I appreciate this honest statement. I work daily with individuals with mental disabilities including psychosis, memory dysfunction, and perceptional disturbances, and can certainly agree from what I have subjectively seen. (Though also longitudinally as I have viewed medical records extensively over years and years of research). I have witnessed secondhand that higher doses and earlier use of THC are more likely to produce anxiety, agitation, paranoia, and psychosis. Dr. Volkow's research at footnote 8 of this statement is spot on, and your comment seems to support his findings.

Have you considered that there might be a huge population of people out there who smoked weed and did not develop any problems, thus never coming into your orbit?

And your observation could be easily explained in reverse: "I have witnessed secondhand that people who were susceptible to anxiety, agitation, paranoia, and psychosis due to {trauma|genetics|isolation|etc} and other misfortunes in life were also likely to start consuming higher doses of THC earlier in life, and employ other unhealthy ways to numb their mental anguish".

See my reading of the same facts is just as valid as yours, hence neither can claim to be true.

At this point, if you ignore all the evidence that points at long term effects on cognition from marihuana consumption, it's more your conscious decision rather than lack of data.

At this point if you ignore all the evidence that these people have anxiety, or were in otherwise shitty environments and states in the first place, whether genetic nature or nurture you might want to just say we're collating and correlating rather than finding causes. Conscious decision my ass.

That’s some faulty logic. Either your reading of the facts is valid or his reading of the facts is valid, but given they are facts it is not necessarily the case that neither of you is valid.

Note that I’m not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying he is wrong - but I am pointing out that your conclusion that neither of you can claim any truth is an unsound argument.

Furthermore, you also cannot conclude that a huge population of people who took marijuana with high THC content do not have a significant percentage of people who experienced adverse health effects from their drug-taking. To know that you would also need to have done an extensive study to conclude anything.

Now it may be you have done such a thing (or have read such a study) but without presenting such a study (or group of studies) then it’s also speculation.

I did not say neither is true, I said neither can claim to be true. The logic here is perfectly sound:

If there was only one possible reading of the facts then that reading could be considered the truth. If there are two equally reasonable readings neither can be deemed to be the truth, and further investigation is required to clarify the matter.

So what you are saying is that one could claim to be true based on future investigation. In actual fact you are saying that you do not know which is true based on the limited information presented, not that neither can claim to be true.

In fact, one could be true based on enough evidence. Your claim of reasonableness is a red herring - it could be that one interpretation may seem reasonable but on further investigation it is not.

I’m merely pointing out you don’t know which proposition is true, not that neither can claim to be true. In fact, if one happens to be true then it can claim to be true, and will actually be true. That’s an important distinction.

There is not enough evidence to know which of the claims is true: either one or neither could be. But both claims are as valid as each other in that the observations are true (but correlation != causation applies: both claims show a correlation, there is not enough evidence of whether either of them show causation)

Which negates the statement “neither can claim to be true”.

Society itself seems like a driver of psychosis. In school, they rarely teach critical thinking nor warnings of cognitive biases. People then grow up in a rather unfair world and system. Next they get easily persuaded by a clever YouTube video or concept. Now their anger has a revelation and a fascination.

And marijuana itself can be a kind of very intense red-pill. If a mind isn't prepared, having that kind of sudden experience can be very jarring.

Neither lack of critical thinking skills nor disenchantment with the world leading to fantasy prone thinking have anything to do with psychosis.

What do you base this statement on? There are lots of examples of belief systems leading people into what is viewed as psychosis.

Cult belhavior. Religious extremism. There are many examples.

Completely off-topic here, my apologies. If I wanted to talk with someone about memory dysfunction, who would that be? It's something that I've begun to notice in myself and I'd love to know more about what you do, with the hopes of finding a professional to speak with about my concerns.

Therapist for understanding and coping of the mind, psychiatrist for medicine to address mental dysfunction and illness

Both likely covered by insurance. And stop smoking weed.

I would preach acceptance with your memory loss and to let go of the past. It is a fact of life that our bodies (and minds) will degenerate with time.

Being in the bay area, I have witnessed what you expressed happen to many engineers since the legalization. They burn out quickly as well. They swear it's not weed since everyone else tells them that's all tinfoil hat stuff.

It's very unfortunate.

Are the engineers you are referring to in developing brain stages? You are replying to OP who said from 16-18.. that is still fairly prime development.. your bay area engineers are probably mid 20's? That is quite different when we are talking about brain development.

They're probably referring to someone who starts getting high everyday, and quickly becomes "smoked out" - We all know someone like this. I used to get high a lot (when I was 21-23), and I stopped because I noticed myself becoming a shell of who I once was. When I wasn't high, nothing was fun anymore. It started off as saying things like "Bro this would be so much more fun if I was stoned", or "Dude, imagine getting high and then doing X' - This soon turned into "I'm so bored. This would be more interesting if I was high".

Soon, I wasn't happy until I picked up an eighth and rolled up a blunt or packed my bowl. When I would stop, I would feel so numb. I soon got depressed, but luckily found a counselor and worked through that dark time with exercise and meditation. People really downplay how damaging getting high all the time can be.

It's strange though, because this doesn't happen to everyone. Some people can get stoned all day everyday and live a very happy, productive life. I wish I was in this category, but nothing good lasts forever.

I'll throw my hat in as one of those that has been smoked out practically 24/7 for the last seven years and haven't experienced these symptoms working at various big name tech companies as software engineer. I am glad to hear things are going better for you now!

(explaining my vouch - I wish I could choose to auto-collapse my own comment as meta/unsubstiative)

Other posters have thrown in personal annecdotes in more words but this one is against the prevailing narrative so it's dead.

Weed effects last for up to 8 hours. Weed messes with REM cycles. This means weed should be treated like coffee (no usage after 4pm) and obviously not before going to work. Meaning the best times to smoke are weekends and holidays, preferably right after you wake up at a normal hour (7-8am)

From the report linked to in this commment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20833229

"There is moderate evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for: • Improving short-term sleep outcomes in individuals with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis"

That's not everybody, of course, but it's enough to say that weed can have positive effects on sleep quality.

Negative, doc.

In the article you cite, cannabis can help when your sleep cycle is _already_ f'ed. But then you have to have a real long talk with yourself and ask why? Why, when there are better medicines to manage sleep disturbance in the short term which actually improves your sleep. (I am genuinely asking, even OTC sleep medicines will work better than weed)

Weed cannot have positive effects for the layperson because it increases time between REM cycles. Again, if your lack of sleep affects your REM cycle (i.e. its already f'd) then you are doing no harm, but you are not doing much good either.

Maybe you missed my original comment. If you are getting a full 8 hours of sleep every night then you should _not_ be drinking caffeine after 4pm. Likewise, you should also NOT drink alcohol before bed. Further, weed, the topic of this thread, should be avoided after 4pm due to its prolonged effects on your body including impact to REM sleep.

I believe the aforementioned engineers are simply experiencing the effects of marijuana: both acute intoxication and symptoms associated with regular use. If they're healthy adults in mid 20s, then these symptoms should go away within 1-2 weeks of discontinuing use - problem is they don't view their symptoms as associated with routine use.

That said, seeking to be routinely intoxicated could itself a symptom of something else wrong in their work or personal life. This would be a non-controversial statement to make about "hard drugs", alcohol, video games, risky relationships, etc...

Exactly, you can smoke a joint and go hike/ride a bike or you can sit your ass on the couch and be toking up bowl after bowl!

Don’t ride a bike: first motor and response times are impacted, second (at least in California) you absolutely can get a DUI on a bicycle.

People drive high. I can't believe how many times I've heard "I can drive just fine, it's not like alcohol".

Cannabis changes my perception of time and significantly affects my attention. I would never drive in that state, or even cross the street, I'm sure I'd get hit by a car... I don't think other people are that different.

Chronic weed usage changes the way you're high. The time distortion nearly goes away and you can control your attention pretty well. I'm not endorsing driving high of course.

From watching chronic weed smoking friends... I do not believe this. If anything, they're much worse and much scarier more dangerous while driving. They definitely should not ever drive high.

Isn't that because they're also thinking they're invincible and can handle it, so the weed usage does not actually cause their driving behavior? At least that's the case with my own acquintances who drive high. As I said, I also don't think it should be allowed to drive high, however the effect long term usage has on a person is genuine, albeit definitely not generalizable - I'm pretty sure the strain is an important factor.

From my own observations, it was more that their reaction times were much slowed down and their depth and distance perception affected. I know one guy who crashed into a object while high. Luckily he wasn’t driving fast and nobody got hurt.

By the way, the Czech police says "you can spot a high driver by how unusually carefully they drive".

That's profoundly sad. But I don't blame the drug, people need to figure out boundaries.

That requires clear and honest guidance as to where those boundaries might lie, though.

Broadly speaking, I am pro-legalization of Pretty Much Everything, on the basis that proper education and appropriate treatment programs for heroin users are better for society than jail time.

But that comes with the need to implement pragmatic, evidence-based policies for how we approach drug use as a society.

A lot of neural development happens before your mid-20s, with a very large chunk happening during your adolescent years. Recreational drug use before your mid-20s, which includes alcohol and nicotine, really has a massive impact on your entire life.

I would argue that "soft" drugs, like low-percentage alcohol (beer and wine), maybe cocoa tea (not purified cocaine), and possibly low-percentage CBD should be relatively safe for adolescents from sixteen onwards.

Medical professionals, feel free to chime in if I'm wrong here. :)

Hard alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, and such, on the other hand, should have some access barrier for those under the age of twenty-five (90th percentile for complete neural development).

I wouldn't advocate an outright ban or criminalization -- if a teenager wants some weed and vodka, they're going to get it -- but putting some barriers in place to discourage consumption for the under-aged would be wise.

All of this, of course, needs to be coupled with comprehensive education.

The abstinence-only approach of "Just Say No" doesn't equip kids to really understand the full impact of the drugs they choose to use, and because of that, there's a lot of misinformation out there, ranging from "weed will make you crazy" to "it's completely safe for kids".

Neither of those things is true, and if we want to empower people to make good decisions, we must first be honest with them about the impact and trade-offs of the options on the table.

That's the libertarian approach, which says legalize everything, tax everything. Am with you on it, although am not sure, how that would work with hard drugs ( cocaine,mushrooms,LSD, ecstasy,heroin). Again within hard drugs - cocaine is vastly different from doing LSD. A single dose of LSD in a bad setting could mess your psyche up for life. What you are doing is choosing the better of two evils.I would rather buy a pure form of LSD from Pfizer that one from a street dealer with a nefarious source and containing crap knows what!

I'd say more pragmatic than purely libertarian. :)

You still need a regulatory framework, and I would strongly argue for compulsory education on drug use, not to mention treatment programs, all of which should be funded through use taxes.

Otherwise, though, I agree very much with the libertarians that that empowering individuals to make their own life-choices is far more beneficial to society than criminalization and prohibition.

I think when you give people the facts and remove the stigma and the "mystery" surrounding drugs, you will get people to start making wise choices - to counteract it you need a sound education policy, not the fear-mongering that goes in the name of education now.

Thanks for making that distinction. I think the purely libertarian approach has the risk to do more harm than good.

Without education, social support, and access to mental health care, a drug free-for-all could very well lead to such disastrous results that there is a backlash that returns us right back to criminalization and prohibition.

One thing to note is that most weed strains now are very high in THC and low in CBD. Naturally, they were much more balanced and I think high-THC might be part of the problem and consuming more balanced (and lower percentage) strains may be much better. Anecdotally, I definitely find that higher less balanced strains give me more of a brain fog than weaker more balanced strains (less balanced strains but taking CBD pills separately to balance it out even works too).

I mean, heavy use either way may be bad and boundaries are important with anything (weed, beer, chocolate, etc), but smoking the strongest stuff may be extra bad.

I read somewhere that the percentage of THC now is almost 10X what it used to be in the 70s.

Exactly this, but also in terms of fats, sugars and caffeine.

Do these folks drink? I know a lot of stressed out workers who drink heavily.

>I couldn't function normally and had really tough trips, thinking about so many end results in the same time. Minutes took hours and basically it was an agony, while everybody had pretty joyful time laughing.

Curiosity : Why did you continue for two years with such poor experiences?

Cannabis addiction is a bitch. It also is really tough to get off of. If you use too much too often, you can get crazy sweats, horrifying nightmares (that are more real than being awake), irritability and headaches that make you want to relapse.

The worst part about cannabis addiction is it's mostly psychological.

Cannabis addiction, if that even exists, isn’t a bitch at all. Nicotine addiction is kind of a bitch. Opiate addiction is a bitch.

I’m in recovery for drug and alcohol abuse and spent a lot of time with other recovering drug addicts. None of us look down on stoners as “having it easy”.

Addiction and the destruction it can bring to a person’s life is universal. The choice of drug is irrelevant.

The (elevator pitch) point behind addiction is that I, as an addict, have avoided reality by using, rather than actually facing reality as it is.

Paying my bills? F*ck that, I’m rolling a spliff. etc. etc.

Addiction is not universal at all. Not even close. It’s charitable of you not to look down on them, but they aren’t addicted to weed, and weed isn’t destroying their life. Their own choices are. You cannot even compare this with opiates.

Just to be clear - when I say it is universal, I’m referring to those who suffer from addictions, and what they experience. Not everyone is an addict or will have problems with substance abuse who has/does use substances.

I’m not going to argue that the withdrawal and initial stages of getting clean are different. They are totally different.

But the root causes that are the bedrock of this disease are all very similar across the board. Alcohol, sex addiction, opiates, cocaine, marijuana...

All of them are borne out of similar issues.

All of them cause similar types of destruction in the life of an addict, or persons in any type of vicinity to an addict.

In that sense, the effects are universal. No matter the choice of substance/activity.

I freely admit that my own choices (and some that were not mine) took me down the path I went.

But that’s looking at this from a very shallow perspective.

Because I wasn’t even aware that there’s a totally other side of the coin. A chance to actually live life. That never ever entered into my perception.

All I tried to do, like many addicts, was exist. In a state where I’m not dead, but I’m also not living. Just numbing the pain of my existence because I felt I couldn’t face the problems in my life.

And I couldn’t. Not alone.

Addiction is a disease of the mind.

It also gets a hell of a lot worse the longer it is allowed to fester away.

A great example of this is alcoholism....

If alcohol, by itself, was addictive, society would have eaten itself up a long time ago.

But that hasn’t happened. Only certain people seem to become alcoholics.

So it is universal in how it affects those who suffer from it, regardless of the substances involved.

Here’s a dictionary definition of addiction:

> the fact or condition of being addict to a particular substance or activity

> if that even exists

Of course it exists. You can be addicted to anything: caffeine, chocolate, sugar, video games. It just means you have a dependence on it that is tough to break. It could be a physical addiction like nicotine or alcohol, but it could be a mental addiction or even just a routine that's hard to break.

Anything that either provides stimulation or that numbs you is, in my opinion, pretty addictive: all you need is someone who is somewhat susceptible to it (maybe they have a stressful job and like a distraction. After a while it becomes routine and hard to break out of).

Just because there are worse addictions doesn't mean its not a big problem and causes people hardships. Your comment seems very callous to me.

What seems callous is disregarding the differences between physical addiction of drugs like caffeine, nicotine and alcohol -- which can kill you if you stop taking it suddenly.

Sure, addicts like drugs and weed is a drug. I'm missing the part where the harm (to self and others) is anywhere near that of some of the others mentioned in this post.

Like you said, you can be addicted to anything but it would be absurd to equate chocolate to heroin.

And yet non-physical addiction also destroys lives sometimes. I’m not equating chocolate to heroin, but all forms of addiction can cause problems and even destroy lives, just because one form is much worse and much more likely to do that, doesn’t mean that we should ignore all the other forms. What you’re saying sounds very much like saying that if someone is worse off than you, that you don’t have the right to complain about your problems, which is complete bullshit.

It does exist. It is a 'bitch' but those others are bastards.

You get addicted to dopamine release, not weed. Nicotine has addictive properties. Opioids have addictive properties. No one has ever sucked dick for a dimebag.

po-tay-toes po-tah-toes

If weed gives you the dopamine release that you're addicted to, then there's no real difference to the user. There are also other mental reasons to get addicted, eg, to the escape from a stressful or unfulfilling or depressing reality.

When taking opioids you are also addicted to a dopamine release, just because it affects that more directly doesn't really mean much beyond that the addiction happens quicker and more intensely.

People can and do get addicted to gambling or video games too and those can destroy lives as well. Maybe not as often as heroin, but it certainly does happen.

You don’t even know what opioids do, do you?

Hint; it’s the withdrawal.

Just because something doesn’t have physical withdrawal or isn’t as severe doesn’t mean that it isn’t addiction or isn’t a problem. Your argument is akin to saying that you can’t complain about something if someone else is worse off than you, which is just bullshit. People who are addicted to, eg, gambling, can still have their lives destroyed.

Condescending much? You don’t know anything about me and refuse to understand my point. I’m not equating these things as equal, just that they do cause problems. The fact that you utterly refuse to try to understand what I write and instead resort to name calling tells me that you’re not worth interacting with.

Nearly everybody around me did it, so I guess I was on bandwagon until it became unbearable.

He was probably already addicted.

Creative mind gets its originality. It made you what you actually are and got rid of influenced knowledge.

Although I'm not a fan of cannabis, it's worth considering that other people occasionally have trouble with "dates, lists... simple calculations" without drug use and lead successful, meaningful lives.

I've smoked heavily since 12 years old. I function, and it's helped me with arthritis and PTSD at this point. Sometimes addressing problems with common drugs helps. It definitely changes amygdala response and cerebral blood flow patterns. I think it in general makes people question things, and be better people. I also know it affects motivation, which can be great to quell response to pain, but is detrimental to getting up and out.

Much of it is also habits, related or not. If you aren't taking vitamins, exercising, eating well and isolated from people and things that are detrimental you're obviously not going to have things go smoothly. My family are monsters. It's helped me through it. Or if you're handicapped by mental issues or the like.

I don't buy the psychosis thing, except maybe from edibles. And I absolutely hate to see people stating that it "makes them creative" or other repeated things that they've read or heard somewhere. Oversimplification and lack of education about it is common. Some people just don't handle it well, or are nudged into craziness. Too many people I know didn't read up on what they were getting into with cannabis and psychedelics and want to be into it to be cool, or fit in. I used to smoke to get high. Now I smoke for pain relief.

I'm 38 too.