Can a Professional, Productive Member of Society Be a Regular Cannabis User? (cocaine, holidays)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because of the previous thread that was closed before we had a chance to solve all the world's problems, I thought it would be good to start a new one, one that addresses this question specifically.
I already know the answer, and when looking through past threads, I get the sense that most others do too. This is based simply on the fact that the number of posters who believe that the "stoner" stereotype is all there is to cannabis usage is such a small percentage of the total number of posters. I would like to verify this by taking a poll.
IME: For a given individual, smoking pot will lower his or her productivity -- but an educated pot smoker is far more productive than an uneducated non-smoker.
In other words, I know lawyers, surgeons, programmers, accountants, etc. who get high.
And I know truck drivers, construction workers and janitors who think "Pot smokers are lazy."
I feel it is like alcohol. There are those who are occasional users who can be overall functional employees. Those who are chronic users will show compromise of effort, intellectual capacity and judgement, similar to alcoholics.
Pot does diminish performance, but there's one key difference between alcohol and pot.
As you reach extreme levels of alcohol consumption, your body breaks down. "Alcoholic" is a severe physiological problem that can easily lead to death.
Cannabis doesn't work that way. As you reach extreme levels of cannabis consumption, your body reaches a threshold where the effects get weaker. Your body and mind no longer reacts the same way as it did at first. You require more and more cannabis just to get high at all. People who smoke cannabis constantly are not getting "extra high", they are just wasting their money.
Human society is based on the use of mood altering substances. Think about this for one second before you commit it to the junkpile. Every single tradition or ceremony we have contains the use of a mood altering substance, big traditions like holidays, and little traditions like barbecues, even things like the Christian mass rely on a mood altering substance (wine, normally bad though apparently not cheap). I mean dig a little, coffee, tea, chocolate are all mood altering, and alcohol is certainly mood altering, tobacco is (while it may not be apparent the lack of tobacco demonstrates that it's certainly mood altering) and sex. That's even before we get into the known biological substances like cannabis, peyote, opium, coca and datura, and the pharmacopeia of modern mood altering substances.
So for millennia the human race has produced members of society who are productive and regular users of mood altering substances. Before there was a society the use of mood altering substances was probably significantly more limited, because there was limited or no access to coffee, tea, chocolate, booze, tobacco, cannabis, peyote, opium, coca or datura and clearly no modern medicine, and sex has the unfortunate side effect of progeny which when you're not part of a society can be a little more than you can handle, and of course the risks to health of the pregnant person. So why over the last century or so has this become a huge issue that needs to be dealt with by laws? I mean before 1938 you could go to a pharmacy and buy a bottle of laudanum (opium tincture). However suddenly (historically speaking) it's an issue.
Here's an interesting contradiction. If some people need mood altering substances prescribed by physicians to be productive members of society (benzodiazapines, SSRI, SRI's, NDRI's, Adderall, Ritalin, etc.), then clearly others can be productive members of society regularly using mood altering substances prescribed by their personal sense of well being. However many people claim that drug users cannot be productive members of society, that being so, what are the people who can only function in society using medically prescribed mood altering substances? Productive or not, and if not, then why bother to prescribe a substance that is ineffective (because I was always under the impression that psychiatric medications were to make people more functional than without the medication). There really isn't any difference in mood altering drugs used recreationally to those used medically, they both act on brain chemistry to alter it's balance.
You don't like what he said so you question his credentials? Nice.
And so typical.
I'm a doc and agree with him.
I'm staring at an electronic greaseboard with several 'productive' drug users on it right this very second.
So if posting on a forum means one is unproductive, what does that make you?
Uh huh...you "feel". Opposite of you "know". You a physician? Lol, totally laughable. Nice attempt though.
???????
Typical "internet doctor". I find it surprising the hostility that many people have toward physicians.
We tend to rely upon data and actual studies. Cognitive impairment has been shown conclusively with pot use- no question. The cognitive impairment is on par with alcohol.
Oddly, pot smokers tend to have lower rates of auto accidents compared to those impaired by alcohol. Why? People who are intoxicated with alcohol tend to underestimate thier degree of impairment, while those using pot tend to overestimate impairment.
Wow- let's not. If caffeine is made illegal, I will be a fugitive from justice. I drink 4 cups of coffee, three diet mountain dews, and two quarts of iced tea every day.
I need to be alert; if not, I think I am short changing patients.
Because of the previous thread that was closed before we had a chance to solve all the world's problems, I thought it would be good to start a new one, one that addresses this question specifically.
I already know the answer, and when looking through past threads, I get the sense that most others do too. This is based simply on the fact that the number of posters who believe that the "stoner" stereotype is all there is to cannabis usage is such a small percentage of the total number of posters. I would like to verify this by taking a poll.
Certainly there are those who are creative who have smoke pot- I don't dispute that. However, NO ONE, in my experience, given that I dealt in medicine, physics, and mathematics, was more producitve with pot vs not- NO ONE.
Some people who smoke pot may be gifted individuals with high intellect. However, thier performance in academics would be analagous to running a 100m dash with 50lbs tied to thier backs.
Here is something to ponder, as clearly you favor pot. If pot was such a "positive" for industry and academics, why would not these institutions ADVOCATE the use of pot prior to test taking, performance of experiments, and operating on live humans? Why would Colorado businesses not MANDATE pot use during work hours????? ARE YOU KIDDING?
Now.............................. as an advocate of pot, as you are, I must ask you- Woulld you prefer to have someone operating on you who is stoned or straight? Please answer that factually. I am a physician who actually perform operations. I know that there is no way in hell that I would operate on someone under the influence of pot- NO WAY. Why? There would be no way in hell I could give them my best effort.
So................................................ .... Would you prefer a surgeon stoned, or straight? Please give an objective, real answer.
I would think precise mechanical tasks should not be performed while stoned or even tired. So what?
Nah I am not a user and care about it only as an issue with interfering with people's rights and screwing up a portion of our population. I support DWS though I would point out it is likely not as bad as DWI.
Some of the creative types find it helpful. Perhaps it just provides a level of relief from an environment that can get extremely tense. Some claim it helps to see abstract concepts.
And I would seriously doubt you could maintain a world class software shop if you adopted drug testing. I believe even some of the high security government shops have modified their view on the subject to gain and retain certain talents. (That is an industry rumor and I cannot personal vouch for its truth).
Im sure some can be productive. I know drunks who are productive. Right up until they aren't and thats the problem.
Who wants an eye surgeon cutting on them right after that surgeon smokes a bowl of some really good stuff?
Who wants to drive a car that had the breaks serviced by someone totally stoned?
Ive worked with hop heads. Like drunks they think they are amusing. Anyone not stoned not so much.
As I said I believe some folks can still be very professional and do great work even while stoned. I would wager that most can't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
