The chart showing the inverse correlations is one of the most misleading charts I've ever seen. They put two separate scales on top of each other to make it look like pot is more popular than alcohol.
Wow! In general, charts that have two axises to display trends when there are two different units are hard enough to decipher (temperature and humidity for example). But when the unit is the same (% usage), to use two different scales is just insane.
My suggestion: They should change the chart to just have one axis, and have the chart be "% change in usage year over year".
Not only are the labels shifted by more than 50 percentage points, the scales are slightly different too, meaning not even the slope of the lines can be compared.
"How to lie while telling the truth, with figures"
So why again what is scheduled as an illegal "flower" in the first place? If is we do not know the answer then lets look at this question: who benefited all these years from tax money spend on cracking down on growing/trading/having/using this plant?
Allow me to answer the last one: I think weed will be more popular the alcohol, and it will be heavily used as replacement for all kinds for "medicines".
Completely? I'm afraid not. As a compliment to a complete regimen, then of course. I'm a card holder, but there are times where MJ and derivatives don't have the same benefits, long-bone pain being one.
A sidenote: I'm laughing at the irony that one could grow a crop of opium poppies less conspicuously than a crop of MJ.
Also a card holder and I'm very much looking forward to the movement into the mainstream so we can get rid of a lot of the hippish pseudoscience and actually have medical studies on the stuff.
Maybe not alternative, the medical industry are in the process of converting the weed into several brands of pharmaceuticals based on extracts from the plants.
I was kind of surprised by that when i heard it but apparently the process of productification of is far enough in places like Denmark that medical marijuana pretty much exclusively refers to extracts with limited psychoactive effects.
Weed is extremely popular right now. Weed is big part of a lot of people's budget right now.
With weed legal, the price will go down and I'm not sure if those people buying now are going buy so much more that their expenditure will rise - my guess is a lot of people may buy more but spend less.
This jibes with my experience. Having a tasty drink and getting a light buzz (a beer or two) is still enjoyable/appealing when I'm high, but getting smashed isn't, least of all getting smashed on the beers mentioned in the article. And when fewer of your friends are ever looking to drink heavily, the old norm of "let's all get together and have 3 - 5 drinks" starts to go away. Add the fact that bars have become completely besides the point for meeting attractive people (Tinder) and new forms of highly immersive entertainment, and I'm surprised the trend isn't more dramatic.
From a practical perspective I doubt it. While weed will have higher pricing you won't see the same quantity of people binging on weed like they do on liquor. You'll have many places of employment discriminate against it (it can stay in the blood stream for a month). Many people don't enjoy the sensation versus alcohol. It doesn't cause the same chemical dependencies, don't underestimate how much money bars and stores make from "regulars" known to the rest of us as alcoholics.
Finally and perhaps most important their is a huge logistical cost to being in the THC industry. Regulations at the local and state levels can take a healthy business and make it shut its doors in less then a week. Payment portals get frozen. Limits to growers, shippers, etc. keep pricing very high. I've yet to meet an un-affluent heavy user who doesn't still buy from a dealer because of pricing.
P.S. don't forget the religious and cultural push-back against weed. We accept beer advertising as normal, that won't happen with weed in most places. No superbowl commercials for Gorilla Glue.
From the very first paragraph of the article you linked:
"Research firm Cowen & Company analyzed the state of the beer industry in Colorado, Oregon and Washington—states where both recreational weed is legal and craft beer has become popular".
And:
"MilllerCoors have seen the largest drops. Sales volume of premium brews like Coors Light and Bud Light dipped by 4.4%, while economy brews—the regular forms of mainstream beers like Budweiser or Coors—dipped by 2.4%."
Sales of craft beers go up, sales of draft beers go down. I'm not putting all of that on weed.
I really don't like how all the sources of articles on the impact and results of weed legalization link to... other weed legalization articles.
P.S. A large amount of this "information" is just normal if well disguised click-bait. Please, please, please, link me to hard data if you want to change my mind. I will read every sentence of it!
P.S.S. Also craft beer has EXPLODED in places like Portland and it seems like a natural outcome that, because craft beer is much more expensive, that people buy less of it and enjoy it as more of a social delicacy then a weekend event.
What data? They say "source: Cowen" after showing a graph and laying out inferences in a video. Even if the data is correct there is a ridiculous amount of projection and FUD put out around the economic impact of weed in no small part to the fact that many people want it to succeed or fail regardless of what is actually happening with it.
Sorry but I am highly skeptical of economic projections by biased parties. Especially when politics are involved, which in the case of weed, it is.
I dunno, maybe have a look at, you know, the actual report (as opposed to the glossy summarization attempted CNBC article)? Sounds like you're pretty well settled on the idea that their findings have got to be FUD, no matter what the data actually say, though (being as you've just admitted that you've haven't actually looked at their data). So there's probably no need for you to bother.
The closest I could get was this [1] which seems like the CNBC report was not made from an actual report but instead: "In a research note this morning, Cowen analyst Vivien Azer downgraded Molson Coors (TAP) to Market Perform to reflect expectations for persistent beer volume headwinds".
An Investment bank took a public position in something and now we get a bunch of articles and inferences fed to the general public as if they are absolute certainties. Investment banks are always right and have no self interests ever... right?
Honest question - as a non-user who has dabbled in pain-dampening aids, how effective is it? In particular, there is this great scene in American Beauty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVpsmoAe9pM ) where Lester smokes pot while bench-pressing. Is it much better than taking aspirin ( the A in the ECA stack ) ?
My trainer in India used to come drunk to sessions - he said whiskey dampened all the pain. So he had great arms but a big belly too! But these days ganja is freely available & you can see the results everywhere - Instagram is filled with 6-pack models vying for their chance in Bollywood, & most of them do weed from what I hear.
I'll go out on a limb & say there's different kinds of pain. If you are doing "cardio with weights" - ie. you can comfortably bench 100 lb, but you are doing 200 reps of 30 pound - that's pain A.
If you can comfortably bench 100 lb but you try to do 1 rep of 300 lb, that's pain B.
You want to feel pain B, so you won't blow your bicep. But you don't necessarily want to feel pain A, because that won't do you damage - its just getting in the way of finishing your workout, so you want to be zoned out. Most people trying to cut & get defined abs etc. are in the pain A basket, trying to repeatedly do insane amount of reps with very low weight. For them, cannabis might be a solution.
I call that that "sore" vs "pain". Being sore (type A) is ok, pain (type B) never is. From what I've heard about steroids is the help you push through being sore, which lets you train more.
I'll quickly preface by saying that everybody will experience different effects, so this is merely my experience.
I'm a fairly heavy user, have been for a number of years. I use it primarily to treat depression/anxiety/insomnia, but I also experience chronic pain due to years of abusing my body (rugby, mountain biking, snowboarding, etc.). Nothing crazy, but something is always hurting.
I wouldn't compare its effects to traditional painkillers by any means. I would say it makes me less aware of the pain, and "dulls" it. For example I can tell my knee isn't happy, but it doesn't "hurt". I have however tried some topical cream from a dispensary containing CBD (most strains you'll be smoking have been bred for higher THC and lower CBD), and it's incredibly effective. I experienced hours of absolute painlessness (which is unheard of for me).
As for workouts, I find it helps tremendously with focus and endurance. It's a lot easier to keep pushing on when you would normally give up.
I think it's a very valuable tool, and has relatively few downsides to it (I won't claim it's 100% safe/healthy). Moderation is important as always when using substances.
I worked with an ex-professional body builder: his life used to basically bet getting stoned and working out. The two went well together.
MS patients have a lot of pain and problems with muscles. When given medical MJ, they don't clinically get better and still have some pain signals from their body. What does change is that they feel better - they simply don't mind the pain/muscle tightness as much and they report better functionality.
Personally, I've smoked for PMS pain. It doesn't get rid of the pain completely, but takes the edge off. I can take half the amount of pain medicine (in this case, mixing tylenol (paracet) and ibuprofen per doctors orders).
Note that it impacts individuals differently. That being said, I definitely experience an increase in focus, stamina, and endurance. That is particularly interesting since it also acts as aphrodisiac.
Alcohol may dampen pain but it also dampens concentration / alertness, not to mention motor skills. I won't want to be drunk while holding a hundred pound weight over my chest.
> My trainer in India used to come drunk to sessions - he said whiskey dampened all the pain.
The combination of any sort of neurological impairment and the lifting of heavy weights over your head and throat sounds like a bad accident just waiting to happen.
The animation and silliness is absurd, but I've definitely seen people choose Dominoes over similar cheap-tier national delivery chains based solely on the tracker.
When you order PJ or PH, you get a "maybe in 30-45 minutes" email, but D gets you the "out for delivery" notification.
The only thing better is Postmates/UberEats style tracking of delivery drivers so you can track progress in real time.
Dominoes has ended up being me and my wife's go to default for ordering out because its consistent, cheap, and the order tracking makes it easy to tell when its coming. On some days it ends up being cheaper than cooking once you factor in time to cook and clean.
This is a good thing. Vaporizing/eating cannabis appears to provide little to no long-term harm to users, whereas alcoholism and alcohol related accidents cause terrible harm.
And I know it's just an anecdote, but I'm a successful scientist with a PhD who vaporizes daily. I prefer it to an alcohol buzz. No hangover, no blackouts, no stupidity.
I will be sure to shed a tiny tear for the macrobrew industry, those poor, poor shareholders.
I'm not anti-pot whatsoever and would absolutely switch from booze to weed if given a chance but isn't it flat out wrong to say "little to no long term harm"?
I'm not arguing that it's better than alcohol or xyz but it does have side effects.
That wikipedia page lists more than a dozen potential side effects; many of them are quite devastating. I will never understand why a majority of the younger generation views this kind of Russian roulette as something to be celebrated. Perhaps someone in this forum, who is so inclined, can explain their reasoning on this? Why do something that can so easily ruin your health?
1. The message that it's less harmful than some regularly consumed things (eg, alcohol, cocaine, heroin) got smeared in to not being harmful.
2. A lot of those studies have serious faults -- either in not controlling the population that they're studying and confounding effects (eg, there might be a correlation between mental disorders and drugs because people prone to disorders are prone to seeking out drugs, not because drugs cause disorders; people who smoke both marijuana and cigarettes in lung cancer studies without adjusting for whether people also smoke tobacco) or they test at levels of consumption which most people don't partake in (ie, alcohol is really bad if you're a heavy alcoholic, but most people don't have to worry about that).
I don't think that marijuana smoking is harmless, but I think the degree of harm is obscured because of a lack of study, particularly long-term studies. (And, well, let's be honest: some of the research put out about marijuana came out of what are effectively government propaganda labs -- there was very little chance that they wouldn't find it was 'dangerous', in order to justify the scheduling.)
Look at the leaflet that comes with ANY prescription drug. Even something over the counter. Side effects can be serious, that doesn't make them common. If the more serious side effects to regular marijuana use were common, with the number of users there are, we would know. Also, think of it in terms of alcohol. There are people who have a few beers on a Friday night. Then there are people who have a 6-pack (2-3 liters) every night. The latter will experience more side effects than the former. I'm all for drug legalization but the attitude that you can/should use every day (and that is not really frowned upon) is the part I find that could be dangerous.
I can only speak for myself but it was lots of fun and I didn't got any harm from it. After a couple of years, it got boring and I stopped, but if you consider weed 'russian roulette', then alcohol is Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.
I'm not going to speculate on whether this is good or bad, but it's not exactly as simple as trading one buzz for another.
Many drink alcohol because they enjoy the taste of what they're consuming, plus any other positive associated feelings of consuming any beverage. Drinking alcohol is embedded deeply into human social behavior and in many cultures goes hand in hand with eating and other social activities. In fact, in many contexts, the fact that alcohol induces drunkenness is more of a liability than a benefit for many people.
I actually eat more when sober in general than I do when I'm stoned. Not only that, but I enjoy the food better when stoned and tend to cook slightly healthier. Of course, I have never quite made it a habit to have that sort of snack food around either. Hunger can be nearly unbearable when sober, but I don't mind so much when I'm stoned. To top it all off, I enjoy basic exercise (walking, mostly) more with a bit of a buzz.
On the other hand, I truly need to eat if I'm drinking lest I get an upset stomach.
A sidenote from a former bartender in a rough area: I'd be happy if this trend continues. I've had loads over loads of alcohol-related fights, but never a single problem with stoners. The stuff chills people down, in contrast to alcohol which for some people is enough to get them out of control for insulting their favorite politician...
I've often thought about it as an alternative to alcohol for people with liver damage but apparently it can damage the liver also.
Even so this buzzfeed article is a very interesting account by an alcoholic who reckons it helped her quit the booze
I'm no biochemist, but I'm fairly confident that the liver toxicity of cannabis is orders of magnitude lower than alcohol.
The idea that cannabis can cause liver damage seems to have started from a study[1] on the effects of chronic marijuana use in patients with Hepatits C, a disease which primarily affects the liver. There was a correlation between heavier cannabis use and worse liver fibrosis, but I think it's pretty misleading to say "cannabis can damage the liver" - so can acetaminophen, vitamins, and a million other chemicals, if taken in vast excess or with an already compromised liver.
>>I'm no biochemist, but I'm fairly confident that the liver toxicity of cannabis is orders of magnitude lower than alcohol.
I'm not sure how you can say that with any degree of confidence though.
The study you reference refers to cannabis use in people infected with hepatitis C. Have you seen any results comparing the effects of alcohol on the liver in a similar cohort of patients?
My confidence in that belief isn't related to the study; I only referenced the study to point out that it had been misrepresented. The study has nothing to say about the effects of cannabis on a healthy liver.
The reason I believe it is admittedly anecdotal, but I still find it compelling: I've simply never heard of someone experiencing liver failure from chronic heavy cannabis use alone, whereas chronic heavy alcohol use alone is known to practically guarantee liver failure.
Do you have a source for cannabis -> liver damage? This is the first time I have heard of it. My concern was always lung damage, but of course there are creative and delicious ways of avoiding that problem.
harborside, the bay area's largest purveyor of weed, recently opened a thousand plus-acre facility in the central valley, it's like any other crop dominated by big agriculture nowadays. it's the same people (mostly immigrants) working in every other type of ag in the valley. I have to so I'm surprised by how quickly it has normalized in the past few years. once federal law is sorted I hope it'll be great for the california economy.
the cost will drop quickly as a result, and I wonder what that will do to startups in the space. wholesale costs are plummeting but retail seems price-fixed, which is unsustainable when you have enough competition. once retail starts to plummet too -- say we reach a point where 3.5g costs the same as what currently buys 1g -- the value proposition of things like leaf (the IoT grow box) dies, and eaze, meadow, and all the other uber-for-weed startups become too cost inefficient... it seems like a lot of startups in the general weed space are (literally) banking on the fact that prices haven't dropped yet, but I don't think that will last at all.
I'm in the process of becoming a farmer. Weed is one of the crops I've researched. It could take a ~90% drop in price and still provide a sustainable profit.
This will depend on local regulations if you want to do it totally legit. WA state, for example, still does not allow farms to grow outdoors. It has to be indoors in a controlled-access facility and uses a huge amount of electricity.
Oh yeah, that's definitely using my more optimistic numbers. But if those costs are >10% of your costs (post first year) then you should definitely rethink some things.
If I shoot for high yield (10 oz), 400w @ 0.17 per kWh * (18 hrs * (7 days * 4 weeks)) + (12 hrs * (7 days * 8 weeks)) = 400w @ $0.17 per kWh * (504 hrs + 672 hrs = 1176 hrs) = 471 kWh * 0.12 = $80.02. That's with Northern Lights which would probably go for $1500 per pound, or ~$900 per plant per season. Electricity (well just light, which should be >85% of your electrical costs) would only account for 8% of the production costs.
Infrastructure costs would be amortized and recovered within the first year of full scale operation but just for arguments sake you can source a secure grow inside a $5000 insulated 40' shipping container. Conduit, outlets, panels, grounding, etc. would be $3000 if hired out through Angieslist but if you DIY it, $1000 is feasible. Including a sufficient ~4hr battery UPS. HVAC can then similarly take $1000-$4000 depending on needs and necessities. Totalling out to maybe $15,000?
A 40' container would comfortably do 3 seasons of 40 plants in 1 year, effectively taxing each plant $125 for the first year. The yield would be about 75 lbs @ $1500/lbs = $112,500 in year one. As such, each secure building would only cut 13% of your first years profits... or put another way, 14% of your first years plants' expense.
Granted, these are just Internet numbers. I can speak more candidly and openly offline, but I reiterate -- all of your expenses should be < 10% for an indoor grow op.
> the cost will drop quickly as a result, and I wonder what that will do to startups in the space.
They'll scale massively. Someone has to supply all the states that are one day going to legalize weed - and I believe those who have already much experience in all aspects, from breeding over cultivating to harvest as well as legal and financial challenges, will also be those who will be the fastest to rush into any new open market. Also, they have (literally) wads over wads of cash readily available.
People homebrew beer via kits which is not much cheaper than buying a Sam Adams. You can homebrew cheaply if you guy 50 pound bags of grains but most homebrewers do not.
And the market for robotic weed growing machines is a rounding error compared to the market for drugs. So I am not sure you have really disproven my point that weed prices coming down will run robotic weed growing machines out of business?
I perform very highly at work (pun intended) and have not seen continuous daily usage over the past ten years hamper my career or health in the same way drinking for the same amount of time would have caused (I drink maybe once every few months, and only in social situations, never alone). A lot of people where I work get high as well, roughly 3 out of every 4 engineers or so. This is probably not an industry average or even close to it but it is "Stoners At Work" for sure because this is the California culture, and as far as I can tell, California still produces some of the best tech products and tech teams on Earth and will continue to do so in spite of legalization. I think it might even be helping people with mental health issues, especially those dealing with severe stress and the quiet depression that is so pervasive in the tech industry.
The zone I get into when I code high is amazing. It feels like I'm Da Vinci re-incarnate, deeply thinking about my work. I seem to be able to piece things from long term memory better (although I will admit that short-term memory and situational awareness is severely hampered). It also takes away the clarity of sobriety but the level of concentration and depth of thought it grants your imagination is well worth it, and of course, is only temporary. It does amplify even the smallest instinct of hunger so I tend to do it after I eat, not before.
I also prefer to use it post-workout as it relaxes my muscles much better than anything else outside of a warm jacuzzi. I'm guessing the inflammatory response from the body also helps with recovery soon after a high-intensity workout. I haven't looked at that aspect too deeply yet, I just know what my body tells me. The high itself is also amplified post-workout so you actually need to consume less to get the same effect as at rest.
These are my experiences, not science, but I'm guessing many others might share similar experiences. Note that I do not smoke marijuana, only vaporize it. Smoking in general is just bad internally and externally so I believe vaporizing or ingestion are the best methods.
Just to provide a countering anecdote: My cognitive abilities, including those I use during programming, are adversely affected. The extent can vary, but it's definitely noticeable for me.
I believe that one of the main verified aspects of cannabis consumption is something called the munchies. Users want to eat. And when humans eat, they want to drink as well. And if the cannabis use is in a social context, the food that they eat will be social food. Since people are programmed to drink beer with social food, I can only see the use of cannabis being a driver for beer consumption.
However, there will likely be a big impact on beer sales for Wall street. They see the beer sales of big publicly traded companies, brands like Budweiser, etc. But in the world of cannabis consumption people are more likely to be consuming beer from small local breweries, which fly under Wall Street's radar because they are more like trendy restaurants than like McDonalds.
I do expect legal weed to change things, but I don't expect beer sales to go down. However the big breweries will lose market share because consumption patterns will change. If your business model requires vast numbers of people to buy your product, then a future in which people are more diverse, is not a good one for you.
And if you look at how many people are explicitly rejecting mass conformity such as political correctness, you can see problems for Wall Street while at the same time business is booming and local scale businesses thrive.
Weed ensures there's a steady supply of safe arrests and easy convictions. It keeps police looking busy and jails full. Politicians love it because it pushes up convictions, and so makes them look tough on crime.
Police unions, private prison corporations and politicians all have strong incentive to oppose legalization.
In my country (Uruguay), marijuana is legal, but police still hate it.
Headlines today here were about a 19 year old rural young person who was in the legal register (yes, you have to register to grow or purchase marijuana, not something the U.S. will like), but police still locked him up saying he was over the legal limit, by weighing untreated marijuana and saying each branch was a different plant (maximum allowed by law is 6).
In the US. I'm not sure about many other countries but, in the UK at least, there isn't even a discussion around legalizing marijuana for any use case (not even medical really). It was big news this week when the first prescription marijuana was given however it was non-THC oil and given to a severely ill child. That's how far behind things are here.
I'm somewhat surprised as alcohol expenses in a given month on average tend to be a lot more expensive than marijuana. You can buy 1/4 for around $100 which should last a full month even with a <strike>heavy</strike> moderate smoker.
I think you underestimate how much heavy smokers can consume. The more you smoke, the more your tolerance goes up. Daily users (especially if you're medicating chronic pain or something) you can smoke 1/4 in a week, easily.
(Also, for the non-Americans, "1/4" is a quarter oz, approx. 7 grams)
(edit) Also, while buying in bulk is usually cheaper, people also enjoy pre-rolled joints, edibles or concentrates which are more expensive.
> people also enjoy pre-rolled joints, edibles or concentrates which are more expensive.
This is not true, concentrates like THC oil (the marijuana equivalent of e-cigarettes, basically) are by far the least expensive way to use marijuana. In Oregon, one ounce of THC oil costs $60, and might last a moderate user three months; the same money spent on "flowers" (regular pot) would get you about 5 grams and probably last the same user a couple of weeks.
Because "flowers" (the dense little resin-covered nuggets you buy when you buy pot) are a small part of the pot plant. The rest of it contains some THC, but is not suitable for selling to smokers. If it weren't used to make THC oil it would be thrown away.
Wishful thinking. :) I'd say 1/8 oz a day (about 1 oz a week / 4 oz a month) would not be unusual for a single, heavy smoker/vaper with bigger amounts most certainly possible (depending on tolerance, way of consumption (efficiency), and quality of the flower). This is just for one person. Ounces range from around ~ $120 - $500 or more across the country (if bought in bulk). You really cannot underestimate tolerance. As far as I have been able to discern, there is no upper limit on it. At some point, you can consume all the cannabis you want and simply not get much higher. I have no doubt there are many people consuming (and possibly spending) way more than these numbers indicate too.
4 oz of weed per month is one of the most outrageously heavy uses I've ever heard of.
It would be grossly unusual for a single user. Grossly, extravagantly, extremely unusual.
I'd wager that less than 0.1% of all cannabis users approach 4g/day. They may binge up to 4g on their heaviest day of all time, but average far lower.
I would argue it's very unusual if only because the set of all people who can access 4oz/weed per month, and can afford the $1000-$2000/mo ($24,000/yr!) hobby is very small. Add up all of the trust fund kids with enough money, time and access and you have a tiny, tiny number of people.
An average heavy user can only afford that much weed if they're dealing and skimming, and supply and demand insists that not everyone can be a supplier. Even so, I'd wager the average heavy user chooses to use far, far, far less than 1oz every other week.
Please, these are posters on Hacker News. We work at tech companies and make large salaries. If you purchasing that much you are probably only spending $800 per month (prices get lower the more you use). While this is still around 10k a year it is definitely very manageable on a 6 figure salary
Lots of thing can be not unusual while being uncommon. Hearing someone is a software engineer isn't unusual but we are only 2.54% of the working population in the USA.
Fair enough, if you make mad money in this industry, you could obviously afford it.
That brings me to the next point: to smoke 1 oz / weed every 2 weeks, you probably smoke at least once every waking hour.
So these HN rich kids who do it would almost assuredly require being high to do any work at all.
Personally, I don't want my engineers high as a kite 24/7 while working for me. Personal time is personal time, but on the clock non-stop smoking? But I guess people get away with it.
If you are spending nearly a grand a month on it, then you might as well just grow ~4 large potted plants in your living room. They are beautiful plants, and their timed lights help to keep your own circadian rhythm steady. They also make a nice conversation piece.
They do have a distinctive smell, though, especially once they are budding. If you aren't already growing other herbs and vegetables, then that might be undesirable.
Having known quote a few stoners, it seems perfectly possible. Often the people with access to that amount sell it also, so the money thing doesn't case a problem.
Unlikely, particularly since the weed that is grown for officially-sanctioned scientific purposes is so terrible that it bears almost no relation to the street or medical product
In Oregon you can often get a quarter for $25 so it's quite a bit cheaper than that... though heavy smokers will often smoke an ounce a week... at least in Oregon.
It's not as uncommon as you would think. 7 grams is about 7 blunts. That's about a blunt every two hours. Many of my friends and I did this for years (I no longer do).
Personally, I am really functional. People can't even tell I am stoned.
For people who don't smoke this much weed it's hard to comprehend but at a certain point you just don't get that high. You're mostly maintaining a buzz throughout the day or evening.
It's an entirely different experience when you smoke that much; one, I'd personally say is much more enjoyable.
Yeah, but look at those joints, though. Big, loose, with lots of smoke just drifting off. Not a problem if weed is cheap, but it does mean that some compensating factor is needed to make a valid comparison.
Tip of the iceberg. I'm far more interested in how industries are affected by hemp (paper, textiles, chemicals). Where are all the YC-back hemp-focused startups?
I find it hard to believe that Americans like their weed this much. Smoking tobacco - gateway drug to smoking weed - is not the thing people do these days, unlike in past times when 'everyone' smoked. If smoking is not recreational/sociable, how do people start with weed in the USA? Is it just for kids?
Then there are all those meth epidemics and cocaine users and prescription opiates making the USA 'fun'. For kids that have gone straight to heroin from prescription drugs, what is the attraction of weed? It would be like an alcoholic going for a lemonade shandy rather than another bottle of wine/spirits/cider/super-strength beer.
I thought weed was going the way of interesting trippy drugs - LSD, mushrooms - that exist but people don't go crazy for. Nowadays the disease of addiction has better outlets in U.S.A. and the social aspect of smoking is gone, so who smokes pot in the USA these days apart from those with medical reasons to do so?
Anecdote is the plural of data: I have never smoked tobacco, ever, and am a frequent marijuana user.
Also anecdata: people don't smoke cigarettes as much, but they sure do vape. I live in a neighborhood where you can pretty brazenly walk down the street puffing on a Pax.
I am one of those people that used to visit the U.S.A. but stopped going some years ago. Why might that be?!?
Allegedly there was an election recently and some people voted for the crazy guy with small hands because he promised to build a wall to keep the drugs out. I don't think it was a bit of weed that concerned people, it was the epidemic in the truly destructive opiate/cocaine/crystal meth drugs that motivated them to vote.
From what I hear all of this sad addiction epidemic goes on in isolated regions, rural America with 30 million Americans - mostly vulnerable people - getting hooked on the crazy drugs due to being prescribed opiates and then having to score on the street because it is cheaper. There is nothing recreational about this type of sad drug use, it is death spiral addiction where nobody does well as a recovering addict.
These drugs get TV advertised, 'ask your doctor' is a unique U.S.A. thing, as is watching hours of TV laced with advertising. The rest of the world is not racing along with consumerism at the same level being bombarded with adverts for dangerous medications. But articles make it onto the web describing the horrors of the situation:
Sounds to me like the U.S.A. has turned into a land of zombies with people in California still safe, but, good luck if you live in New Mexico or Ohio, you are not going to be far from one of these otherwise dull and unremarkable Americans turned criminal crazy by prescription drugs.
So is that a tenth of the population doing shameful drugs that are totally not 'recreational' or social? These people are not spending their money on weed as they have the percocet or whatever to score or their crystal meth to 'shake and bake'.
I don't see how a population engaged in such activities can also support a 'healthy' dope smoking scene particularly when normal smoking of tobacco has been made a taboo thing to do.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. If I may, I think that you have taken U.S. sensational news stories and popular movies as your entire context of the U.S. Since nobody else is respecting your point of view, I'll share.
1. Smoking tobacco is seen as a mild taboo, but many people still do it. As long as the smoking is done outside and away from a main entrance, it's unlikely anyone will comment.
2. A large amount of people are addicted to prescription opiates, but if you go to New Mexico or Ohio, it's not going to look like a scene out of The Walking Dead. The total amount of addicted people is estimated to be 2 million [1]. Out of 300 million people, it means that this tragedy is hidden unless you personally know an affected person. By the way, many in California are affected by this issue.
3. Tobacco isn't considered a "gateway" to cannabis use by experts or credible laypeople. Tobacco users and Cannabis users have little relation or overlap.
4. Cannabis is usually introduced in the same manner as alcohol (at parties or small gatherings of friends), though alcohol is far more socially acceptable. Cannabis has never been primarily considered a "trippy" drug in the U.S. ---though there are many people who do use it that way--- it's more of a recreational substance. Cannabis use has declined among the under 18-year-olds over the past decade, but has increased among adults.
4. There are many methamphetamine and heroin addicts in absolute numbers, but again, they do not dominate any metropolitan area. Sure, it is easy to find addicts among homeless populations, but it isn't like Crash, Breaking Bad, or The Wire in terms of pervasiveness and intensity.
