now that is what i call a MILF!
Pot-smoking moms tired of being judged by wine drinkers
- Thread starter thujone
- Start date
awesome article, and it is silly with these judgemental folks, but hey I guess thats the world we live in huh 
Article & Abstract:
Like it or not, there is an observable statistical correlation between instances of domestic violence and prolonged marijuana use. People don't get high and get violent, but I have seen many pot smokers become extremely aggressive when they're NOT high. Violent outbursts are not uncommon for pot-heads, contrary to what you might like to believe. Stoners might be totally mellow when they're stoned, but if you back them into a paranoid corner they can snap. And if you take away their weed, they are capable of anything.
Your mom is probably a rapist.
NSFW:
Like it or not, there is an observable statistical correlation between instances of domestic violence and prolonged marijuana use. People don't get high and get violent, but I have seen many pot smokers become extremely aggressive when they're NOT high. Violent outbursts are not uncommon for pot-heads, contrary to what you might like to believe. Stoners might be totally mellow when they're stoned, but if you back them into a paranoid corner they can snap. And if you take away their weed, they are capable of anything.
Your mom is probably a rapist.
Correlation is not causation. Maybe violent people smoke weed. Maybe it even chills them out partially, and they commit less violent acts than they would have otherwise? The study doesn't address this.
And "instances of domestic violence" includes victims as well as perpetrators.
I recommend strongly against putting too much faith into any single study. Better to look to trends in larger bodies of evidence.
The study you cited seems methodologically challenged, as well - more on this below.
This is all your personal experience. Not to take anything away from that, but it is only one data point. It is not relevant to the study, which tries to show that a trend exists society-wide.
However, I had several major problems with the study.
Not representative of the general populace.
It could be that young people who use drugs of any kind are those who are more likely to perpetuate violence
Very rough data coding scheme, categorizing those who used once in the past year with those who smoked daily.
Using self-reports? People are highly likely to want to lie about such violence.
Could it be that those who used cannabis were simply more likely to tell the truth?
Here, "consistent use" seems to cover those that used it once each year.
And the total includes victims as well as perpetrators.
Maybe stoners get the shit beaten out of them?
Maybe the drug war frequently causes significant others to react with violence when they find their partner uses drugs?
Much weaker link here. There is a 5% chance that these results are not actually significant.
Also, "consistent marijuana use" appears not to mean what it might mean in normal speech.
Instead, it means that the subject used marijuana consistently year-to-year, though even once in a year is sufficient.
Come now, silly.
Deniability is a powerful thing. Pedantry and semantics aside, I cited the article as evidence of something I have observed both in myself and in others. Marijuana addiction causes violence. I've seen it many many times. You can say, "You don't often hear about people smoking a joint then attacking each other," and think that it means something. Yet you don't often hear the same logic in defense of heroin. "You don't often see people injecting heroin then attacking each other." A junky doesn't rob his grandmother when he's nodding. He does it in an act of desperation. I don't have the time or inclination to debate the validity of articles. I am aware that cross-referencing is required. I have cross-referenced my observations. I am certain. There is a direct relationship between violence and marijuana. You might argue that alcohol is "more violent", but as I said: that is neither here nor there.
Semantics = meaning.
How can you leave meaning aside as you communicate?
As someone who studies semantics professionally, I find the notion absurd.
Confirmation bias. You believed the connection existed, and so when you found the article, you felt supported and justified.
Here is some science supporting what I already believe to be true! Yipee!
This is not a criticism of you in particular - I think that we all do this, at least to some extent.
However, the strength of the evidence discussed in the article and its methodology were both somewhat weak, so for those of us who just want to look at the merits of the scientific evidence, it was unconvincing.
(For those who don't want it to be true that marijuana is linked to violence, of course, the methodological flaws in the article were unsurmountable
We are all biased, hoping to find evidence to support what we already "know" to be true, or what we hope is true. To have a truly unbiased approach to an issue requires either no emotional involvement or a Buddha-like equanimity. And I, for one, am not claiming either.)Again, if you want to say that you have seen it, nobody here is going to deny it.
Your experiences are your own, after all.
But this is different than saying that there is scientific evidence supporting what you (believe you) have seen.
Hard to compare cannabis addiction and heroin addiction.
Heroin is a very different drug than cannabis. Users have a different profile. Withdrawals are very different. Maybe caffeine addiction would be a better comparison? If I don't get my daily dose of caffeine, I get a headache, and get in a pretty bad mood.
But I don't run around shooting or kicking people.
Too bad. I was interested.
That is not really a very scientific approach. Not that it is not valid, at least for you, in your mind. But there is a big difference between telling us that you have observed a trend and saying that there is solid scientific evidence for a correlation.
It seems to me that being certain is one of the greatest mistakes a scientist, or any thinker, can make.
Being certain means closing the minds' openness to other possibilities.
Many scientists and other thinkers actually do this, but I would argue that keeping an open mind is one key to practicing science / philosophy in an ideal manner.
If your point is only that cannabis is linked to violence, then the comparison with alcohol is meaningless.
However, the focus of this thread is a comparison of the two (see the original article, for example), and so I would say that it is quite relevant. And yes, I would say that alcohol seems closely linked to violence, whereas cannabis does not.
it is important to see both sides. I dont think incidences of violence are common with marijuana. I think you would see it more with something like whisky or something. But what foreverafter was saying is true, because you dont see a junky robbing someone when they are high. the need for a fix is not there. coming down will bring you back to the state of mind you were in before using the drug. then you will need to steal once again to regain that feeling of being high.
Victor,
You are clearly intelligent enough to ascertain meaning, without resorting to pedantry. You knew exactly what I meant when I said Semantics. In the context, it was obvious. If you insist on being pedantic, though, let's do it.
Broadly, sure. Commonly, however, it is most often used to mean the following: "You are getting bogged down in language; you are focused more on how I am communicating, than what it is that I'm saying," or, more simply. "Read between the fucking lines, man!" This - by far - is the most common usage of the word, in the context of ordinary discussions. If we are, according to you, incorrectly applying the term... Well, there's not much you can do about it. Insisting upon a particular definition, to the extent that you pretend to misunderstand what is being said, is - ironically - a good example of being preoccupied with Semantics. Also, it's more than a little patronizing to correct the person you're talking to about their incorrect use of vocabulary. If you'd like to establish yourself as more intelligent than I am, based on insufficient evidence, go right ahead. Be elitist. You may well be smarter than me. I, honestly, wouldn't bet money either way. I would, however, bet large amounts of cash on you being smarter than the vast majority of people who frequent this board. Many of whom, no doubt, have never looked the word "Semantics" up in a dictionary. And rely, instead, on their own definitions. Established by observing common usage. Like, people saying, "Let's not get bogged down in Semantics." When somebody says this to you, why correct them? Unless you're joking, of course. Which I suspect to be the case, considering how inherently absurd it is to debate the definition of Semantics.
Don't tell me how I felt, dude. I felt nothing upon finding the article. I did a Google search. It was the first thing that came up. I skimmed through it. Included it as a reference, in anticipation of being requested a "link". I do not need a link. If I wanted to, I could scan through the archives of this forum and come up with numerous examples of people who, withdrawing from marijuana, have exhibited aggressive and/or violent tendencies. I've experienced it, personally, on many occasions. And I've observed it in others. These days, I don't have any issue withdrawing from anything. But I know people who do.
Heroin is closer than caffeine. I've never heard of anyone resorting to petty crime in order to buy a cup of coffee. Weed, on the other hand. I know people who've been arrested, selling stolen goods so they can buy a half ounce. I also know people, including my brother, who have been arrested for shoplifting after spending all their money on weed. I know people who have hospitalized their friends when coming down of weed. I even know a guy who threw a brick through a bus windscreen, out of sheer frustration. Obviously, these are fairly extreme examples. But, they're directly related to marijuana.
I'm not a scientist. Having said that, statistics are over-rated. Observation is key. I'm telling you I've seen something. I'm not lying. I'm not insane. Well, maybe I am insane. But I can differentiate observations from hallucinations. This trend exists. Of that, I am certain.
Semantics. As I said, I'm not a scientist. I am aware that my perceived reality is illusory, and - again - you are clearly intelligent enough to ascertain the meaning of the word "certain", in the context it was used. To clarify, in the name of pedantry, "I am certain," means, "I am as certain as I can be." Likewise, if someone says "My boyfriend is a giant. He's literally as big as a house!" you shouldn't assume that he is inhuman or mythological.
On the contrary. I don't think recreational drugs can be established as better or worse than each other. Whether or not alcohol is more or less violent than marijuana, is - therefore - neither here nor there. It is not generally irrelevant. Just irrelevant in the greater context of this discussion. Specifically, my chain of reasoning. If the article was specifically about violence, then it would be relevant. But, it's not. So we might as well debate whether or not marijuana is more or less demotivational than alcohol. Or which one is more likely to cause your head to explode.
The correlation between alcohol consumption and violent behavior is stronger than the correlation between marijuana consumption and violent behavior. But, as I said, that is neither here nor there.
I was simply attempting to illustrate the inaccuracy of the, "Alcohol causes violence and marijuana doesn't," argument. Since it has been used, repeatedly, throughout this thread as indisputable proof of marijuana's superiority over alcohol. The blind insistence that marijuana is harmless, causes people pain. It is best to be honest and admit to new users that all drugs are harmful. Marijuana is not harmless. It is not comparable to coffee. It causes serious problems. I've seen it fuck up people's entire lives.
[/rant]
You are clearly intelligent enough to ascertain meaning, without resorting to pedantry. You knew exactly what I meant when I said Semantics. In the context, it was obvious. If you insist on being pedantic, though, let's do it.
Broadly, sure. Commonly, however, it is most often used to mean the following: "You are getting bogged down in language; you are focused more on how I am communicating, than what it is that I'm saying," or, more simply. "Read between the fucking lines, man!" This - by far - is the most common usage of the word, in the context of ordinary discussions. If we are, according to you, incorrectly applying the term... Well, there's not much you can do about it. Insisting upon a particular definition, to the extent that you pretend to misunderstand what is being said, is - ironically - a good example of being preoccupied with Semantics. Also, it's more than a little patronizing to correct the person you're talking to about their incorrect use of vocabulary. If you'd like to establish yourself as more intelligent than I am, based on insufficient evidence, go right ahead. Be elitist. You may well be smarter than me. I, honestly, wouldn't bet money either way. I would, however, bet large amounts of cash on you being smarter than the vast majority of people who frequent this board. Many of whom, no doubt, have never looked the word "Semantics" up in a dictionary. And rely, instead, on their own definitions. Established by observing common usage. Like, people saying, "Let's not get bogged down in Semantics." When somebody says this to you, why correct them? Unless you're joking, of course. Which I suspect to be the case, considering how inherently absurd it is to debate the definition of Semantics.
Don't tell me how I felt, dude. I felt nothing upon finding the article. I did a Google search. It was the first thing that came up. I skimmed through it. Included it as a reference, in anticipation of being requested a "link". I do not need a link. If I wanted to, I could scan through the archives of this forum and come up with numerous examples of people who, withdrawing from marijuana, have exhibited aggressive and/or violent tendencies. I've experienced it, personally, on many occasions. And I've observed it in others. These days, I don't have any issue withdrawing from anything. But I know people who do.
Heroin is closer than caffeine. I've never heard of anyone resorting to petty crime in order to buy a cup of coffee. Weed, on the other hand. I know people who've been arrested, selling stolen goods so they can buy a half ounce. I also know people, including my brother, who have been arrested for shoplifting after spending all their money on weed. I know people who have hospitalized their friends when coming down of weed. I even know a guy who threw a brick through a bus windscreen, out of sheer frustration. Obviously, these are fairly extreme examples. But, they're directly related to marijuana.
I'm not a scientist. Having said that, statistics are over-rated. Observation is key. I'm telling you I've seen something. I'm not lying. I'm not insane. Well, maybe I am insane. But I can differentiate observations from hallucinations. This trend exists. Of that, I am certain.
Semantics. As I said, I'm not a scientist. I am aware that my perceived reality is illusory, and - again - you are clearly intelligent enough to ascertain the meaning of the word "certain", in the context it was used. To clarify, in the name of pedantry, "I am certain," means, "I am as certain as I can be." Likewise, if someone says "My boyfriend is a giant. He's literally as big as a house!" you shouldn't assume that he is inhuman or mythological.
On the contrary. I don't think recreational drugs can be established as better or worse than each other. Whether or not alcohol is more or less violent than marijuana, is - therefore - neither here nor there. It is not generally irrelevant. Just irrelevant in the greater context of this discussion. Specifically, my chain of reasoning. If the article was specifically about violence, then it would be relevant. But, it's not. So we might as well debate whether or not marijuana is more or less demotivational than alcohol. Or which one is more likely to cause your head to explode.
The correlation between alcohol consumption and violent behavior is stronger than the correlation between marijuana consumption and violent behavior. But, as I said, that is neither here nor there.
I was simply attempting to illustrate the inaccuracy of the, "Alcohol causes violence and marijuana doesn't," argument. Since it has been used, repeatedly, throughout this thread as indisputable proof of marijuana's superiority over alcohol. The blind insistence that marijuana is harmless, causes people pain. It is best to be honest and admit to new users that all drugs are harmful. Marijuana is not harmless. It is not comparable to coffee. It causes serious problems. I've seen it fuck up people's entire lives.
[/rant]
It is also neither here nor there, because it depends on the amount consumed and over what period of time. Nobody would seriously argue that moderate consumption of alcohol - say 2 glasses of wine - would be likely to cause a violent outbreak. Whereas, to the uninitiated user, eating three grams of marijuana might result in a freak out.
In the article, it says,
One is imperfect and the other is irresponsible.
Yes, well it can also make people really confused. And scared. And you know what?
Alcohol can make people nicer to one another, too.
The article and the posts in this thread seem to imply relatively moderate marijuana consumption with excessive alcohol consumption. Like we're comparing a bottle of whiskey, with a gram of bush weed. There is no standard measure of comparison, so any value we attribute to either side - between threshold and LD50 - is going to be arbitrary.
I'm smoking a half-gram joint now, rolled with low-medium grade hydro. And drinking a full strength beer. What's the ratio? 4:1, weed to alcohol, or 6:1?
In the article, it says,
One is imperfect and the other is irresponsible.
Yes, well it can also make people really confused. And scared. And you know what?
Alcohol can make people nicer to one another, too.
The article and the posts in this thread seem to imply relatively moderate marijuana consumption with excessive alcohol consumption. Like we're comparing a bottle of whiskey, with a gram of bush weed. There is no standard measure of comparison, so any value we attribute to either side - between threshold and LD50 - is going to be arbitrary.
I'm smoking a half-gram joint now, rolled with low-medium grade hydro. And drinking a full strength beer. What's the ratio? 4:1, weed to alcohol, or 6:1?
Hey, Foreverafter,
You sound upset at me, and I am not sure if it is because I wrote rudely or if you interpreted it in such a way.
In either case, I didn't mean to be rude, so please forgive me.
I appreciate your contributions here, and it was definitely not my intention to fight or insult you.
Let's skip most of it this time, since I think that we are actually seeing things from quite similar perspectives, despite how it might look, and because our discussion tends to get dangerously off the main path at times.
Weed is illegal, and that is why you might see some social behavior that is closer to that of heroin users.
This is not because of the inherent qualities of the drug, but exclusively because of social factors.
In fact, caffeine is more physical addictive than weed is, though mentally they may be roughly equally addictive. Heroin is more addictive both physically and mentally than either, I would say.
Trusting only observation is quite risky.
Since we all have our own agendas, and our agendas will influence what we observe, observation is notorious for leading to poor generalizations.
I don't have to think you are lying or insane to doubt your generalizations.
I just have to think that you have an agenda. And it seems clear to me that you do (at least for the purposes of this discussion - I wouldn't assume that you have the same agenda in all situations).
If I am right (despite my agenda!) in my generalization that alcohol leads to more violence than cannabis, it doesn't fit in our discussion because...?
I thought we were discussing relative merits/dangers of the two?
Is it because you would like to focus solely on the question of whether cannabis is linked to violence?
If so, I would have to say that it is, at least loosely. Criminal gangs often sell weed, and profit from it. But I doubt that cannabis is more closely linked to violence than money is.
I also agree that all drugs are (or at least can be) harmful.
Including caffeine.
I would say that caffeine has roughly the same potential to be harmful as cannabis does, at least in a world in which both are legal.
But I really question whether your last sentence is fair.
Has the drug fucked up their lives? Or have they fucked up their own lives, using the drug (among other things)?
I would tend to go with the latter.
I believe that people can use essentially anything to fuck up their lives - gambling, sex, food, etc.
And not just things that are seen as "addictive" - I knew a woman who had an addiction to munching.
She started (at least, when I knew her) with carrots - and ate so many that her hands and feet turned orange. So she switched to lettuce - and ate so much that she had terrible gas all of the time. So she switched to chewing gum - and got several cavities. So she switched to sugar-free gum - and fell out of my life. Who knows what damage she suffered because of that? She chewed something like 5 packs (of 7 or 10 pieces each) of gum a day.
Should we blame the carrots, the lettuce, and the chewing gum for her problems?
Blaming the instrument in this case seems to be missing the point to me. It was her addictive personality that was responsible. She was very good at channeling it into things that seemed healthy, but because she overdid it, even healthy things became unhealthy.
In some cases, I would be more likely to blame the drug. It is quite subtle, and depends on my own beliefs and biases, I am sure. I would prefer to blame alcohol for violence in at least some cases. I have seen people go from relaxed to violent as they got drunk. Never seen anything like that with weed.
You say that people come down and get violent, but I have never seen that, either.
Very biased? Probably. Agenda? Undoubtedly. Still, I gotta go with what I see.
In any case, I agree with your main point that the risks and dangers of weed are often poo-pooed around here, but that is likely a reaction to the fact that they have been played up in the mass media for the past half-century or more. It would be ideal if we could discover and describe the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle.
Finally, as you said, if we compare weed and alcohol, it does depend on the dose, to a very great degree. But some people freak out if a parent smokes a hit of weed, and they don't even notice if a parent drinks multiple drinks.
And, it is also true that if weed were legal, we might see less alcohol-related violence, and more weed-related problems. This does not seem to be the case in Holland or Portugal, however.
Anyway, I hope you are not upset. I respect you and enjoy arguing with you. I don't take it very seriously, but see it as an intellectual exercise. I suspect that you do as well. We are, after all, mostly in agreement. You want to make sure that a certain perspective is not ignored, and so you push to make it as forcefully as you can. I am trying to temper it so that it doesn't get over-represented and no claims are made that are not true. I think that between us we can achieve a perfect balance.
You sound upset at me, and I am not sure if it is because I wrote rudely or if you interpreted it in such a way.
In either case, I didn't mean to be rude, so please forgive me.
I appreciate your contributions here, and it was definitely not my intention to fight or insult you.
Let's skip most of it this time, since I think that we are actually seeing things from quite similar perspectives, despite how it might look, and because our discussion tends to get dangerously off the main path at times.
My apologies. I assumed this, based on how I probably would have felt.
That is because coffee is legal and socially accepted.
Weed is illegal, and that is why you might see some social behavior that is closer to that of heroin users.
This is not because of the inherent qualities of the drug, but exclusively because of social factors.
In fact, caffeine is more physical addictive than weed is, though mentally they may be roughly equally addictive. Heroin is more addictive both physically and mentally than either, I would say.
On the one hand, I completely agree that statistics are over-rated. But they can be useful as well.
Trusting only observation is quite risky.
Since we all have our own agendas, and our agendas will influence what we observe, observation is notorious for leading to poor generalizations.
I don't have to think you are lying or insane to doubt your generalizations.
I just have to think that you have an agenda. And it seems clear to me that you do (at least for the purposes of this discussion - I wouldn't assume that you have the same agenda in all situations).
I am not sure I am getting what you are saying here.
If I am right (despite my agenda!) in my generalization that alcohol leads to more violence than cannabis, it doesn't fit in our discussion because...?
I thought we were discussing relative merits/dangers of the two?
Is it because you would like to focus solely on the question of whether cannabis is linked to violence?
If so, I would have to say that it is, at least loosely. Criminal gangs often sell weed, and profit from it. But I doubt that cannabis is more closely linked to violence than money is.
I understand now. But I am still not convinced...
I agree that there is a trend of people believing that weed is harmless, and that this is a big mistake.
I also agree that all drugs are (or at least can be) harmful.
Including caffeine.
I would say that caffeine has roughly the same potential to be harmful as cannabis does, at least in a world in which both are legal.
But I really question whether your last sentence is fair.
Has the drug fucked up their lives? Or have they fucked up their own lives, using the drug (among other things)?
I would tend to go with the latter.
I believe that people can use essentially anything to fuck up their lives - gambling, sex, food, etc.
And not just things that are seen as "addictive" - I knew a woman who had an addiction to munching.
She started (at least, when I knew her) with carrots - and ate so many that her hands and feet turned orange. So she switched to lettuce - and ate so much that she had terrible gas all of the time. So she switched to chewing gum - and got several cavities. So she switched to sugar-free gum - and fell out of my life. Who knows what damage she suffered because of that? She chewed something like 5 packs (of 7 or 10 pieces each) of gum a day.
Should we blame the carrots, the lettuce, and the chewing gum for her problems?
Blaming the instrument in this case seems to be missing the point to me. It was her addictive personality that was responsible. She was very good at channeling it into things that seemed healthy, but because she overdid it, even healthy things became unhealthy.
In some cases, I would be more likely to blame the drug. It is quite subtle, and depends on my own beliefs and biases, I am sure. I would prefer to blame alcohol for violence in at least some cases. I have seen people go from relaxed to violent as they got drunk. Never seen anything like that with weed.
You say that people come down and get violent, but I have never seen that, either.
Very biased? Probably. Agenda? Undoubtedly. Still, I gotta go with what I see.
In any case, I agree with your main point that the risks and dangers of weed are often poo-pooed around here, but that is likely a reaction to the fact that they have been played up in the mass media for the past half-century or more. It would be ideal if we could discover and describe the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle.
Finally, as you said, if we compare weed and alcohol, it does depend on the dose, to a very great degree. But some people freak out if a parent smokes a hit of weed, and they don't even notice if a parent drinks multiple drinks.
And, it is also true that if weed were legal, we might see less alcohol-related violence, and more weed-related problems. This does not seem to be the case in Holland or Portugal, however.
Anyway, I hope you are not upset. I respect you and enjoy arguing with you. I don't take it very seriously, but see it as an intellectual exercise. I suspect that you do as well. We are, after all, mostly in agreement. You want to make sure that a certain perspective is not ignored, and so you push to make it as forcefully as you can. I am trying to temper it so that it doesn't get over-represented and no claims are made that are not true. I think that between us we can achieve a perfect balance.
I was upset at myself for being an intellectual elitist and you were an easy target for me to project my self-loathing. This is a recurring problem with self-criticism, I find. If you hate yourself, you can't help but hate everyone else. That said, I do not hate you. Will respond in detail when I can.
^ I hope you don't hate yourself! You are smart, and a good debator, and a very good writer.
You have brought a lot to the discussion here, and I feel certain that you bring a lot to life in general.
I have edited my response slightly, so please read the current version when you respond.
Peace.
You have brought a lot to the discussion here, and I feel certain that you bring a lot to life in general.
I have edited my response slightly, so please read the current version when you respond.
Peace.
Certainty is a funny thing.
The only thing I came away with was
Then i started to think, shit i've had that sugar stuff alot before and afaik i don't have diabetes.. In all seriousness tho,
Pot smoking moms (or mums here) and wine or alcohol drinkers are all fine to do as they wish in my books, i done give a flying fuck what anyone does to themselves, the main thing to me is that they aren't hurting others with their actions, IE drink or stoned driving and punching people out or pulling hair and gouging eyes out or whatever the case may be. Or.... Yeah you get the idea.
Then i started to think, shit i've had that sugar stuff alot before and afaik i don't have diabetes.. In all seriousness tho,
Pot smoking moms (or mums here) and wine or alcohol drinkers are all fine to do as they wish in my books, i done give a flying fuck what anyone does to themselves, the main thing to me is that they aren't hurting others with their actions, IE drink or stoned driving and punching people out or pulling hair and gouging eyes out or whatever the case may be. Or.... Yeah you get the idea.