and spiritual honesty that I had been lacking my entire life just slapped me in the face and I realised that I had some issues to address. I knew I had depression, and I suspected that I had NPD and OCD (never, ever would have suspected autism, funnily enough). I went to a psych and in 4 weeks I was diagnosed with endogenous depression, reactive depression, anxiety disorder, OCD and AS/HFA. The world started to make sense. My reactive depression was largely a result of social anxiety from AS and not understanding why I seemed to view things so differently to others, so that's pretty much completely gone now. My endogenous depression is mitigated by my new healthy lifestyle as well, which is a product of this wonderful new outlook on life. I don't suffer any more.

As for my AS traits specifically, I agree with what was said earlier about marijuana opening doors that autism shuts. While I find that other drugs like MDMA and ketamine seem to make me MORE autistic (major sensory overload, and I stop communicating in language and use noises and facial expressions instead), marijuana allows me to look at situations with a sort of "neurotypical empathy". It's worth noting that it's not just when I'm stoned that I can do it. It's like it's a skill that I learnt and can use at my disposal now. I think it's to do with the breaking down of ego that comes from marijuana and the psychedelic drugs (LSD, psilocybin, etc).

I understand it's a drug, and it's a drug of addiction. Crippling addiction that can really sneak up on people. But it is the responsibility of the individual to make good choices for themselves. Having been addicted to alcohol in the formulative years of my adult life, I have no negative feelings towards that drug at all, because my addiction was my own fault. Smoking anything isn't great for you either - if it's an issue then get a vaporiser. Buy some mixing herbs if you don't want to mix tobacco with your marijuana. And keep your recreational habits in their place - it's easy to become demotivated and just smoke all day.

TL;DR - Marijuana completely changed my life for the better.

 

[ChrisKarr]

I no longer use marijuana, however I do feel that it has helped me learn to better cope with some of my symptoms, become more giving and empathetic and learn how to socialize properly. I am now pursuing work and feel that - were it not for marijuana - I would not have any real ability to survive an interview process or even give the facade of bowing to an authoritative figure.

Also, if you want to get the cannabinoids without having any burning material, you can obtain or make BHO (butane hash oil), which is a 98+% pure cannabinoid extraction. I would say THC, but there are other chemicals at work in marijuana which are of similar molecular structure and are therefor extracted with the cannabinoids.

This knowledge being shared, I would like to say that I release myself of any negative experiences from BHO, since it's easy to use too much and get way too high for comfort, if you haven't smoked in a while. As for me, I was up to smoking two grams a day, so to really get *high* I needed the effective THC of a whole gram, which is a lot of material. Being concerned about my lung health (I was a pack-a-day smoker), I made myself some BHO and that really improved my lung health.

I can say I was mentally and physiologically addicted to marijuana, and that some types made my paranoia worse, but the relief that was felt when I found the right stuff was incredible. The world was manageable, people weren't threatening and I didn't over-react to things in a way which seemed unreasonable to NTs. I found myself getting more respect from my peers and I was - in general - more bearable to be around.

 

[Aalo]

I am interested why is this thread about weed. Is it that it's the most accepted, easy to get soft drug?
It's rather non-addictive, great. But I've never tried weed, because for what I've understood is that it's not for my brains, not for how my temper perceives the world. I'm not saying it messes with your head, just that I'd not like the experience, probably. In fact I don't like the classifications between soft and hard drugs as there are so big variation on what kinds of experiences one can get of those. Of course it's notable that some are far more harmful.
If you do not wish to read anything about harder drug and something that could be considered as OT, please, do not continue reading: While studying at my previous uni I've participated drug trials that were conducted by medicinal laboratories, where they studied the cross effect of some specific chemicals from foods, other minor medicines etc. with this test subject chemical for knowledge to be used in hospital purposes. It wasn't about chemical reactions in our brains, and I bet I was the only aspie there, they were just interested in half life of the chemical in the body, and stuff like that. But I found my reaction to be interesting.

I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to go to details about the trials I did, but the main chemical that was studied there was a dissociative drug, and I can say that as much as I liked the experience and the post reaction that I had for few days of it, I had really hard time accepting that at the beginning of exposure (through a catheter) I was behaving like a drunk teenager. It didn't suit me at all. I'd not need any good feeling substance to make me feel that bad of myself. So I bet it excludes all drugs at once. I believe that I'm so much at my own spheres already, that I can't stand any substance to distort my ways of coping and ruin all my trained efforts any further. What I'd need would be something like a good dream, where it'd all be simply just a hallucination or anything like that, but so that it didn't mess up with my relation with my surroundings.
My bonds to it is confusing enough as it is.

There was three trial rounds for me, the over all time span was over a year, one day a month at the clinic. Before it I was pretty non interested in drugs and got to the test only out of curiosity and money. Now I'm more cautious because of the side effects, but also curious about the possible benefits. Later on I was on an operation that was proceeded while I was stunned, but not asleep, and I remember moaning for more sleep derivatives for it felt so nice. I lied that it still did hurt, so give me more. They didn't of course, which is good. So I'm terribly aware that I couldn't trust my judgement under any drug. I probably would overdose myself right away. And about being psychologically addictive: During trials I also got tempted to get more from the streets few times, but never went. I disagree with what has been said earlier on this thread, that aspies are tend to addictions. We can also be people that nothing might not really touch. People that don't care for physical things. But well, these substances aren't anything I'd suggest for anyone to try, because they can form addiction. After all, I'd hate to see my life become something I'd not control any more even this much as i can do now. But those trials were great experience. I got a good money for getting nice trips (there wasn't a trip involved every time thou, and I had to go through pain test every half an hour every time) under supervision of two physicians and an ER nurse.

Related to these good long lasting post effects I mentioned: Possible long term social ease of MDMA on people on autism spectrum?
I'm also curious that they have now started studying ketamine as depression medicine. Althou if someone favored weed because it's natural, and how it's different from other synthetic medicines is another story.

 

[King_Oni]

It's interesting how you bring up other drugs Aalo, since I've had my share of experiences with other drugs as well.

But first... let's talk about weed. I've tried it a few times years ago. Through a bong, with tobacco, without tobacco. As a non-smoker I guess the tobacco tasted most vile.

I liked the effect to some extent, but I'm in general not a person that likes to be slow and mellow. And the smell... no thanks.

However, talking about other drugs and to some extent "depression". I've had my few months doing speed. As someone with presumably ADHD/ADD it worked fine and I was really fine in terms of moods. I was happy, I was witty and I was pretty calm. But you know stuff is wrong when you need to take speed just to sit down and read a book. But granted it's a chemical drug and I don't have a clue where it comes from (Billy bob; or the dutch equivalent, might have been cooking up a batch) and it was hard to come by sometimes. I actually think I quit right in time before I really noticed addictive properties and got withdrawal. In that sense I might say "I did it responsible" (at least somewhat). It however, realizing it afterwards, was surely not a drug to make people functional in the generic sense. My confidence got a slight boost, up to narsissic proportions and aside from being able to focus, I had extreme hyperfocus. I always felt that the movie Limitless summed up my experiences perfectly.

 

[Sparticus]

[smoking] oh man...check out the stars...! wow...hey! pass the joint...
Ok I haven't read this huge monster thread...but hey, hemp was given to use by Mother Nature...gotta to be good for something

 

[mlrock]

My husband is undiagnosed Aspergers and now retired. He is now addicted to pot. He smokes it every night. It does make him talk. But also makes him want to argue when he is finally talking. I've wondered if the AS like the pot better than the NT?

His white blood cell count was up. The doctors did further testing and said "you have spots on you lungs - not good" the beginnning of the end. They said quit smoking or you will get cancer fast. The doctors told him pot is worse for your lungs than ciggarettes. He smokes a pack or more a day.

My conclusion - pot causes cancer to the lungs.

" A pack or more a day?" Are you referring to joints or cigarettes? The most intensive and well-controlled study (large sample size, government grant, went on for thirty years) on the carcinogenic nature of cannabis ever conducted came to the conclusion that while smoking marijuana was not 100% harmless to the lungs, there was no greater correlation between smoking only marijuana and cancers of the lung, head, or neck than for those that do not smoke anything. However, there is plenty of evidence that someone who smokes both cannabis and tobacco on a regular basis is at a greater risk of developing cancer than a nonsmoker or a someone that only smokes one.

 

[LobeDethfaurt]

Great thread with many differing viewpoints...OK, now it's my turn!

I am a former smoker (cigs and Mary Jane), as of today it has been 59 days since my last bowl and 1 year & 4 months without a cig. I smoked cigarettes for 18 years and pot for approximately 10 years. I was a daily smoker, and at my peak consumption I was smoking a quarter ounce per day, along with 2 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day. Now the only thing I use is an electronic cigarette, and I am weening myself off of that.

For me, cannabis was great, wonderful, the ruler of my life. Anybody that says that it isn't addictive is delusional or in denial. When I quit I went through 2 weeks of hell (nausea, vomiting, vertigo, appetite loss, trouble sleeping, night sweats, etc). I'm sure some of it was psychological, but not all of it.

I'm not knocking cannabis in any way. I still think it's great. I plan in smoking once a month when I get past 90 days. Why did I quit? I woke up one day and realized that I didn't know who I was, who my kids are, and I was slowly losing my wife. The house was a wreck, the lawn rarely got mowed...you get the picture. I was a stereotypical pothead.

That being said, it did help me learn to cope with many things, such as social anxiety. I think there is definitely a place for it in the treatment of aspergers and other ASDs, but only with moderation. I know from my experiences, and much of what I have read, that we have impulse control issues (read: addictions). Cannabis makes you feel so good, how could it be bad? But that is where the problems begin.

Towards the end of my use, I had slowed way down (1/8 per fortnight), and was actually using it like medicine (used at a prescribed time, 10 am and 6 pm, and used the same amount each time).

I'm just rambling at this point, sorry. I get that way a lot. I have a lit to say, but it's just a big mess up there. I really don't know what my point is...just wanted to add my story here.

~Lobe

 

[imanerd]

Why would ANYONE do marijuana. It's TERRIBLE for the body. I'm not exactly healthy, but it's NEVER a good idea to do drugs, ever.

 

[pacman]

Why would ANYONE do marijuana. It's TERRIBLE for the body. I'm not exactly healthy, but it's NEVER a good idea to do drugs, ever.

It is not terrible for the body. In fact, it is relatively safe you use. As for the notion that it is NEVER a good idea to do drugs, I took some ibuprofen for me knee earlier and that was probably a good thing.

 

[imanerd]

I was speaking of recreational use, and it's not safe.

In fact I have a friend who was almost stabbed when asked what the time is, because the other guy was under the influence of weed. I have an uncle who used to be a drug addict, everything from crack to weed to LSD. He's clean now, and he can tell you, it's NOT safe. He had even shot himself in a traffic brawl, and ended up in psyche institution. He even had threatened to cut my grandfather's boss's throat in half, he would steal stuff from my grandmother's house as a 12-year old child. I have yet another uncle who STILL does drugs, from crack to morphine, to LSD, to meth, and everything in-between, with whom, I feel no connection. I've seen it destroy lives too many times, trust me on this one. People underestimate the risks, and it's something that will ruin you for time to come.

It messes with brain chemistry, that's proven fact. It lowers reasonability, hence allowing for rash decisions.

 

[imanerd]

for some reason the edit button has disappeared - another thing to add: that uncle who still does the crap, is in trial for armed burglary. He does weed too, by the way.

He would, previously, boss my Alzheimers-ridden grandfather whom I have loved, to get him beers and stuff, while he'd sit on the couch. Too bad that can't happen anymore, because my grandfather has been dead for a couple years, now.

You might argue it's been because of the other drugs the two have done. Maybe you're right. But it's an amalgamation of ALL of the drugs COMBINED. No doubt that the weed has contributed. Scientific fact.

 

[pacman]

I was speaking of recreational use, and it's not safe.

I made zero assumptions about the type of usage you were talking about. In fact, the type of usage doesn't really matter for either of our arguments.

In fact I have a friend who was almost stabbed when asked what the time is, because the other guy was under the influence of weed. I have an uncle who used to be a drug addict, everything from crack to weed to LSD. He's clean now, and he can tell you, it's NOT safe. He had even shot himself in a traffic brawl, and ended up in psyche institution. He even had threatened to cut my grandfather's boss's throat in half, he would steal stuff from my grandmother's house as a 12-year old child. I have yet another uncle who STILL does drugs, from crack to morphine, to LSD, to meth, and everything in-between, with whom, I feel no connection. I've seen it destroy lives too many times, trust me on this one. People underestimate the risks, and it's something that will ruin you for time to come.

Since we are going with the anecdotal evidence route, exactly all of the stoners that I have ever known are non-violent. The person who tried to stab your friend clearly had some serious mental issues that had nothing to do with smoking weed. The rest of your paragraph is treating weed as if it's effects are comparable to those of dangerous drugs like crack and meth. Now, those I can see as maybe a blame for violence, but the fact that you are blaming weed for it (that's what it seems like) makes you look really uninformed. Your argument against weed relies on anecdotal evidence about crackheads and methheads. That is a bad argument.

It messes with brain chemistry, that's proven fact. It lowers reasonability, hence allowing for rash decisions.

You could say that about pretty much any substance that humans consume and it is meaningless without any context.

You might argue it's been because of the other drugs the two have done. Maybe you're right. But it's an amalgamation of ALL of the drugs COMBINED. No doubt that the weed has contributed. Scientific fact.

No, I am arguing that it is far more likely because of the crack and meth than the weed because weed simply does not produce the behavior that you are describing. If weed was a contributing factor, the contribution would have been really minor. It is NOT a scientific fact because you don't have good data to support that case.

Weed, while obviously not 100% harmless, is one of the safest drugs there is. In fact, there are valid arguments that weed is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

 

[imanerd]

First of all, yes you were, you've made a point, though irrelevant to my overall context, regarding ibuprofen. That is beyond the reach of what we are talking. And if you were taking ibuprofen for fun, then I'd have to say THAT IS, in and by itself, illegal recreational use of a drug.

the people you know who are stoners are only a smidgeon of the whole weed-smoking population on our Planet, so statistically, that means nothing.

And yes, I will agree there are more harmful substances, but then again, it doesn't matter how harmful; harmful is harmful.

It doesn't matter what's caused it, just because he has taken those other drugs, probably, yes, they've had an effect surely, but just as I cannot say that weed has caused it only, you cannot say that ONLY the OTHER drugs have caused it. You're just as prone to being wrong as I am. I rest my case.

And I beg to differ. Caffeine is safer. Even alcohol is safer, though I am ALSO staunchly ANTI-alcohol.

And, even if it WERE the safest drug, by your logic, it does NOT CHANGE the fact that you are committing a CRIME by obtaining it, using it, and if you are selling it as well. Playing the addiction card is not an excuse, should you ever pull it.

And you're missing my point - that's PRECISELY what I was saying you *might* argue - what you JUST *DID* argue.

Weed kills brain cells, maybe that's something to consider. Not trying to be nasty, but I get riled up over this nonsense.

And see you've said MINOR. Maybe minor, but minor only is logically INDICATIVE of there BEING something it CAUSES. Otherwise, you would have said: the contributions would be non-existent. HENCE my point. A contribution to violence is still contribution to violence, regardless of severity. You've made my point for me, THANK YOU.

Even my former LIBERAL psychology professor who DOES believe in LEGALIZATION, agrees that people underestimate the risks. He's a psychology professor, of ALL things. What's your degree?

And I'm not intending any offense. It's just how I argue, please forgive me, and don't take anything personally, please. This note is to everyone.

 

[pacman]

First of all, yes you were, you've made a point, though irrelevant to my overall context, regarding ibuprofen. That is beyond the reach of what we are talking. And if you were taking ibuprofen for fun, then I'd have to say THAT IS, in and by itself, illegal recreational use of a drug.

Just because the usage of a drug is recreational or illegal has no impact on what the drug is going to do (or not do) to the person taking it.

the people you know who are stoners are only a smidgeon of the whole weed-smoking population on our Planet, so statistically, that means nothing.

Sure, and that is why anecdotal evidence is bad. Statistically, your uncles also mean nothing. If you knew that anecdotal evidence was bad, then why did you use it initially as your argument?

And yes, I will agree there are more harmful substances, but then again, it doesn't matter how harmful; harmful is harmful.

This is a bad argument since water can be harmful. You can't give the term "harmful" a black and white interpretation. The world doesn't work like that. It absolutely does matter how harmful something is since there is a huge difference between being relatively harmless and easily causing death. Marijuana is relatively harmless.

It doesn't matter what's caused it, just because he has taken those other drugs, probably, yes, they've had an effect surely, but just as I cannot say that weed has caused it only, you cannot say that ONLY the OTHER drugs have caused it. You're just as prone to being wrong as I am. I rest my case.

You missed the point. My point wasn't that it was only the other drugs, but that it is far more likely for that to be the case given the effects of marijuana on people versus the effects of those other drugs. Also, why would you use your uncles as an argument against weed when you knew full well that they were taking drugs that are far more harmful? I mean, that's just a bad argument right there.

And I beg to differ. Caffeine is safer. Even alcohol is safer, though I am ALSO staunchly ANTI-alcohol.

You clearly haven't done your research and I will gladly explain why you are wrong. I didn't even mention caffiene, but I can take care of it as well. Also, I don't consume caffeine and I rarely drink alcohol. I'm not against either of them. It's personal choice.
Overdosing: You can easily overdose on alcohol and it's also possible to overdose on caffiene. Overdosing on either of those can lead to death. With marijuana, nobody knows how much weed to takes to overdose since the amount required is far, far, higher than anyone would even think of consuming. There has never been a single recorded death from weed alone.
Addiction: Caffiene and alcohol addiction are fairly common. Marijuana addiction is fairly rare.
This is a very simple metric to determine relative harm and you are wrong on both accounts. For a more detailed analysis, with citations, see wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse

And, even if it WERE the safest drug, by your logic, it does NOT CHANGE the fact that you are committing a CRIME by obtaining it, using it, and if you are selling it as well. Playing the addiction card is not an excuse, should you ever pull it.

Actually, in certain states it is legal for recreational use and in others, it is legal for medicinal use. I buy my stuff from legitimate dispensaries legally, thank you very much. Yes, I'm aware of federal laws. However, the legal status of weed is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is harmful or whether or not it is wrong to use it. The law determines neither health nor morality.

And you're missing my point - that's PRECISELY what I was saying you *might* argue - what you JUST *DID* argue.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Your argument isn't very well thought out, no offense.

Weed kills brain cells, maybe that's something to consider. Not trying to be nasty, but I get riled up over this nonsense.

Actually, the study that demonstrated that was extremely flawed and has been ruled unreliable. When they gave the rhesus monkeys weed, they did so in a manner depriving them of oxygen, which is known to kill brain cells. This makes the results of that experiment useless. Weed is relatively safe to use and it isn't going to make you stupid. If it did, I certainly wouldn't have the job that I currently have.

And see you've said MINOR. Maybe minor, but minor only is logically INDICATIVE of there BEING something it CAUSES. Otherwise, you would have said: the contributions would be non-existent. HENCE my point. A contribution to violence is still contribution to violence, regardless of severity. You've made my point for me, THANK YOU.

No offense, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but my minor, I meant negligible. Also, as a person of science, it is impossible to make a claim at either 100% or 0% certainty. Also, for whatever reason, you are treating the concepts of harm and causality as black and white concepts in areas where they cannot be treated as such. In doing so, you are stretching what I'm saying and turning it into a strawman argument to make it look like it supports what you are saying when it clearly doesn't.

Here is something that you might have a hard time with based on the way you are arguing. When dropping a bowling ball off of a roof, air resistance plays a minor role in the position and momentum of the bowling ball. However, air resistance can be completely ignored when prediction the bowling ball's trajectory and highly accurate results can still be obtained. You can argue all you want that air resistance was a cause of the trajectory, and you'd technically be correct, but in the grand scheme of things, air resistance was irrelevant and can be left out of the picture.

So yes, you can technically be correct that weed may have been a cause of violence, but I'm arguing that the weed is analogous to the air resistance in my example with the bowling ball. That is what I am arguing and you clearly have seemed to have missed that. I'd also like to say that the first rule of numerical analysis is that nothing is ever exactly equal to zero.

Even my former LIBERAL psychology professor who DOES believe in LEGALIZATION, agrees that people underestimate the risks. He's a psychology professor, of ALL things. What's your degree?

My degree is irrelevant (going for a degree in physics). We don't need to make appeals to authority. In fact, that is a fallacious argument. Also, I have no idea what the context on your professor's statement is, or his medical background, so it's pretty much meaningless. If he is arguing that people underestimate the risks because they think it is 100 percent harmless, then I agree with him. However, the fact is that it is very safe to use and even safer than certain legal drugs, which do happen to be quite dangerous. However, you are vastly overstating the effects of marijuana and are completely misinformed on the matter. You think that marijuana is far more dangerous than it actually is and your arguments to back up that claim are bad. Furthermore, you clearly take a black and white approach to harm, which renders your arguments invalid a priori.

Out of curiosity, what is your stance on legalization?

And I'm not intending any offense. It's just how I argue, please forgive me, and don't take anything personally, please. This note is to everyone.

No offense has been taken. Don't worry about that.

 

[imanerd]

My uncles weren't argument on the side of statistics, just first-hand experience telling you how bad they are. It still doesn't change the invalidity of your points either, you know?!

And no, recreational or legitimate does NOT have effect, HOWEVER, it does have with it, the fact of whether or not you just WANN take the drugs, or if you've been PRESCRIBED them by a LICENSED medical doctor. And as a result, the legitimacy in regards to moral law.

I am UTTERLY COMPLETELY 100% AGAINST legalization.

Your degree or lack thereof, displays my point of an educated psychologist who has passed college for the very field that dictates his knowledge on the subject, and for which you might be without. In other words, clout and expertise, and your word against his.

And you can't believe every observatory experiment you see. Many of them are hocus. Trust what is ACTUALLY trustworthy, not what a say-so expert has to say, on his own initiative. Heck, there are SOME studies that say RIDICULOUS things as Oh, Aspergers is caused by smoking or mercury. We ALL know those are CRAP!! That experiment of which you speak, could EASILY be the same in regards to invalidity. We've also had people believe that Swine Flu vaccines will kill you, doesn't make it true. And yes there are a few .... *people* .... who will push around a wannabe experiment result showing their point to be supposedly correct. Only furthers my point, that you can't trust everything you come across.

Let me ask you something, ARE you using it MEDICINALLY? If you're using it because you WANT to, then the argument of medicinal legality is POINTLESS. Also, that's on a state-by-state basis. It's NOT legal in MOST states. The statistical probability that you happen to be in a state that allows it, is more likely to not be true, than be true.

And no, illegality does NOT have effect EITHER on what it does to you. But it has MORAL ISSUES!!! NEVER DO ILLEGAL THINGS, IS MY POINT! It's a moral issue, NOT JUST a health issue. For instance, there are QUITE a few sites I'd LOVE to get payback on due to trolls running those sites, does NOT mean I'd be willing to risk my moral sanity by doing something IRRATIONAL! It's yet another consideration on the path to happiness and ethics, but I guess that's not a priority, huh?

And my comments make perfect sense, you just aren't interpreting them correctly.

I don't wanna argue anymore, because I wanna focus on other things such as add-on developing. I'd rather drop out of this, because there are more important things. Please, can we leave it at this, as far as MY involvement goes? Thanks in advance.

 

[pacman]

My uncles weren't argument on the side of statistics, just first-hand experience telling you how bad they are. It still doesn't change the invalidity of your points either, you know?!

And it is inadmissible in a case against marijuana because of the crack and meth. It was a bad argument from the start.

I am UTTERLY COMPLETELY 100% AGAINST legalization.

May I ask why? I mean, the substance is a lot less harmful than legal drugs and the punishment for marijuana is by far way more harmful than the drug itself. Do you really want a nanny state that legislates what you can and can't put in your body?

Your degree or lack thereof, displays my point of an educated psychologist who has passed college for the very field that dictates his knowledge on the subject, and for which you might be without. In other words, clout and expertise, and your word against his.

No, you completely misunderstood my criticism. In fact, you ignored it altogether. Ignoring the fact that you are making logical fallacies with your argument, you didn't provide any context to the statement, which makes in meaningless. Also, you have provided no citations, nor do we even know if your professor's opinions are the consensus. Additionally, it's from a psychologist, not a medical doctor. You provided an unsourced anecdote with no context. Do you seriously expect me to just accept it hook, line, and sinker?

And you can't believe every observatory experiment you see. Many of them are hocus. Trust what is ACTUALLY trustworthy, not what a say-so expert has to say, on his own initiative. Heck, there are SOME studies that say RIDICULOUS things as Oh, Aspergers is caused by smoking or mercury. We ALL know those are CRAP!! That experiment of which you speak, could EASILY be the same in regards to invalidity. We've also had people believe that Swine Flu vaccines will kill you, doesn't make it true. And yes there are a few .... *people* .... who will push around a wannabe experiment result showing their point to be supposedly correct. Only furthers my point, that you can't trust everything you come across.

Oh, blow it out of your ass. I have provided peer reviewed and independently verified studies, which support my side of the debate. You are the one that was providing debunked experiments as if they were fact. In fact, you should read your paragraph over and over, since you need that advice way more than me. You are just making ******** special pleading arguments because the facts contradict your dogma. You are the one who needs to be more skeptical about what you read and what to trust since you are only buying crap that goes with your side. I base my beliefs on facts and evidence, which you haven't provided for your argument.

Here is the difference between me an you. When you claimed that weed kills brain cells (without citation of course), I responded explaining the fatal flaws in the methodology of the experiment and why the results cannot be trusted. When I provided a page full of citations to peer reviewed studies, your response was to whine about how you can't trust everything while providing no substance as to why anything I posted might have been wrong. I guess you are damage control mode.

Let me ask you something, ARE you using it MEDICINALLY? If you're using it because you WANT to, then the argument of medicinal legality is POINTLESS. Also, that's on a state-by-state basis. It's NOT legal in MOST states. The statistical probability that you happen to be in a state that allows it, is more likely to not be true, than be true.

Your argument assumes that people can't want to take medicine, and if they do, it is not medicine. I mean, that is what you are implying in your argument, which makes your questions loaded and invalid. Also, pretty much everyone knows that most people use medicinal marijuana as an excuse to get it legally.

And no, illegality does NOT have effect EITHER on what it does to you. But it has MORAL ISSUES!!! NEVER DO ILLEGAL THINGS, IS MY POINT! It's a moral issue, NOT JUST a health issue. For instance, there are QUITE a few sites I'd LOVE to get payback on due to trolls running those sites, does NOT mean I'd be willing to risk my moral sanity by doing something IRRATIONAL! It's yet another consideration on the path to happiness and ethics, but I guess that's not a priority, huh?

No offense, but you have a horrible set of ethics and morals because you let the state dictate them for you. You should try basing your ethics and morals on reason and evidence. It will make society better. I wouldn't want to be around you in Germany during the early 40's (I was raised Jewish). Well, there is a perfect occupation for you given your (complete lack of) ethics. You should enlist in the military. You would do well there.

It is a good thing to oppose unjust laws. It is moral to break them when given the opportunity.

And my comments make perfect sense, you just aren't interpreting them correctly.

HAHA. If this was the case, you'd be able to cleanly and concisely explain where I am misinterpreting them, like I did to you. Also, you may think that your comments make sense to you, but you are making them to someone who is interpreting everything you say literally and precisely. Your argument is just very weak.

I don't wanna argue anymore, because I wanna focus on other things such as add-on developing. I'd rather drop out of this, because there are more important things. Please, can we leave it at this, as far as MY involvement goes? Thanks in advance.

That's fine. You don't have to respond. I mean if you do, I'll throw a barrage of well accepted peer reviewed studies at you that support my side, which you'll probably reject for irrational reasons. You are entitled to have your own beliefs but the facts in this issue are simply not on your side. In fact, they are nowhere near your side.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Actually, imanerd expressed embarrassment and regret in the shoutbox for having gone overboard in this argument. :redface:

 

[pacman]

Actually, imanerd expressed embarrassment and regret in the shoutbox for having gone overboard in this argument. :redface:

Ah, I didn't see. I should look at the shoutbox more often.

 

[imanerd]

and speaking on Ste11aeres's comment, I've gotten this email after venting to a former high school teacher.

I wanna apologize for using caps and saying all I've said, I didn't mean to upset you if I have at all; for that I am terribly sorry. Needless to say she's an English teacher.

So anyway, I'm sorry for the way I've acted. I was out of line and it won't happen again. Are we okay?

ok thank you.

Kyle


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 02:43 PM, Costanzo, Michelle - HS wrote:
I stopped reading after a few posts, but I know you don't want to hear this: Pacman's argument was well structured, focused and substantiated. He also managed to stay rational and calm, despite the fact that your argument is, well...emotional and argumentative.

I am not saying that he is right in his point of view, but look closely at the way he constructs his argument. He makes several good points that stay ON point. If you want to continue the debate on any level, do your research, find concrete evidence -- not anecdotal. He is correct when he say's that the story about your uncle is irrelevant to this situation. Anecdotal evidence is used to appeal to emotion, not reason. This is why politicians like them so much. There are many other contributing factors to your uncle's situation, and he's right...weed itself does not explain the behaviors you describe. The argument is about weed, so keep it about weed.

He's also correct in his assessment that you are basing your "moral" argument on legality. The two are NOT necessarily one and the same. There are many things that are morally right but considered illegal because it serves the government's purpose to make it illegal. There are also things that are morally wrong that the government does NOT make illegal ... also because it serves government's purpose to keep them legal. NEVER make judgments about right or wrong based on only what the government says is right or wrong--politicians are poor purveyors of morality.

Try approaching this from a VERY analytical and rational point of view--as he is.

A few tips:
Don't use underline, bold, italics or all caps. These all come across as either shouting or condescension. If you DO use any of these, do so VERY sparingly and only for a word or two. Never use all of them together for entire sentences.
Avoid exclamation points for the same reason. They always indicate over-excitement or incredulity ... both of which demean your audience--something you should never do when arguing because it absolutely shuts your opponent off to actually listening to what you have to say.
When someone asks you to provide evidence that substantiates your argument, take the time to do your research and provide the evidence. It's easy to tag your sources, so do it. Yes, it is true that some sources are poor sources. So, don't choose those. Choose sources that you and the people you're arguing with will recognize as valid and reliable sources.
Pacman knows his logical fallacies, and uses his knowledge of them to blast cannon-size holes through your argument. Take some time to learn the basic logical fallacies and use them to your advantage.
NEVER respond when you are emotionally reacting to an opponent's point. (Boy, have I made this mistake MANY times!) Wait until you are no longer angry before you respond, and use the energy to do your research.
Acknowledge where your opponent is right, so that he sees that you are actually reading his argument and taking it into consideration. Then re-direct the argument to evidence that shows why your opponent's point is not substantial in the face of other evidence.
Don't attack your opponent (you do this in several places. Attack his points.
You are very intelligent, but you tend to get very emotional when you debate. Remember that, with issues like this, there really isn't a black and white "right" answer. If there was, there wouldn't be a basis for debate.

Good luck!

 

[pacman]

and speaking on Ste11aeres's comment, I've gotten this email after venting to a former high school teacher.

I wanna apologize for using caps and saying all I've said, I didn't mean to upset you if I have at all; for that I am terribly sorry. Needless to say she's an English teacher.

So anyway, I'm sorry for the way I've acted. I was out of line and it won't happen again. Are we okay?

It's all good.