Anyway, if you read the article and substitute "coffee" for "marijuanna", I don't think anyone would be upset. If you are against "chemical help", why would you care about the current US legal status of the drug?

FWIW, I don't smoke pot, but I do drink a lot of caffeine. You could say that I'm a drug addict, and that's fine with me.

For those too lazy to Google it, Sativa (usually grown outdoors) is great for working (think euphoria, and optimism), Indica (usually indoor) is for relaxing at the end of the day and "zoning out". Think 'body high'

Those FUD commercials you see with the kids deflated on the couch? Indica. The commercials you don't see? Well those would be showing motivated Ph.D students working their ass off after smoking a little Sativa (apparently unaware of the chemistry behind the scenes if this article is any judge).

Lesson for kids: Do your homework (this applies to your hobbies too) If you think just smoking weed will help your studies, at least make sure you're buying the right kind or a hybrid which will give you a little of both.

http://designer-drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/t...

I could imagine people could make a lot more money then doing your legal shit a lot faster by making those analogues and distributing them at high price to the real heads that hang out at places like Alex Grey art shows or consciousness or AI conferences. You'd make a lot of money by knowing a few interesting people and supplying their scientific and artistic circles with these analogues. You could write a very interesting thesis on the results. And, you'd be advancing science a great deal.

In theory of course. We would never expect authentic scientists and hackers to break the boundaries the authority system have prescribed for them. A good scientist will always obey the authorities, and only look in the allowed places for knowledge about how the world works. Any new lens with which we might perceive reality will be brushed under the rug. In fact, we will always bow down to power and aggressively attack anyone who conflicts with the normal way of looking at the world, just like the original scientists did (huh?). These laws and boundaries are essential to conventional power structures. It's scandalous and completely unhackerlike how close you come to violating these systems of control. My idea was completely hypothetical. You disgust me hippy. :)

Isn't it amazing the kinds of things people will do without the slightest bit of research?

My point: All weed is not created equal, ask your dealer for the kind you want (and if necessary educate him/her)

Being arrested for possession (or, worse, dealing) could invalidate you from easy worldwide travel (merely having been arrested - let alone charged - invalidates you from many visa waiver programs), numerous professions, and delay certain opportunities. You have to seriously consider whether you can get away with it, and, if you don't, whether you can handle the consequences.

I'm not pro or anti drugs, but I'm very much anti people ruining their future for the sake of some temporary fun. But if you know you can deal with it, enjoy it!

According to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7370

12.6% of the US population annually uses marijuana. Out of a population of 304 million, that makes 38,304,000 users per year. There were 829,625 marijuana-related arrests in 2006 (no idea how many led to actual charges or convictions). That means the chances of being arrested are about 2.2% per year, assuming uniform enforcement across all users.

For most people, this overstates the actual chances of being caught since, sadly, the hammer comes down hardest against poor people and ethnic minorities. I don't have a citation for this, but I think this is the case. Can anyone improve on my stats here?

So, while I originally hoped to show you were wrong, I have to conclude it is a significant risk and getting riskier. According to the NORML article, marijuana arrests for simple possession are skyrocketing. In most cases the penalty amounts to a wrist slap, but still there's a risk of more severe prosecution.

Where I come from (Canada, and my last place of residence, BC) people are barely afraid of toking up right in front of a police officer. It's probably bad to disrespect the officer, but I've seen them turn a blind eye to such violations many times. Especially in BC, there's a broad consensus that the plant does very little harm.

For example, the United States consulate suggests to UK travellers that anyone who has ever been arrested, even if no charges were brought, should not travel to the US under visa waiver, and must attend an interview to get a visa. That's a pretty big deal if you didn't know about it (as one person who /was/ on my wedding vacation - and now must stay at home - found out to their dismay).

It's unlikely anything relating to some marijuana use will destroy your life or impede you significantly, but even not being able to travel freely between countries /could/ be an impediment, especially if such travel is necessary for your job, etc.

This is the least of it, of course. If you want to work with children, particularly in the UK, you also have to declare all of these things. If you want to work in certain industries, you have to declare these things. Things will come out if you go on to become a celebrity or a public figure of some sort. The risks are small, the outcomes not fatal, but still worth considering if you want to maintain a clean record.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed...

Compare average prison sentence for possession of cocaine (rich white) versus crack-cocaine (poor black).

The discrepancy is unnerving.

What would the 20's have been if everyone was too scared to go to a speakeasy?

Then all of the smokers that I knew were professionals.

I know, cause, um, a friend told me.

How are you going to take the necessary business risks to be the next Bill Gates or Richard Branson or Steve Jobs (or U.S. President or genre-creating musician or ...), if you can't take a small personal risk? There may be a benefit to "staying clean", but it appears to be dwarfed by the ability to take calculated risks.

If you want to abstain for the sake of abstention and staying out of jail, then by all means do so. But if you think smoking cannabis is going to sink your career when you start becoming successful, I see no indication of that.

Just don't take pot onto the subway or speed while it's in your car, and you should be fine.

Canada's police turn a blind eye to it mostly, since the courts usually throw out the cases. But it creates a ridiculous situation where it is accepted and considered legal, but occasionally people trafficking large amounts are still prosecuted and face serious jail time. I really would prefer if it was legalized. This would reduce funds going to organized crime.

I'm against letting the blind fear of irrational authorities stop people from meeting their human needs. Getting high is a human drive like sleep or sex. Do you think gay people should not have sex in places where it's illegal?

Would you say Turing shouldn't have had sex? Because he was ruining his future for the sake of some temporary fun that actually represented getting a psychological need met?

Having known a number of people who have smoked daily for periods in their lives and suffered from mental health issues, I have no doubts that heavy pot use contributes to mental health problems.

Sure, marijuana may exaggerate seemingly innate personality characteristics, but create them? Highly unlikely. Its all about the individual's personality and mindset - same reason some individuals develop PTSD, while others walk away from the exact same traumatic experience with no lasting psychological scars.

I feel confidant in saying that there are far more chronic users of marijuana who are otherwise mentally healthy than there are users who are teetering on a "major psychotic episode" - a sign that people such as your colleague are the minority, unstable demographic of the population. Also, it is far easier for individuals who 'freak out' and have embarrassing 'psychotic snaps' to point to an inanimate, socially demonized substance to blame rather than to find and accept blame with 'self'.

"... many people believe that marijuana causes mental illness, in particular, schizophrenia. Several correlational studies have shown that heavy marijuana users are more likely to be subsequently be [sic] diagnosed with schizophrenia... However, there is no way for correlational studies to rule out the possibility that the correlation between heavy marijuana use and schizophrenia occurs because people who are predisposed to develop schizophrenia also tend to use marijuana."

Dude. I used to take this college stuff so seriously, but really, after a couple of tokes, erm, it all.

What were we talking about again?

I would imagine getting US government funds to study the "potential damage of marijuana on x" would be a lot easier than getting funding for the "potential benefits of marijuana on y".

Just because we don't see competing studies does not mean the data is not there.

But you can't dismiss a study just because it was funded by biased people. All people are biased. It's up to you to attempt to look past the bias to see what is genuine, and to see to it that your own viewpoint is expressed.

There are plenty of well funded liberal and libertarian groups that would be more than willing to fund the kind of research that you want. In fact I've seen stuff by Cato that would be right up your ally. You'll do far more good by finding this stuff than by criticizing the only studies being presented.

a) The study is flawed, thus it shouldn't be cited b) You misinterpreted the study c) The study is valid but it's bad news for me, so I decided to shoot the messenger.

"... researchers have concluded that neurocognitive changes that can be reasonably attributed to chronic cannabis use are subtle compared, for example, with those seen in neurological illness, and depend on prolonged and quite heavy levels of consumption." (Rogers and Robbins, 2001)

"Some cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use but appear reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure rather than irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use." (Pope, et al., 2001)

Sources: http://research.lycaeum.org/researchpdfs/2001_rogers_1.pdf http://www.cannatrade.com/pdfdocuments/new/Neuropsychologica...

Marijuana modulates the way your short term memory works. It does not impair long term memory or recall. The effects of marijuana on short term memory may contribute to creativity by breaking down cognitive structures and creating a space for new concepts to plug into parts of the dissolving short term memories.

If drugs are so harmful, why are they winning the drug war?

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/028.html

By "Russell Ambrose" Russell Ambrose (a pseudonym) is a musician: aged 47, composer, jazzer, conductor, teacher. Time alteration, contact highs, and intensified sensual experiences are discussed, while cannabis is considered as a gateway for access to altered states in a non-drug context.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/076.html Marijuana Stimulates Creativity and Enriches Experience By Jon Byrne, MD Dr. Byrne has, on and off, explored the role of cannabis in enhancing consciousness and enriching experience since his late teenage years. After attending a top five medical school, he came to San Francisco to undergo residency training at UCSF and currently lives and practices medicine in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a successful part-time researcher, he has published in prominent journals and has frequently presented his work at national meetings. (Jon Byrne is a pseudonym).

I'm not trying to be snarky ~ I am legitimately interested in seeing data; too much of this debate is founded in anecdote, editorial, and propaganda on both sides.

There isn't any actual proof that this HAS a detrimental effect. Did they give THC to the rats and then ask them to memorize some information, then quiz them later?

Hell, do that to a few users of cannabis. Then, perhaps, real results will be forthcoming.

Neuroscience is still very new, and a lot of things are ascribed without true understanding, to various actions within the brain. Just take a look at the farce of fMRIs, for instance.

And, what do you mean by "farce of fMRIs"?

And by that, I mean, how people are using activity in areas of the brain to say that a person is 'x' or what thinking about 'y'. It's phrenology for a new age.

fMRI only shows correlation, not causation; any neuroscientist knows this. To prove a causative relationship, you need to use other methods (lesions or TCMS, for example). Show me an example of what you're talking about.

   But now it seemed like a privilege to consider
   economic globalization and its relation to 
   British poetry

Except for that not only is moderate consumption of alcohol good for you, but teetotalism is as bad for your health as being morbidly obese. How is it possible for someone to get a Ph.D. without picking up even a trace of scientific literacy?

One word: humanities.

That just sounds really unlikely. Got anything to back that up?

The overall risk curve for alcohol is J shaped. In other words, your total morbidity risk decreases sharply with moderate consumption but then increases after about two drinks a day. Interestingly, risk of heart disease is lower even among the heaviest drinkers. However, total morbidity rates are higher because of other risks.

I'm prepared to believe that there's health benefits to a small amount of alcohol every day, but I really can't imagine it being anything on the scale of the health benefits of not-being-morbidly-obese. Morbid obesity is a huge risk factor for just about everything.

You see plenty of 90-year-old teetotallers, but not many morbidly obese folks past their fifties.

That's true, but then again people also naturally lose weight as they got older. Lower testosterone causes muscles to atrophy, and reduced sense of smell leads to a loss of appetite. I'm not sure how many morbidly obese people live long enough to get to this point, but it's at least worth considering.

As the Bible says, "A little wine for the stomach's sake" and "brandy to give you cheer."

I would think the real damage of teetotalism would be the stress involved in constantly thinking about and addressing it. Not so much the lack of the substance in the body.

* The debate whether alcoholism is a disease, a personality trait, or something else entirely is irrelevant here.

The health benefits of alcohol are an unusual case, also -- many of its benefits are related to other chemicals that frequently accompany it, such as polyphenols in red wine. This does not apply to "LSD/Cocaine/Heroine" (sic), though there are comparable benefits for coffee and tea (particularly green tea), mostly antioxidants.

Many doctors are reluctant to recommend moderate drinking for its health benefits because it is also addictive and impairs judgment, and in cases where people drink excessively, the health costs are severe. This doesn't apply to most things recommended for health (exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, getting enough sleep, nethack, green tea, pomegranate juice (or whatever the health craze of the moment is, ac,ai berries? peach fuzz?)), because most of those are less likely to be taken to excess, and would probably be several orders of magnitude less harmful even if they were.

Then you would be wrong: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EED9143FF...

For many people moderate drinking has absolutely no benefit at all, Dr. Klatsky said. This applies to all adolescents: teenagers have a negligible risk of heart disease and for them the risks of heavy drinking vastly outweigh any benefits of moderate drinking.

The same generally applies to men under 40 and women under 50, except for those with known heart disease risks. Pregnant women, people with liver disease, known drinking problems or a family history of alcoholism should never be advised to begin to drink for their health, he said.

But for others with known coronary heart disease or a risk of heart disease because of obesity, cholesterol levels, or smoking, moderate alcohol use may be a way to reduce that risk.

It is important to look at context when reading about these sorts of studies.

(I should probably note that I've never smoked pot.)

The US was built with the money from Tobacco, not Marijuana.

So we can't criminalize Tobacco any more than Columbia can do away with cocaine or Afghanistan can out opium. Personally, I think that marijuana use is probably harmful, as is most drug use, but isn't worth the cost in criminalizing it.

You are kidding, right? Marijuana cultivation is one of the largest cash crops in the US (there is some question as to whether or not it is the largest, but there is no disputing the fact that it is in the top five.)

> The US was built with the money from Tobacco, not Marijuana.

The US was built with money from tobacco, sugar, and slavery. Not really a great mix for us to be crowing about. BTW, when you see period documents that talk about "hemp" and how all colonial settlers should be encouraged to grow this valuable crop you are reading an exhortation from the government to grow marijuana (we don't grow the same varietals now, but it is the same plant...)

Maybe, but are Marijuana growers as dependent on their crop as Tobacco growers? Do they have as powerful a lobby? Are they as heavily taxed?

I've read that period documentation. "Hemp" is not marijuana as we know it today and it was grown for rope, not as a drug. It never did catch on though, the climate wasn't very good for it.

Good point I read some place that the reason people originally wanted to out law marijuana was in order to make it illegal to grow hemp which was competing with their cotton crop. So really this all just started out as a government enforced monopoly to please some corporate fat cats.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1

BTW, your link is fixed. ------------------------

Edit: That article emphasized my point.

Which isn't that one is good or the other is bad, but the relationship of either to our economy is different. While production of marijuana is increasing, most of it is controlled and distributed by groups that are considered foreign, like the Mexican mob for example. In fact, a great deal of it is grown by recent immigrants whose families are being held hostage in their home countries.

Needless to say this could change in light of legalization, but it's current stature is what plays a key role right now. As it stands, the people who get rich off of marijuana aren't Americans.

So while legalization of Marijuana may benefit society monetarily, there is no particular interest group that stands to get rich or on which the government already depends. This was even more true at the time of the original criminalization. It's a matter of why, not whether. I've stated elsewhere that I believe marijuana ought to be legal and I'm stating here why it isn't and tobacco is.

I mentioned small tobacco farmers for a different reason. Taxes, restrictions and lawsuits against tobacco increase everyday and everyday small tobacco farmers loose ground to larger tobacco firms which can deal more efficiently with the restrictions. As the restrictions increase, small tobacco will go out of business and if criminalize, the larger firms will give way to cartels every bit as troublesome as the Mexican mob. Legalize either and their's no guarantee that either will come back as a wholesome industry. (Given prohibition, it seems likely, but isn't a given.)

So those that oppose one and support the other aren't necessarily hypocrites so much as tunnel visioned. Which is all I really have to say.

Marijuana has a long history too. If it were legalized, the industry would be taxed just like tobacco. If tobacco was outlawed there would be underground tobacco farmers just like we have today with weed.

It's silly to say tobacco is good because the farmers are good people who had parents who did the same thing. Their crop kills thousands of people. Weed kills no one. I'm for legalization of both, but by the numbers tobacco is the one we should be worried about.

That's good, because I didn't say that. I said that it's legal because tobacco farmers are a more established part of the economy; that it's legal for historical reasons.

Marijuana has a long history too. If it were legalized, the industry would be taxed just like tobacco.

If Marijuana were allowed to establish itself as an open industry, sure. But it hasn't, or rather, it hadn't at the time of the first drug laws against it. Which is the whole point. I don't know why you're having trouble with this.

Their crop kills thousands of people. Weed kills no one.

BS, smoking weed has the exact same effects on your health as smoking tobacco and plenty of people have died smoking weed.In terms of danger they are around the same. The difference in numbers has more to do with relative popularity and the openness people have with their habits.

Good, because I didn't say that.

Let me guess edw519, you probably drink, both coffee and alcohol, you probably also consume your fair amount of sugar and possibly (although unlikely) smoke cigarettes. Why is it that smoking weed (to help you work/play) makes you winy and a pothead but it's ok to be a raging asshole if you miss your morning coffee/cig?

You guess wrong, josefresco. But it doesn't really matter anyway because I never "advertised" my habits to the world. This guy did.

Just slightly ignorant as I pointed out above.

Ignorant I can live with. But this was also irresponsible.

This is hacker news, where people post and learn and share together about doing difficult and exciting work. I realize that OP had no idea where his essay would end up, but it ended up here (at #1 no less) so that's where it warranted a response.

I really don't care what anyone's personal habits are, but as soon as you write about how you use drugs to take the easy way out, and that post ends up on a site where people bust their butts to do good work and add value to other people's lives, you're fair game.

You've never had a cup of coffee or tea, or a soda? Yeah right.

I'm more concerned with my Coca Cola (sugar/acid) intake than THC. I, unlike many Americans don't compartmentalize these substances and don't prescribe to the drugs=bad (unless Pfizer prescribes them) thinking.

A friend of mine has the opposite situation - she can't have any caffeine after noon or she will be up all night.

Anyways...I enjoy consuming all 4. I suppose my vice is tasty liquids.

Your rant about graduate school versus a "real job" also seems like mostly a non sequitur.

You're probably right. If this hadn't made it to #1 so quickly (no fault of OP of course), I may not have even responded at all. But it did, so I did, and I didn't hold any punches.

I just found it ironic that many of us who do good work 80 to 100 hours per week and come here for a break among our peers find a student who needs to resort to drugs to cope (or whatever) with his difficulties at #1.

Without even entering a debate about the pros and cons of drugs in general, I found the essay wimpy and irresponsible. Since I can't vote it down, I shouted it down. No apologies.

You found it "ironic", did you?

and come here for a break among our peers find a student who needs to resort to drugs to cope (or whatever) with his difficulties at #1.

I don't see any evidence in the article that the student "needs" to "resort to drugs" to "cope with his difficulties" -- that seems entirely to be an interpretation you're reading into the article. He chooses to smoke pot, and apparently that annoys you -- fair enough, but your reaction doesn't appear to have much relevance to the substance of the article.

Then why did he write it?

What he did not do is "whine" about why he "needs to resort" to smoking pot to "cope with his difficulties" -- the whole "whiny and irresponsible" theme seems absent from the article and is just something you've dreamed up on your own, as far as I can see.

I thought it was funny -- reminded me of a cranky old guy saying "Dang kids today! Toking up and killing brain cells"

Note I'm a libertarian and don't think that government has any business with what I choose to ingest. But heck, if you want to post an article on how good it is to toke up for your schoolwork, you gotta expect to hear some people who disagree for various reasons, right? What do you guys want, to be able to smoke it up and not have anybody say "what a waste -- can't you succeed without all the partying?" The reaction seems very mob-like.

There's all kinds of cool subtopics to this - the role of self-medication, the differences between pot and alcohol cutlures, the various moral implications of ingesting various substances, the stereotypical toked-up college liberal going to school for life, etc. Fun stuff to kick around, in my opinion.

he just questioned the morality of pot as an aide in student studies

No I didn't.

I challenged the appropriateness of a #1 hn post from a student who uses drugs to get by and then brags about it.

The reaction seems very mob-like.

I didn't know what to expect, but this was no surprise. Since "net" scores are the only thing that show, I'm curious how many up votes and down votes there were. Even though the net is negative, I wonder how many people agreed.

It would have been more meaningful if he was a physics or science PhD. A pot smoking liberal arts PhD is... eh. Not news.

Right. Until some voted it up to #1 here.

I voted you up just based on all the crowd-voting going on.

Sorry about misrepresenting your post. It had been a while since you posted it, and it's gone now.

I do agree this article was a poorly conceived article though.

And, you'd have to post whiny comments here trying to get people to Follow Your Path to make yourself feel like you made the right choice.

Instead, most of the site already agrees with your choices ;)

You still get your name published, regardless of "chemical help" or not. Who are you again?

Get out of cocoon, er I mean school, get a real job, get married. have a couple of kids, get a mortgage and a couple of car payments, raise those kids without worrying too much about the evils around them, visit Mom in her nursing home, do things for others in need, and, if you have time, have a nice life too. But don't drop a single egg while you're juggling.

Why should he make the choices you did? From the tone of your comment, it looks like these choices are making your life miserable. Why should he do what you say?

And don't you dare miss a day of work, no matter how mind numbingly boring or lame it is, or how sleepy or depressed you feel.

Why not? Why is going to work every day so important?

The only thing worse than the whining of a student is the whining of a pothead student. Grow up.

Actually, what's worse is a whining adult. Nobody actually cares about your car payments or kids.

So what?

Why should he make the choices you did?

I never claimed that I made those choices. But lots of people have. And they're not blogging about how they need drugs to get through their day.

Why is going to work every day so important?

Never started a business before, huh?

what's worse is a whining adult. Nobody actually cares about your car payments or kids.

OP isn't an adult? I don't have a car payment or kids. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't blog about how I used drugs to deal with them.

You could make a (calm!) argument that the author has chosen a poor coping method, but this? No, this comment of yours says a lot more about you than it does about the article.

Thank you

But this sounds to me like the textbook definition of "kneejerk reaction."

Actually, it was anything but. I thought long and hard about my post and was curious what kind of reaction it would elicit. I guess I found out.

You could make a (calm!) argument that the author has chosen a poor coping method, but this?

I considered that, but obviously didn't. Let me explain...

I love this community. It's my virtual home. That's why I responded like I did.

In order to glean the signal from the noise, we put up with a lot here. Posts like "not hacker news", posts giving advice learned from a book somewhere, submissions about politics and religion, and unnecessary profanity. I have read most of them and usually chuckled and moved on. Not this time.

Lots of people come here, many young and impressionable, looking for all kinds of things. So what is the first thing they saw today? A post from someone who hasn't really accomplished anything important to hackers (as far as I could tell) and who chooses to resort to drugs to get through his day. And then brags about it.

I wanted to make it clear in no uncertain terms that there are people who disagree with him and this post has no business here at hn. I could have said the lame "not hacker news", but that hardly would have gotten my point across.

We are achievers. We work hard and find a way to produce value for other people, often taking the difficult road instead of the easy way out. This guy's post was IMHO the precise opposite of what I believe and what I hope others believe too. Making it through school using drugs is a smack in the face of those of us who work hard in the real world and assemble here to share it.

I simply don't care how anyone wants to live their life. If you want to get high, get drunk, jump out of airplanes, or just sit in front of the TV, go to it.

But if you come into my virtual home, I will respond just like I would in my physical home and say, "Take your drugs and get out."

I wanted to get people's attention. Do you think it worked?

No, this comment of yours says a lot more about you than it does about the article.

What does it say about me that my other 2,873 comments don't?

But this right here? Sounds like you just snapped. What do you care if people smoke up in their spare time? Why is it bad if it helps them cope with stress? I'm sure exercise would be better, but doing nothing about stress is probably worse.

Agree: whining about how hard being a student is does make you a pussy. Adding pot doesn't change the equation. =)

Sounds like you just snapped.

Not at all. This was planned. I won't beat it up, but like I've responded already, I just don't want to see any more about drugs, sex, religion, politics, profanity, and certainly not the stream of conciousness bloggings of liberal arts students. I can get all that at a thousand other places (but I don't). I just didn't think that the usual "not hacker news" would have much impact here.

I pushed the envelope and learned a little more about our community. Lots of people disagree with me on more than just a few issues. No surprise.

Sorry if I disappointed you. Hopefully I'll be able to earn respect in future discussions.

Now let's get back to hacker news.

Agreed! People seem to forget that there was a previous generation that did some of the things they're doing. It's a bunch of rediscovery and it's boring. Find something new you damned kids (and get off my lawn)!

(Except the doing things for others in need.)

I think this is an intersting prologue to how debates regarding mind-enhancing drugs will take place.

I also note that your reaction was highly...emotional? Your reasoning seems specious. Using marijuana doesn't mean that this person lives in a cocoon or is incapible of hard work or creating value somewhere.

Looking back, I can't imagine I would ever talk like that to anyone here, and certainly anyone in person. But since I was responding to a pseudonym from a passing blog, I took a few liberties.

Everyone should be allowed one pass. I guess this one was mine.

You remind me of a slightly more evolved version of those 90 year olds who hate anyone who isn't as repressed and miserable then they are. So you made choices according to the conventional wisdom of your time, your life sucks as a result, and you're getting more and more trapped in your shitty, repeating cycle as the time to get out gets smaller and smaller. You're going to die (tick tock, tick tock), and instead of doing all the unimagined cool stuff you would of dreamed up while using drugs responsibly, you're going to waste all of this beautiful gift that is our fleeting life doing stuff you hate. Each day, you feel it coming, and go through it anyway.

And, to top it off, when you die, you'll think your ascending into heaven, and God, a black woman, will meet you at the gate with dreads and a gold and green cap, and a blunt with 4 grams of hydro in a swisher sweet wrapper, and say "I put all those drugs all over the planet so you could use them to help you be creative enough to invent the future, and you failed to do your part because you were too distracted from the perpetual cycle of maintaining illusions. Fuck you, mon, I'm sending you back as a cockroach. You don't need more then a brainstem, because you never use it anyway. If living as a thoughtless drone in a hivemind was good enough for you this time, that's all you get the next time around." Then, the gates will slam shut, and you'll see God and Sagan and Erdos and Steve Jobs, all taking hits of that blunt, planning the evolution of humanity, and bumping some new Radiohead, while your consciousness gets shunted into the body of a cockroach so you can relive life in a more metaphoric expression of the way you chose to live in your human form.

Sounds less like a problem with people who use drugs and more like a problem with how your choices have sucked, and continue to suck at very deep levels of reality.

Your massive inellect and talent is wasted here at hn. Looking forward to seeing you on Dr. Phil.