On behalf of the pot head honor students, I don't see any correlation that shows being high at school will lower your performance.
Yes, this is very true. I just didn't want to completely deny the point because it would be equally fallacious to say that it doesn't lower performance at all. Some people and no problem and some people certainly do; it varies.
As for all these mental and physical disorders and problems they cause, why don't we see them more in musicians, actors, authors, and other public figures who are not only known marijuana users, but known heavy users? Cheech and Chong, Pauly Shore, Willie Nelson, Snoop Lion, Broken Lizard, the list goes on. Why do we not see these people having problems? Willie and Snoop especially, who are very heavy users and known for having very potent weed.
Yeah, I agree; this is partly what I was getting at with the "inherently" dangerous thing. If it were
inherently dangerous, there would not be people who partake, even heavily, with no problems.
A few comments on your post. Although I agree about physical addiction, it is certainly possible to get dependent on any drug, marijuana included.
I just see "dependence" as a strong word, like addiction. In the context of alcoholism, alcohol dependence is when you need alcohol just to function. There are people at this point who will actually drink denatured alcohol because they have an urge that strong just to get alcohol into their system. I think that habituation may be a better word here. I might be splitting hairs with semantics, but addiction and dependence just feel too strong to me.
We both agree that there are risks although I evaluate the risk level as much higher based on my personal experience.
Yeah, I understand. I also have experience, but mine has not been so bad that I perceive high dangers. Which ties in to:
"inherently" dangerous can lead to one of those semantic arguments about what "inherently" means in this context. Anything has a certain level of risk involved and everyone should evaluate the level of risk.
What I mean by
inherently is something that is dangerous regardless of any other factors. So, it's level of danger would be absolute and independent of any other factors such as the psychological disposition or physical health of the individual partaking and how much is used at a given time and how often it is used. There are many factors that go into the potential danger, so I say it is not
inherently dangerous, but there
is potential. Like in Shadow Wolf's example, there are many people who have partaken a lot and for a long time and they are not worse off for it. So, the danger is not inherent in the substance, but dependent on various factors that may or may not be present.
As far as medical use goes, anything prescribed by a doctor for a specific condition is in the realm of treatment for a medical condition and therefore is evaluated by medical benefit against medical risk. Many truly dangerous drugs have a medical use and that is fine with me.
Though I would also note that there are a number of drugs prescribed that really shouldn't be, as many of their side-effects really outweigh the potential medical benefits. So I wouldn't necessarily use that as a standard to judge substances.
As far as recreation goes, your choice might be different than mine, but I don't want my perception clouded. I prefer to experience life with clear eyes rather than through a drug-induced fog even a temporary one.
Of course, to each their own.
Just for the sake of argument, I'd mention that the cloudiness really varies from strain to strain and method of partaking. Part of the cloudiness of smoking actually comes from inhaling the byproducts of plant combustion and not from the psychoactive compounds; essentially, they're adulterants. Vaping is noticeably cleaner, and a tincture more so. With the right strain and a good tincture, you get a clear, non-lethargic experience with good analgesic properties and some degree of euphoria.
Not trying to convince you, just presenting some information.
