Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Smoking pot makes you depressed for life

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 05:02:22 AM
I don't think I'm dogmatic against drugs, I just find the following irritating:

1. Rationalising the use of drugs.
2. The myth of enlightenment surrounding the use of select drugs.
3. Claims of conspiracy or false positives in drug research

I wasn't implying anyone was being dogmatic, I was simply cautioning those who may fall into either camp.

I agree they have no real rational use beyond a slight medicinal value of some, but like Antihuman said, a functional healthy human being can use it once in a while and still be fine. Just like alcohol. I'm not too sure about the whole enlightenment thing concerning drugs, as I've learned a lot about things while under the influences of cannabis (like cooking, actually), but I've never really had a "religious experience" so to speak.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 05:07:27 AM
Why aren't the hippies of the 60s writing great books and producing wonderful music?

Indeed, or the stoners from the 1980s in charge of the world? And why did we have so few names for our "Hessians who have also succeeded in life" thread?

Drugs and alcohol, sex and buying shiny products, and so on, are distractions. The real game is to get your head clear, find a path in life and something you like doing, and excel at it.

Drugs are like a warm bath. If life is too hard, you soak in the bath. But then life seems even colder, so you stay. Eventually, a day passes... and then another.

Why do we see so few drug users succeed in anything but entertainment?

As in politics, where measuring the success of a structural change takes centuries or longer, in life measuring the success of a habit takes a lifetime or longer. The proof is out there: drugs, alcohol and casual sex are pathways to failure.

Not surprisingly, they're very popular with the peasants and urban drones. Are you man, or slave-man? Go pick me some cotton, stoners!

I don't really like building my world view from an unreality (not saying that I'm an empiricist/positivist either though).

Progression and self-realisation begins by disregarding unreals and the irrelevant (drug based hallucinations, seeking out God, believing in UFOs etc), not using them as a foundation.
Are you implying that your current reality paradigm does possess a foundation 100% impeccable in its logical conclusiveness? If not, then on what basis do you submit that drug use is incompatible with the spiritual realization of such a foundation?
No, I'm saying that you are introducing unneeded error into the equation by basing your worldview on religious/drug altered experiences which are irrelevant to reality.
But isn't the whole existential dilemma that without an infallible foundation to work with then any reasoning can only be a matter of induction rather than deduction, and thus thoughts and actions made without such foundation are all equally invalid? It seems to me that at issue should be a process of deconstruction, to discover an infallible foundation if any exists, and that sighting scarecrows along the way is still only an inductive affirmation, a knee-jerk reaction to slow down the whole frightening process of propulsion into the Abyss, a fear of the unknown. Ironically certain drugs are uniquely suited to propel you towards the Abyss, bypassing your trepidations whether you like it or not (although personally I would not count marijuana among such drugs).
Again, you're adding magical properties to drugs which I really doubt exist. What exactly are you heading towards other than incoherence? What drugs are you talking about? Why aren't the hippies of the 60s writing great books and producing wonderful music?

I am speaking about infallible logical foundation, it doesn't get any more logical and non-magical than that. I am using the metaphor of the Abyss to represent the existential dilemma which the necessity for infallible logical foundation points towards (a relatively commonly used metaphor), but I do not mean to imply anything 'magical' per se.

Certainly not all drugs have the potential to be very spiritually conducive, but which specific drugs I'm talking about is I think off the point.

Timothy Leary sums it up best: "drugs have the capacity to render insane people who don't use them". I'm not saying drugs are at all prerequisites for enlightenment, but let me tell you a story. In my youth my parents objected to my drug use and my spirituality (my parents being atheists suspected my 'irrational' spirituality resulted from my drug use), so much so that they forced me to sit down with a psychiatrist with them. We all got to talking, and one of the first things the psychologist asked me was "do you feel you need drugs to be spiritual?". I replied with a very specific statement, something I had rehearsed a hundred times before because so many people would ask me that same question. It was the honest truth, and I did not jumble my words when I said it, I have a very clear recollection of the event (no I was not on drugs at the time).

I replied "that's a great question, because in the vast majority of cases drugs do get used in less than ideal fashion. So I make a big point to be clear about this with myself, It's very important for me. I never use drugs to complete or substitute my spirituality, I only use them to compliment and enhance my spirituality."

The psychologist then responded "so you're saying that you need drugs to be spiritual?" I stared at him amazed, but when I turned to ask my father to back me up he said he heard the same thing that the psychologist heard, and when I turned to my other side to get my mother's opinion she also agreed with the two of them. For the rest of the session, the psychologist and my parents felt I seemed to be unusually agitated.

Believe it or not, that example is not far from the status quo with regards to talking to people intelligently about drug use. Whether it's people who are ignorant about drugs, or people who use drugs and who are still nonetheless ignorant about them, basically zero percent of the population gets it.

Some of you seem to think that the masses are ignorant, but that there are still a precious few who possess some degree of wisdom. But the difference between you and me is that I see that precious few to be considerably smaller. You seem to measure it by 'real-world success', as if even though you reject the system you can still use its framework to make value judgments about people.

Being dogmatic in favor of drugs is as stupid as being dogmatic against drugs.

I'll make the point again. I am an infrequent user of cannabis, yet I have a steady part time job, attend university (with a 3.3 GPA at the moment), work out/exercise 3 or 4 times a week, read good books, listen to inspiring music, cook, play bass and guitar, and am constantly wanting to learn (and learning) new things.

Not saying every person who uses has to be like me, but there are not just non users and handjob-giving drug addicts; you can't split people up into those categories so easily.

Proclaim me a loser/moron/faggot for using marijuana if you must, I will take no heed as I continue down my path in life.

Sounds like you think you're 'better' than a random homeless person on the streets. And if I may insert a few words into your mouth (or if it is not the case for you, then for others instead): what is 'better'? To say you are 'better' in a general sense, in terms of 'meaning' or 'value' or 'virtue', this is to say nothing at all, for you are not basing it on anything. A person can be more artistic or athletic or mathematically apt or etc than another person, but 'better'? To say that 'better' somehow implies a level of meaning beyond these mundane qualities is to say that it possesses no meaning at all, that by definition it is a hollow label thrown about to support ignorant egocentrism. All that's left is the mundane things themselves, what every facet of society tells you to measure yourself by. There is no 'better' or 'worse'. But an equally important point is: there's no 'equal', either (there is no point of reference). Some people are just more artistic, athletic, mathematically apt, etc than others. Or in other words, everyone is different. Now show me how these differences can encourage or discourage realization of infallible logical foundation, and then you may truly say that some things in life are more or less healthy than others. At best 'betterness' is a bi-product of health--health is not a bi-product of 'betterness' and I should say that painting it as being so is decidedly unhealthy.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 04:53:42 PM
Using the internet and posting regularly on forums makes you depressed for life.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 09:10:50 PM
Being dogmatic in favor of drugs is as stupid as being dogmatic against drugs.

I'll make the point again. I am an infrequent user of cannabis, yet I have a steady part time job, attend university (with a 3.3 GPA at the moment), work out/exercise 3 or 4 times a week, read good books, listen to inspiring music, cook, play bass and guitar, and am constantly wanting to learn (and learning) new things.

Not saying every person who uses has to be like me, but there are not just non users and handjob-giving drug addicts; you can't split people up into those categories so easily.

Proclaim me a loser/moron/faggot for using marijuana if you must, I will take no heed as I continue down my path in life.

Sounds like you think you're 'better' than a random homeless person on the streets. And if I may insert a few words into your mouth (or if it is not the case for you, then for others instead): what is 'better'? To say you are 'better' in a general sense, in terms of 'meaning' or 'value' or 'virtue', this is to say nothing at all, for you are not basing it on anything. A person can be more artistic or athletic or mathematically apt or etc than another person, but 'better'? To say that 'better' somehow implies a level of meaning beyond these mundane qualities is to say that it possesses no meaning at all, that by definition it is a hollow label thrown about to support ignorant egocentrism. All that's left is the mundane things themselves, what every facet of society tells you to measure yourself by. There is no 'better' or 'worse'. But an equally important point is: there's no 'equal', either (there is no point of reference). Some people are just more artistic, athletic, mathematically apt, etc than others. Or in other words, everyone is different. Now show me how these differences can encourage or discourage realization of infallible logical foundation, and then you may truly say that some things in life are more or less healthy than others. At best 'betterness' is a bi-product of health--health is not a bi-product of 'betterness' and I should say that painting it as being so is decidedly unhealthy.

Where did I imply that I was better? Or are you simply trying to provoke an argument?

I do not claim to be, and I never will claim to be. I happen to have confidence in myself, is that wrong? Or would you prefer that I just think of myself as another nobody?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems like you're saying is this:

2 people, one is a physically fit athlete who has a steady, fulfilling job and a loving family, and another who is not fat/ugly but just perpetually lazy, lives in a grubby apartment and works at the local K Mart.

One is not inherently better than the other based on traits in their life? Or do we need to examine them both on a personal level? If the latter is what you're saying, I personally don't buy it.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 09:38:23 PM
I think he's just saying we shouldn't define ourselves by what we do, which is something I agree with.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 09:46:30 PM
Timothy Leary sums it up best: "drugs have the capacity to render insane people who don't use them". I'm not saying drugs are at all prerequisites for enlightenment, but let me tell you a story. In my youth my parents objected to my drug use and my spirituality (my parents being atheists suspected my 'irrational' spirituality resulted from my drug use), so much so that they forced me to sit down with a psychiatrist with them. We all got to talking, and one of the first things the psychologist asked me was "do you feel you need drugs to be spiritual?". I replied with a very specific statement, something I had rehearsed a hundred times before because so many people would ask me that same question. It was the honest truth, and I did not jumble my words when I said it, I have a very clear recollection of the event (no I was not on drugs at the time).

I replied "that's a great question, because in the vast majority of cases drugs do get used in less than ideal fashion. So I make a big point to be clear about this with myself, It's very important for me. I never use drugs to complete or substitute my spirituality, I only use them to compliment and enhance my spirituality."

The psychologist then responded "so you're saying that you need drugs to be spiritual?" I stared at him amazed, but when I turned to ask my father to back me up he said he heard the same thing that the psychologist heard, and when I turned to my other side to get my mother's opinion she also agreed with the two of them. For the rest of the session, the psychologist and my parents felt I seemed to be unusually agitated.

Not to be the crass voice of experience here, but by the time you get to a psychologist and parent conference you're already in the bullshit zone.

First, we've had psychology as a mainstream event for over a century and there's no lessening in insanity -- in fact an increase. Psychology is probably a bad method of solving problems!

Next, it's a slacker job. Don't want to go to med school? Be a paid listener. Most people don't have real friends. So you're there to listen and then repeat the appropriate memory. It's an easy job for a 120+, even if it makes you neurotic, which is why all but the already neurotic avoid it.

There are a few exceptions but... that psychologist makes his money by telling parents what they want to hear, and out-maneuvering kids so they end up in the "right" reform programs. Don't expect honest truth from any such person. In addition, if you ended up using drugs, your parents screwed up somehow and so they have no reason to be truthful either.

I think he's just saying we shouldn't define ourselves by what we do, which is something I agree with.

I disagree. I think we should define ourselves by all of ourselves, including what we do. Anything else is as reality-denying as Transcix's parents in the anecdote above.

I've seen this shit go around a million times, I guess. Kids see their parents being miserable and try to go the opposite direction. The problem is that the opposite direction is the same direction. Better to master the situation in a non-reactionary way.

As far as drugs go, I have seen very few success stories, and seemingly infinite failures. Drugs attach you more to your own ego, and are correspondingly self-defeating.


Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 09:50:03 PM
I didn't seem to cull that from his post, it seemed more as if he was talking down to people who have a sense of esteem about themselves. There's a big difference between confidence and arrogance (though unfortunately the two seem to go hand in hand much of the time).

Perhaps it can be established that defining oneself purely by what they do is as flawed as defining oneself by any other singular means (like appearance).

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 11:09:21 PM
Timothy Leary sums it up best: "drugs have the capacity to render insane people who don't use them". I'm not saying drugs are at all prerequisites for enlightenment, but let me tell you a story. In my youth my parents objected to my drug use and my spirituality (my parents being atheists suspected my 'irrational' spirituality resulted from my drug use), so much so that they forced me to sit down with a psychiatrist with them. We all got to talking, and one of the first things the psychologist asked me was "do you feel you need drugs to be spiritual?". I replied with a very specific statement, something I had rehearsed a hundred times before because so many people would ask me that same question. It was the honest truth, and I did not jumble my words when I said it, I have a very clear recollection of the event (no I was not on drugs at the time).

I replied "that's a great question, because in the vast majority of cases drugs do get used in less than ideal fashion. So I make a big point to be clear about this with myself, It's very important for me. I never use drugs to complete or substitute my spirituality, I only use them to compliment and enhance my spirituality."

The psychologist then responded "so you're saying that you need drugs to be spiritual?" I stared at him amazed, but when I turned to ask my father to back me up he said he heard the same thing that the psychologist heard, and when I turned to my other side to get my mother's opinion she also agreed with the two of them. For the rest of the session, the psychologist and my parents felt I seemed to be unusually agitated.

Not to be the crass voice of experience here, but by the time you get to a psychologist and parent conference you're already in the bullshit zone.

First, we've had psychology as a mainstream event for over a century and there's no lessening in insanity -- in fact an increase. Psychology is probably a bad method of solving problems!

Next, it's a slacker job. Don't want to go to med school? Be a paid listener. Most people don't have real friends. So you're there to listen and then repeat the appropriate memory. It's an easy job for a 120+, even if it makes you neurotic, which is why all but the already neurotic avoid it.

There are a few exceptions but... that psychologist makes his money by telling parents what they want to hear, and out-maneuvering kids so they end up in the "right" reform programs. Don't expect honest truth from any such person. In addition, if you ended up using drugs, your parents screwed up somehow and so they have no reason to be truthful either.
That's pretty slack reasoning and your perceptions of psychology seem to be based on the public consensus that psychology is psychoanalysis (psychoanalysis is near dead and you will not get insurance reimbursement if you see a psychoanalyst). I don't know what you measure as "insanity" or how you perceive it to be increasing over the past 100 years, but psychology was never promised to be the be-all-end-all answer to mental health problems nor does everyone with a mental health problem see a psychologist (it is in fact, a minority that do). Other factors could easily be contributing to an increase in "insanity" which outweigh the contribution of the psychiatric/psychologists (drug use, increased stress from work and home life).

Also, I don't see how 6 years of training makes for a "slacker job" considering other allied health professions are 3-4 years tops.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 06, 2010, 11:21:20 PM
I've seen this shit go around a million times, I guess. Kids see their parents being miserable and try to go the opposite direction. The problem is that the opposite direction is the same direction. Better to master the situation in a non-reactionary way.

That's exactly how it was for myself growing up, my parents both had dull and pointless jobs they hated but paid them well. Get up, go to work, come home at the same time every day, it appeared systematic to me. Even in my early youth it was evident and obvious that something just wasn't right, especially how they never did anything else. Come home, watch TV, make dinner, watch TV, sleep. Guess it served as a reminder of how NOT to grow up.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 07, 2010, 02:18:21 AM
Where did I imply that I was better? Or are you simply trying to provoke an argument?

You didn't directly imply it, and as I indicated what I was saying may or may not be pertinent to your specific case. I was not attempting to provoke an argument as much as to address what I felt was a bit of an elephant in the room.

I do not claim to be, and I never will claim to be. I happen to have confidence in myself, is that wrong? Or would you prefer that I just think of myself as another nobody?

No I do not think there is anything wrong with having confidence in yourself whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems like you're saying is this:

2 people, one is a physically fit athlete who has a steady, fulfilling job and a loving family, and another who is not fat/ugly but just perpetually lazy, lives in a grubby apartment and works at the local K Mart.

One is not inherently better than the other based on traits in their life? Or do we need to examine them both on a personal level? If the latter is what you're saying, I personally don't buy it.

I am indeed proposing that one is not inherently better than the other. I'm not sure what you mean by examining them on a personal level, though.

Not to be the crass voice of experience here, but by the time you get to a psychologist and parent conference you're already in the bullshit zone.

I agree, I was just citing what I find to be a particularly egregious example to make a point.

I think he's just saying we shouldn't define ourselves by what we do, which is something I agree with.

I disagree. I think we should define ourselves by all of ourselves, including what we do. Anything else is as reality-denying as Transcix's parents in the anecdote above.

I've seen this shit go around a million times, I guess. Kids see their parents being miserable and try to go the opposite direction. The problem is that the opposite direction is the same direction. Better to master the situation in a non-reactionary way.

Before you condemn drugs on this basis, what exactly do you mean by defining ourselves "by all of ourselves" and proceeding in "a non-reactionary way"? Those are pretty vague statements.

As far as drugs go, I have seen very few success stories, and seemingly infinite failures. Drugs attach you more to your own ego, and are correspondingly self-defeating.

Hmmmm, I take it then you reject the entheogenic concept of ego death? One thing I would point out is that sometimes when a tool is very powerful then its use requires that much more responsibility, lest the user be harmed.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 07, 2010, 03:15:31 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems like you're saying is this:

2 people, one is a physically fit athlete who has a steady, fulfilling job and a loving family, and another who is not fat/ugly but just perpetually lazy, lives in a grubby apartment and works at the local K Mart.

One is not inherently better than the other based on traits in their life? Or do we need to examine them both on a personal level? If the latter is what you're saying, I personally don't buy it.

I am indeed proposing that one is not inherently better than the other. I'm not sure what you mean by examining them on a personal level, though.

What I meant by "on a personal level" is evaluating them by what they believe and how they present themselves. I see what you're saying, in that I should not judge on what someone does because of the fact that it's surface traits only. Sure the guy who works at some faceless retail store every day might be a better person morally, but in that case I would wonder why he (or she) does not bother to better themselves on all fronts, not just morals.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 07, 2010, 03:59:33 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems like you're saying is this:

2 people, one is a physically fit athlete who has a steady, fulfilling job and a loving family, and another who is not fat/ugly but just perpetually lazy, lives in a grubby apartment and works at the local K Mart.

One is not inherently better than the other based on traits in their life? Or do we need to examine them both on a personal level? If the latter is what you're saying, I personally don't buy it.

I am indeed proposing that one is not inherently better than the other. I'm not sure what you mean by examining them on a personal level, though.

What I meant by "on a personal level" is evaluating them by what they believe and how they present themselves. I see what you're saying, in that I should not judge on what someone does because of the fact that it's surface traits only. Sure the guy who works at some faceless retail store every day might be a better person morally, but in that case I would wonder why he (or she) does not bother to better themselves on all fronts, not just morals.

I mean primarily to distinguish between saying someone is better than someone else in a concrete, specific sort of way (better job, better morality, etc), versus saying someone is 'better' in an all-encompassing sense. This latter usage of the term 'better' seems to necessarily imply a level of importance or meaning beyond whatever may in concrete, specific terms be said of a person. For instance if you say that person A is 'better' than person B because person A has a better job and better morality, this is one thing; but to say that person A has a better job and better morality than person B, this is a different thing. When concrete specific examples are used to imply an over-arching meaning to the term 'better', then at issue is more than just said concrete specific examples, as they are used as premise in a deductive process by which over-all, over-arching 'betterness' is attributed to a person. The problem is that the deductive process is usually totally ignored, and it's in this shadow where prejudice and absent-mindedness often resides. The argument that a person is 'better' BECAUSE they have a better job and better morality is a fallacious argument unless it is elaborated, unless the 'BECAUSE' is expanded upon in greater detail. Otherwise I could say that two plus two equals ten. Why? Because just look at two and two, just look at 'em! Clearly they equal ten. Because they are two and two.

I bring this up for many reasons. For one thing, it seems sometimes people in this thread are saying that drugs do or don't make you a better person, as if the definition of "better" is just taken for granted--and as a result of the definition being taken for granted drugs become denounced on the basis of different people's respective (unspoken) prejudices and ignorance.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 07, 2010, 07:29:31 AM
I used to smoke chronically for about a year or more . I have completely stoped and plan on never returning to drug use after experiencing extreme anxiety, and some higly noticeable cognitive problems. Of late I have begun to feel less shure of my direction in life, and much less passionate. Im shure that I will recover from this after a few months, and that my current exercise/diet/hardworking lifestyle will only help...but then again some part of me is not so shure (more so after reading this).

Advice? Will I recover, or am I like Conservationist said doomed to a life of depression?

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 07, 2010, 01:13:57 PM
If you stopped completely and want to move on, take one last dose of drug: Ayahuasca. No, seriously. If you have ayahuasca avaiable, take it. It is used to cure addiction did you know that? Alcoholics, for example. They take ayahuasca to stop drinking, have some mystical revelations, see some pink elephants (just kidding). It helps. Just take it one time and never again, and try to get as much meaning from it as possible. It is also good to convince people who are seriously thinking about suicide not to kill themselves. It will give you hope, and if you think about smoking pot again now you may be tempted, but if you do as I said, you cank think, "Oh, no. I already had a strong ayahuasca trip. That gave enough drug induced trance for a long time."

Get someone of real trust to give it to you. I heard of a boy who drank some then died.

Re: Smoking pot makes you depressed for life
March 09, 2010, 07:24:08 PM
That's pretty slack reasoning and your perceptions of psychology seem to be based on the public consensus that psychology is psychoanalysis (psychoanalysis is near dead and you will not get insurance reimbursement if you see a psychoanalyst). I don't know what you measure as "insanity" or how you perceive it to be increasing over the past 100 years, but psychology was never promised to be the be-all-end-all answer to mental health problems nor does everyone with a mental health problem see a psychologist (it is in fact, a minority that do). Other factors could easily be contributing to an increase in "insanity" which outweigh the contribution of the psychiatric/psychologists (drug use, increased stress from work and home life).

Four years of college is standard, and another two years of education is no big deal after that. I see psychology in general as a mistake; we knew enough of this through literature and philosophy, but now we've made it another nuanced, separate field that encourages people to talk about themselves instead of working themselves through. And yes, I think it should be functional. If it's not decreasing insanity, throw it out -- it's crap.