Posted by Mitchell on November 23, 2001, at 0:49:10
In reply to Re: the Evil Killer Weed, posted by wendy b. on November 21, 2001, at 10:33:02
Joy,
First, the surgeon general's warning - smoking can be harmful to your health. Don't underestimate the risk of smoking, and if that is what you choose to do, realize that by the time you are 50 or 60, if not sooner, you might have any one of several respiratory disorders. If you are not familiar with the frustrating feeling of not being able to catch your breath, it can be hard to assess how difficult it might be to spend the last years of your life with a respiratory disorder.
If you choose to smoke, smoke wisely. Consider moderation, filtration systems and quality smoking materials.
But as for the psychotropic effects of cannabis, by my assessment, so little is known that most clinical professionals, social workers, teachers, bosses, D.A.R.E. instructors, parents, concerned friends or anybody else who claims to know what this drug is doing to your mind is speaking more out of well-intended prejudice than out of scientific knowledge.
The dangers of pyrolytic byproducts are well-known, but the psychotropic hazards associated with cannabis are not well-defined and have not been scientifically measured against a dispassionate assessment of potential benefits.
There are two other categories of risk associated with cannabis, one of which is probably a subset of whatever psychotropic risks there might be. One risk is addiction or dependence. The other is social - the drug can get you busted, you can lose your job, people can stigmatize you as a pot head and you can generally lose social status *among some people* for using cannabis.
Addictionology is a well-established field of study and a fair description of addiction hazards, as defined by those specializing in addictionology, is offered in another recent post in this thread. For my part, I have some strong opinions about this science of addictionology. The science seems to harbor some covert prejudices and cultural assumptions. Among addictionologists, some attachments are considered healthy, such as attachments to social success, to the accumulation of capital, to athletic performance, or to most forms of modern entertainment, while others are assumed to be pathological.
If I may speak from the heart, I would say I am deeply angered that leaders in our society promote such escapist habits as watching television, traveling hither and thither in ridiculously inefficient, dangerous and environmentally hazardous vehicles, competition for competition's sake, high risk individual sports or just about anything else that generates capital, while they claim some moral high ground when it comes to cannabis use.
There is no reason to assume that cannabis use is an escapist practice. My experience is that it helps some people to better engage the world around them. For some, it can replace the need to partake in many of these empty rituals of capitalist culture, like observing professional team sports or watching idle entertainment programs on television. Of course many people combine cannabis use with these practices, and I am not per se condemning anybody's choice to watch or practice sports, watch TV, tour the world in a gas-guzzling land or sea yacht or to practice any other of what I consider to be stupid human tricks.
From my experience, cannabis use, even regular cannabis use, can be a very engaging activity. For whatever unknown reason, my experience has been that some people who use it are more engaged with people and with nature. The ballyhoo about amotivational syndrome might have as much to do with who chooses to use cannabis than it does with the effects of cannabis. Some people choose to disengage from stupid human tricks and to become more engaged with their own contemplation. This can be labeled amotivational syndrome, whether they use cannabis or not. Chances are, those who choose to disengage in stupid human tricks are more likely to choose a drug that helps them to engage with their own thoughts, other people or nature.
I can't speak with authority to your situation with the therapist, but it seems to me that there is no way this person could have information about how these medications interact with cannabis. I dare say if you asked a clinical worker for studies that support claims that cannabis is interacting with prescribed drugs, they would be left speechless. My suspicion is the person is speaking from social prejudice, having already decided for whatever reason that cannabis use is a wrong choice.
It is my opinion that many clinical psychiatric workers are entirely too convinced of their ability to make people's lives picture perfect. Some, in my opinion, want to consider themselves omniscient healers of persons but they have their heads in the sand when it comes to social realities that are behind so many of the conditions that lead to psychiatric complaints. I believe many are way too quick to blame their clients for whatever it is in the client's life that the clinical worker cannot make conform to the clinical worker's ego-centric expectations.
I don't mean to say that therapy, medications or other psychiatric offerings are useless and don't work, or that a therapist or psychiatrist can never accurately assess that cannabis or some other non-clinical medication is causing problems for their clients. But your therapist is not a god. At some point, every person who does business with a paid healer has to decide how much trust to invest in the healer, and how much they will invest in their own sense of self-direction. It is really a matter of how much risk you want to assume by taking responsibility for your own choices, and whether the potential outcomes you expect from your choices are worth the risk.
poster:Mitchell
thread:1748
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011113/msgs/84953.html