Debunked: The Harmful Effects of Marijuana - Dr. Sanjay Gupta

[David Fraser]

I find it confusing that it is claimed that Big Pharma and the government are suppressing research into cannabis and then medical studies are produced as evidence. I guess someone may need classes in suppression.

 

[Bill]

LOL, I actually don't like to get high, I use CBD Tintcure which has no euphoric value, no high just healing. two puffs of the flower before I go on my daily walk for exercise, I would hardly call "getting high", things are changing, the stigma of the unproductive pothead is heading on it's way out, very functional cannabis users are taking up seats next to you at your job.

There are functioning users of many drugs, including but not limited to functioning alcoholics and recreational users of morphine, heroin and cocaine. A few exceptions does not negate the stereotypes or remove the stigma. If you want to get high at home that's your business, if you work for me and you come in high I'll fire you, just like I would if you came in drunk.

 

[cosmic]

Industrialized and government taxed intoxication and drug-dependence, that's acceptable?

Reminiscent of Bill Hicks, in this bit.

 

[Josh Heuer]

There are functioning users of many drugs, including but not limited to functioning alcoholics and recreational users of morphine, heroin and cocaine. A few exceptions does not negate the stereotypes or remove the stigma. If you want to get high at home that's your business, if you work for me and you come in high I'll fire you, just like I would if you came in drunk.

So you promote stereotypes?
Say you had a guy working for you, who did an excellent job, let's say he did the best out of your crew. He did so for years. Then one day you find out he gets high everyday, even comes in high. So you're going to fire him not based on his work, but some habit he has? Because of some stereotype you have embedded in your mind about pot smokers?

Here's one: I've heard the stereotype, 'black people can't swim.' So if you work as a lifeguard, would you not hire black people because of that stereotype?

YOU may buy into certain stereotypes but that's only because you're conditioned that way. The majority of pot smokers I know are very productive, social beings, so I don't buy into that stereotype.

 

[Soulfly]

People who come into work high on drugs run the risk of losing their job. Not just because their employer has the right to fire them for being high but because insurance companies have the right to cancel coverage if someone high gets injured or injures someone else. The public also has the right to sue the company for allowing it's workers to be high if they are injured.. Both of the latter two have the potential to ruin a company. So if an employer wants to not hire or fire someone because they get or are high then that employer is just protecting their investment IMO. That doesn't mean high employees are all unproductive, just a liability. The same goes with alcohol on the job.

 

[Bill]

So you promote stereotypes?
Say you had a guy working for you, who did an excellent job, let's say he did the best out of your crew. He did so for years. Then one day you find out he gets high everyday, even comes in high. So you're going to fire him not based on his work, but some habit he has? Because of some stereotype you have embedded in your mind about pot smokers?

Here's one: I've heard the stereotype, 'black people can't swim.' So if you work as a lifeguard, would you not hire black people because of that stereotype?

YOU may buy into certain stereotypes but that's only because you're conditioned that way. The majority of pot smokers I know are very productive, social beings, so I don't buy into that stereotype.

No. I run a business. An employee operating under the influence of a mood/mind altering substance puts my company at risk in a number of ways
1) I pay them to preform at the best level the can. None of the currently illegal drugs or alcohol have been shown to improve performance only to distract from it in various ways. If they are working under the influence they are intentionally taking my money and not providing me the full services for their pay.
2) I have both a legal and a moral obligation to provide my employees with a safe working environment. If I knowingly allow someone under the influence to work for me and an incident, even an accidental one, occurs injuring one of my employees and the stoned person is at fault I have opened my company and potentially myself up to legal action and all of the associated expenses. In addition I run the risk of increased liability insurance rates.
3) If I knowingly allow an employee under the influence to service an account and they cost the customer either financially or materially my business is subject to an additional set of lawsuits and an increase in my errors and omissions insurance. My business will also suffer potential loss from negative word of mouth. In my case I also face sanctions and fines from the Office of the Georgia Insurance Commissioner and the SEC.

It's not about stereotypes or hypotheticals. It's about the real world of business. As I said previously, if you want to use drugs recreationally at home that is your business. When you are using in the office you are potentially impacting me, my employees, and my customers. At that point you have made it my business. If you want to take a couple of hits or have a couple of drinks on the way into work and "you can handle it" because you have built up a tolerance then you have chosen recreational drugs over your job and you can keep on walking.

As for the comments about black people and swimming. It's a false equivilancy. Have you some how managed to equate drug use with racial discrimination? Last I checked no one was able to choose their genetic makeup. You can choose not to use recreational drugs. I can also assure you that I wouldn't hire any lifeguard that A) couldn't swim B) didn't know CPR or C) showed up for the interview or work intoxicated.

I'm not conditioned to view pot smokers and drug users by anything more than the years I spent being a pot smoker and a drinker. A lot of people who knew me only when I was stoned were surprised to find out how much better I am at the things I do when I have clear head.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Yikes, so you use business as a way to justify your disposition against mind alteration.
Just how deep into the rabbit hole does that go? Only illegal drugs are not tolerated? Can I consume large amounts of caffeine and energy pills? Or take 6 OTC nighttime sleep pills? How about nutmeg?

No. I run a business. An employee operating under the influence of a mood/mind altering substance puts my company at risk in a number of ways

Ok, this should be good...

1) I pay them to preform at the best level the can. None of the currently illegal drugs or alcohol have been shown to improve performance only to distract from it in various ways. If they are working under the influence they are intentionally taking my money and not providing me the full services for their pay.

First, you don't know if someone is working at the best level they can, drugs or not. And you say illegal drugs have not been shown to improve performance. Performance of what? That's a blanket statement for starters. I bet I could prove an instance where an illegal drug does improve 'performance'. But the onus would be on you to show that illegal drugs 'have not been shown to improve performance.' There's no way to prove that. And how can you say someone would be intentionally taking your pay and not providing you the full service? Are you saying someone cannot eat a pot brownie before work and come in and genuinely do a good job? Could you even tell?

2) I have both a legal and a moral obligation to provide my employees with a safe working environment. If I knowingly allow someone under the influence to work for me and an incident, even an accidental one, occurs injuring one of my employees and the stoned person is at fault I have opened my company and potentially myself up to legal action and all of the associated expenses. In addition I run the risk of increased liability insurance rates.

Ok, so a person taking illegal drugs puts your business at risk legally if they screw up on the job and get tested for drugs. Point taken. Morally? That's your own spin. Everyone's morals differ.

3) If I knowingly allow an employee under the influence to service an account and they cost the customer either financially or materially my business is subject to an additional set of lawsuits and an increase in my errors and omissions insurance. My business will also suffer potential loss from negative word of mouth. In my case I also face sanctions and fines from the Office of the Georgia Insurance Commissioner and the SEC.

Kind of just point 2 again, except with the word of mouth part added.

It's not about stereotypes or hypotheticals. It's about the real world of business. As I said previously, if you want to use drugs recreationally at home that is your business. When you are using in the office you are potentially impacting me, my employees, and my customers. At that point you have made it my business. If you want to take a couple of hits or have a couple of drinks on the way into work and "you can handle it" because you have built up a tolerance then you have chosen recreational drugs over your job and you can keep on walking.

It seems to be less about 'business' and more about following the law, really.

As for the comments about black people and swimming. It's a false equivilancy. Have you some how managed to equate drug use with racial discrimination? Last I checked no one was able to choose their genetic makeup. You can choose not to use recreational drugs. I can also assure you that I wouldn't hire any lifeguard that A) couldn't swim B) didn't know CPR or C) showed up for the interview or work intoxicated.

I mentioned it because you were stereotyping about drug users and their ability to function.
You said:

There are functioning users of many drugs, including but not limited to functioning alcoholics and recreational users of morphine, heroin and cocaine. A few exceptions does not negate the stereotypes or remove the stigma.

I was bringing up stereotypes because you say here there are functioning drug users but those seem to be the 'few exceptions' and they don't negate the stereotype.

We know that

A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things.

Content from External Source

As I mentioned, there's a stereotype that black people cannot swim. It's racism yes, but it's also a stereotype nonetheless. Just as implying drug users are mostly not functioning people.

I'm not conditioned to view pot smokers and drug users by anything more than the years I spent being a pot smoker and a drinker. A lot of people who knew me only when I was stoned were surprised to find out how much better I am at the things I do when I have clear head.

So you say things changed for the better in your life when you became sober. And that you're conditioned to view pot smokers and drug users only by your own experience with such things. You personally had a negative experience, now your world view is filtered in that angle. It's called a bias.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Josh, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Everything Bill said about not hiring people who take drugs/drink on the job makes perfect sense.

 

[Bill]

Yikes, so you use business as a way to justify your disposition against mind alteration.
Just how deep into the rabbit hole does that go? Only illegal drugs are not tolerated? Can I consume large amounts of caffeine and energy pills? Or take 6 OTC nighttime sleep pills? How about nutmeg?

You seem to be unable to differentiate between recreational use and "coming to work high". I never said I was against mind alteration. I said don't bring it into work.

I never mentioned only illegal drugs. The last time I checked alcohol was legal. If you are taking enough caffeine or OTC medication to negatively effect your work we are going to have a talk and if you continue your habit at that level, legal or not, you have made a choice and I'm sure you can find other jobs that enjoy your lack of self discipline. And yes firing somebody for not not doing their job well is termination for cause.

Ok, this should be good...

You're right. It is.

First, you don't know if someone is working at the best level they can, drugs or not. And you say illegal drugs have not been shown to improve performance. Performance of what? That's a blanket statement for starters. I bet I could prove an instance where an illegal drug does improve 'performance'. But the onus would be on you to show that illegal drugs 'have not been shown to improve performance.' There's no way to prove that. And how can you say someone would be intentionally taking your pay and not providing you the full service? Are you saying someone cannot eat a pot brownie before work and come in and genuinely do a good job? Could you even tell?

The scientific studies showing detrimental the effects of marijuana on performance are numerous. While the residual effects (morning after) are mostly shown to be negligible performance while under the influence is reduced.
The search used was "effects of marijuana on performance". It stressed neither positive and negative and employed neutral language. There are pages of results.
A sampling:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=162772
"Carry-over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009130579090028G
"Acute and residual effects of marijuana: Profiles of plasma THC levels, physiological, subjective, and performance measures"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305797003869
"Acute and Residual Effects of Marijuana in Humans"

And how can you say someone would be intentionally taking your pay and not providing you the full service?

If someone is paying you to do a job and you are not trying to give them the best performance you are capable of then you are intentionally taking their money under false pretenses. No employer or client pays you to knowingly under perform.

Are you saying someone cannot eat a pot brownie before work and come in and genuinely do a good job? Could you even tell?

I shouldn't have to be able to tell you are on drugs. Do your situational ethics tell you it's alright as long as you don't get caught?

A better statement of my position is that the job you do under the influence is not as good as the job you do when not under the influence.

Ok, so a person taking illegal drugs puts your business at risk legally if they screw up on the job and get tested for drugs. Point taken. Morally? That's your own spin. Everyone's morals differ.

Kind of just point 2 again, except with the word of mouth part added.

These are actually different aspects of business. Obligations to employees and obligations to clients differ. Failure to live up to both can destroy a business.

The term I used is "moral obligation". It comes from the study of ethics and the meaning and concepts it embodies is different from "morals".

It seems to be less about 'business' and more about following the law, really.

The law is a major part of running a business.

I mentioned it because you were stereotyping about drug users and their ability to function.

I'm not stereotyping. I'm talking about the results of scientific studies. It might not be what you want to hear but the science does not support a lack of effects.

I was bringing up stereotypes because you say here there are functioning drug users but those seem to be the 'few exceptions' and they don't negate the stereotype.

We know that

A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things.

Content from External Source

As I mentioned, there's a stereotype that black people cannot swim. It's racism yes, but it's also a stereotype nonetheless. Just as implying drug users are mostly not functioning people.

You are the one claiming it is a stereotype and not providing any proof. I'm talking about all the science showing that while under the influence mental and physical performance is reduced.

There are lots of stereotypes you could have chosen without bring race in the equation. Pointing out that it is an actual stereotype doesn't make it acceptable.

So you say things changed for the better in your life when you became sober. And that you're conditioned to view pot smokers and drug users only by your own experience with such things. You personally had a negative experience, now your world view is filtered in that angle. It's called a bias.

I was hesitant to point out that I used to be a user because I was fairly certain you would fall back on this argument to defend your position. Your position might weight except I have already pointed out that I have no problem with recreational use. I even support the legalization of most drugs, but I am willing to admit that marijuana and other drugs have an effect on performance and don't belong in the workplace. I don't want the actively using pothead that comes to work stoned sitting in my front office any more than I want Irish coffee/two martini breakfast/lunch alcoholic.

 

[Josh Heuer]

You seem to be unable to differentiate between recreational use and "coming to work high". I never said I was against mind alteration. I said don't bring it into work.

Ok. But you can't determine exactly if someone is under an altered state of mind. It's a very blurry line that you're trying to define. Sure, if they're piss drunk and stumbling, that's noticeable. But there's a tough line when it comes to things like marijuana, or pills, or even things like caffeine or nutmeg. You could have guys working for you right now that come in high on something and you would never know. And you equate that with less performance because of some studies on marijuana (moving the goalposts from all drugs/alcohol to just marijuana, bold move). Can you say 100% if someone is high on some drug they are going to do less of a job? No, you just push the stereotype because again, it's what you conditioned yourself to believe.

I never mentioned only illegal drugs. The last time I checked alcohol was legal. If you are taking enough caffeine or OTC medication to negatively effect your work we are going to have a talk and if you continue your habit at that level, legal or not, you have made a choice and I'm sure you can find other jobs that enjoy your lack of self discipline. And yes firing somebody for not not doing their job well is termination for cause.

You're saying coming in high automatically makes someone not perform as well. It does not.

You'll never break this train of thought, I guarantee it. And that's fine, it's what you are conditioned to believe, just like some believe in the existence of God no matter what they are told. Even if they're told stories about how their must be no God because little Timmy just died a horrible death or people are being tortured and murdered, they'll find ways to fit it into God's plan.
Just like how I could give to you real life examples of people who have came to work high and did a perfectly fine job, but in your eyes they will always have performed less than what they could have. It's a leap of faith.

You're right. It is.

Yup.

The scientific studies showing detrimental the effects of marijuana on performance are numerous. While the residual effects (morning after) are mostly shown to be negligible performance while under the influence is reduced.
The search used was "effects of marijuana on performance". It stressed neither positive and negative and employed neutral language. There are pages of results.
A sampling:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=162772
"Carry-over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009130579090028G
"Acute and residual effects of marijuana: Profiles of plasma THC levels, physiological, subjective, and performance measures"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305797003869
"Acute and Residual Effects of Marijuana in Humans"

And here we go, as I mentioned before you're moving the goalposts. You went from saying all current illegal drugs an alcohol are shown to not improve performance, to giving me studies on marijuana. Bold move.

If someone is paying you to do a job and you are not trying to give them the best performance you are capable of then you are intentionally taking their money under false pretenses. No employer or client pays you to knowingly under perform.

It's sick how you keep saying because someone is on a drug they are not trying to perform their best. That's a very religious idea. A very gross flaw in your logic. You have a preconceived notion; that someone is on a drug, they are trying to not do a good job. You're just trying to demonize drugs, really.

I shouldn't have to be able to tell you are on drugs. Do your situational ethics tell you it's alright as long as you don't get caught?

My ethics say do what makes you best at what you do. If you can't recognize what's best for yourself, especially when it comes to doing a job, or you're not trying to do what's best for yourself, you're an idiot, plain and simple. It doesn't take sobriety to be the best you can be. And I'm not saying a person has to be high on drugs all the time either. Do what works for you.

A better statement of my position is that the job you do under the influence is not as good as the job you do when not under the influence.

Not true. Sorry, you can never prove this to be true. This is where your whole idea on drugs falls apart. It's not all or nothing.

These are actually different aspects of business. Obligations to employees and obligations to clients differ. Failure to live up to both can destroy a business.

What exactly are these differences? I'm curious.

The term I used is "moral obligation". It comes from the study of ethics and the meaning and concepts it embodies is different from "morals".

Moral obligation is an extension of morals. Morals are your view on what's right or wrong, moral obligations are your beliefs on how you should act upon a moral situation. Either way, morals are still a borderline religious or philosophic idea. It's all a game of 'I'm right, you're wrong.' It would be no better than if I said 'well it's God's wish to use drugs.'

The law is a major part of running a business.

Yup.

I'm not stereotyping. I'm talking about the results of scientific studies. It might not be what you want to hear but the science does not support a lack of effects.

No, you're stereotyping. You make a judgement call about users of drugs and alcohol and then show me studies on marijuana as if that backs up your claim. You're right, I don't want to hear it; it's sad to see how set in their ways some people are.

You are the one claiming it is a stereotype and not providing any proof. I'm talking about all the science showing that while under the influence mental and physical performance is reduced.

Yeah, studies on marijuana. Proving your point about all drugs and alcohol. You moved the goalpost. And you DID make a stereotype about people using drugs not being functioning individuals. That's not true, it's a stereotype.

There are lots of stereotypes you could have chosen without bring race in the equation. Pointing out that it is an actual stereotype doesn't make it acceptable.

They're both stereotypes. So what? Don't play the race card on me. It's a stereotype no matter which way it pulls your heart strings. You buy into one, and not the other.

I was hesitant to point out that I used to be a user because I was fairly certain you would fall back on this argument to defend your position. Your position might weight except I have already pointed out that I have no problem with recreational use. I even support the legalization of most drugs, but I am willing to admit that marijuana and other drugs have an effect on performance and don't belong in the workplace. I don't want the actively using pothead that comes to work stoned sitting in my front office any more than I want Irish coffee/two martini breakfast/lunch alcoholic.

Once again, you said you make the judgement based on your own experience as a drug user. I'll say it again, you're biased. You try to hide it by saying drugs are fine recreationally, but you're still trying to demonize drugs (in the workplace albeit). It just bothers me how set people are in what they believe.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Josh, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Everything Bill said about not hiring people who take drugs/drink on the job makes perfect sense.

No, it doesn't. I'm not in a hole; I'm trying to pull Billy out of whatever hole he's in. Guess that will never happen.

 

[Mick West]

The line might be blurry, but "coming to work high" is quite clearly on one side of that line. "high" = "altered mental state" which in most jobs equates to "impaired".

You are barking up the wrong tree here Josh. Sure it would be great if we could just toke (or even drink) enough not to affect our work, but if you don't know where that line is, then it has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Playing it safe is not necessarily a good way towards progression. But then again you guys seem to think progression can not come from the use of drugs, and so you demonize them.
What are your thoughts on nutmeg? Know anyone who ingests it?

You are barking up the wrong tree here Josh. Sure it would be great if we could just toke (or even drink) enough not to affect our work, but if you don't know where that line is, then it has to be drawn somewhere.

I just think you guys are stuck in that tree I'm barking up, and you'll never climb down and explore the rest of the big open world in that regards. You've apparently got it figured out. I think I'll move away from this tree to the next one down the road, so to speak.

 

[Bill]

Ok. But you can't determine exactly if someone is under an altered state of mind. It's a very blurry line that you're trying to define. Sure, if they're piss drunk and stumbling, that's noticeable. But there's a tough line when it comes to things like marijuana, or pills, or even things like caffeine or nutmeg. You could have guys working for you right now that come in high on something and you would never know. And you equate that with less performance because of some studies on marijuana (moving the goalposts from all drugs/alcohol to just marijuana, bold move). Can you say 100% if someone is high on some drug they are going to do less of a job? No, you just push the stereotype because again, it's what you conditioned yourself to believe.

Actually I focused on marijuana because that is the topic of this thread and the drug that concerns you (I didn't see you defending alcoholic of heroin users). I didn't move any goalpost other than to refine the search. I can just as easily show studies on cocaine, alcohol, heroine, MDMA and other drugs.

You're saying coming in high automatically makes someone not perform as well. It does not.

The scientific studies don;'t support your claim. Rather than just claim it does not why don't you link to some studies showing that people under the influence of marijuana experience either neutral or positive performance effects.

You'll never break this train of thought, I guarantee it. And that's fine, it's what you are conditioned to believe, just like some believe in the existence of God no matter what they are told. Even if they're told stories about how their must be no God because little Timmy just died a horrible death or people are being tortured and murdered, they'll find ways to fit it into God's plan.
Just like how I could give to you real life examples of people who have came to work high and did a perfectly fine job, but in your eyes they will always have performed less than what they could have. It's a leap of faith.

I'm not conditioned to believe anything. I actually took the time to do the research. The rest of the statement is irrelevant mumbo jumbo and an offer of anecdotal evidence without proof.

And here we go, as I mentioned before you're moving the goalposts. You went from saying all current illegal drugs an alcohol are shown to not improve performance, to giving me studies on marijuana. Bold move.

Again. No goalpost moved. I simply focused on the drug you seem to be most concerned with. Saying that I moved the goal post does not invalidate the scientific results of the studies.

It's sick how you keep saying because someone is on a drug they are not trying to perform their best. That's a very religious idea. A very gross flaw in your logic. You have a preconceived notion; that someone is on a drug, they are trying to not do a good job. You're just trying to demonize drugs, really.

In what way is this a religious idea. If anyone is clinging to an idea religiously it is you because you are refusing to acknowledge that the science doesn't prove your argument and you are in denial about the effects of drug use in the workplace.

My ethics say do what makes you best at what you do. If you can't recognize what's best for yourself, especially when it comes to doing a job, or you're not trying to do what's best for yourself, you're an idiot, plain and simple. It doesn't take sobriety to be the best you can be. And I'm not saying a person has to be high on drugs all the time either. Do what works for you.

So your ethics are situational. The effects of your decisions on others around you are irrelevant as long as you are doing what you think is best for you.

Not true. Sorry, you can never prove this to be true. This is where your whole idea on drugs falls apart. It's not all or nothing.

It is a statement of my position: "the job you do under the influence is not as good as the job you do when not under the influence". It is true by default. I support my position by looking at the scientific studies. If the evidence didn't support it I would have have to change my position.

What exactly are these differences? I'm curious.

Moral obligation is an extension of morals. Morals are your view on what's right or wrong, moral obligations are your beliefs on how you should act upon a moral situation. Either way, morals are still a borderline religious or philosophic idea. It's all a game of 'I'm right, you're wrong.' It would be no better than if I said 'well it's God's wish to use drugs.'

In addition to college course work, I take yearly classes dealing with ethics of which "moral obligation" is just one facet. At this point I'm going to suggest you crack a few books dealing with ethics.

No, you're stereotyping. You make a judgement call about users of drugs and alcohol and then show me studies on marijuana as if that backs up your claim. You're right, I don't want to hear it; it's sad to see how set in their ways some people are.

Yeah, studies on marijuana. Proving your point about all drugs and alcohol. You moved the goalpost. And you DID make a stereotype about people using drugs not being functioning individuals. That's not true, it's a stereotype.

You are repeating yourself and making the same claim over and over without any proof to back you up beyond your own opinion.

They're both stereotypes. So what? Don't play the race card on me. It's a stereotype no matter which way it pulls your heart strings. You buy into one, and not the other.

You are the one that brought racial stereotypes into the conversation. It is a false equivalency. No one picks their race, you choose what you put in your body.

Once again, you said you make the judgement based on your own experience as a drug user. I'll say it again, you're biased. You try to hide it by saying drugs are fine recreationally, but you're still trying to demonize drugs (in the workplace albeit). It just bothers me how set people are in what they believe.

The only one that needs to look in the mirror is you. You are not interested in the science or any evidence that shows you might be wrong. Your arguments have amounted to nothing more than "No its not", "You're stereotyping" and "You're biased".

By the way if you want to go through this for all the drugs I omitted when moved the focus back to marijuana, the drug that is the topic of this thread, I'll be happy to link you to the studies showing their negative effects. I would ask that you actually read the evidence though, otherwise you are just wasting my time.

 

[David Fraser]

Playing it safe is not necessarily a good way towards progression. But then again you guys seem to think progression can not come from the use of drugs, and so you demonize them.
What are your thoughts on nutmeg? Know anyone who ingests it?


I just think you guys are stuck in that tree I'm barking up, and you'll never climb down and explore the rest of the big open world in that regards. You've apparently got it figured out. I think I'll move away from this tree to the next one down the road, so to speak.

Are you saying drugs help progress? My life experience says not, but do you not think it ironic you are stereotyping in a way you claim is bad?

In this thread I don't think the mass majority of posters have demonised drugs. I won't have counselling clients under the influence, so by your logic I am demonising drug use. Btw drugs do affect performance prescription or otherwise.

 

[Bill]

Playing it safe is not necessarily a good way towards progression. But then again you guys seem to think progression can not come from the use of drugs, and so you demonize them.
What are your thoughts on nutmeg? Know anyone who ingests it?


I just think you guys are stuck in that tree I'm barking up, and you'll never climb down and explore the rest of the big open world in that regards. You've apparently got it figured out. I think I'll move away from this tree to the next one down the road, so to speak.

So people disagree with you and rather than actually producing evidence to support your views you resort to the equivalent or "I'm taking my ball and going home".

 

[Josh Heuer]

Are you saying drugs help progress? My life experience says not, but do you not think it ironic you are stereotyping in a way you claim is bad?

In this thread I don't think the mass majority of posters have demonised drugs. I won't have counselling clients under the influence, so by your logic I am demonising drug use. Btw drugs do affect performance prescription or otherwise.

All I'm saying is drugs have the potential for progress. You even admit they affect performance; the stereotype is they affect performance negatively. It can go either way, and that's all I'm trying to get out.
Saying they only affect things negatively and then pushing them away is in essence pushing away a potential for progress.

 

[Josh Heuer]

So people disagree with you and rather than actually producing evidence to support your views you resort to the equivalent or "I'm taking my ball and going home".

No, I'm saying 1) you're biased on this particular instance 2) your evidence is of the effects of marijuana, not of all drugs and alcohol as you initially claimed (moving the goalposts), 3) I intend to move away from this discussion, although sometimes it's difficult when things are still being said.

Bill, reread our posts.
Please.

You made a claim about all illegal drugs and alcohol and then backed your claim up with studies on marijuana. I pointed that out. That makes YOU focused on marijuana, not me. I'm still waiting for you to back up your original claim about all alcohol and drugs , not with more evidence about marijuana.

 

[David Fraser]

All I'm saying is drugs have the potential for progress. You even admit they affect performance; the stereotype is they affect performance negatively. It can go either way, and that's all I'm trying to get out.
Saying they only affect things negatively and then pushing them away is in essence pushing away a potential for progress.

How can they be positive and what drugs? Please be precise on your sources.

 

[Bill]

No, I'm saying 1) you're biased on this particular instance 2) your evidence is of the effects of marijuana, not of all drugs and alcohol as you initially claimed (moving the goalposts), 3) I intend to move away from this discussion, although sometimes it's difficult when things are still being said.

All you have to do is present some studies to show I'm wrong or that the science is at best undetermined. I narrowed the focus because the thread deals with marijuana and that seems to be the drug you are interested in. If anything that should have made it easier for you. That's not moving the goalpost. As for bias, in case you haven't caught on people here seem to saying that you are the one that holds a bias. You aren't interested in any science, any evidence or any opinion that doesn't reinforce your position. You just find a way to dismiss them without actually disproving anything.

 

[Josh Heuer]

How can they be positive and what drugs? Please be precise on your sources.

It's pretty well known that polymerase chain reaction was developed as the result of Kary Mullis' LSD use. That was major progression, brought about through drug use.
But that will be dismissed as hearsay, since there's no experiments to prove it.

 

[Josh Heuer]

All you have to do is present some studies to show I'm wrong or that the science is at best undetermined. I narrowed the focus because the thread deals with marijuana and that seems to be the drug you are interested in. If anything that should have made it easier for you. That's not moving the goalpost. As for bias, in case you haven't caught on people here seem to saying that you are the one that holds a bias. You aren't interested in any science, any evidence or any opinion that doesn't reinforce your position. You just find a way to dismiss them without actually disproving anything.

You're all over the place Billy.
I'll spell it out for you again:

• You made claims about people who use illegals drugs and alcohol
• You then 'proved' this point by referencing studies on marijuana, which I pointed out as moving the goalposts.
• Your defense has been a) I have been focusing on marijuana and b) it's the topic of the thread.

Maybe you should have
A) retracted your first claims about all illegal drugs and alcohol and instead said marijuana, as that's what you obviously meant, or
B) stuck with your claim about all drugs and alcohol and cited evidence supporting that instead.

You're all over the place Bill. It's giving me a headache.

 

[David Fraser]

It's pretty well known that polymerase chain reaction was developed as the result of Kary Mullis' LSD use. That was major progression, brought about through drug use.
But that will be dismissed as hearsay, since there's no experiments to prove it.

Oh I know about PCR. So you are claiming he was under the influence of LSD at the time? That is not how I understand it or how he explains it

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

The physicist John Stewart Bell said he came up with his theorem while stoned. Thing was, he wasn't at work at the time. He'd taken a break from CERN, and was lying back on a hillside in France, smoking a doobie and looking at the clouds when the theorem came to him.

There are probably many, many instances of people finding inspiration while high. As for working, I'd suggest it very much depends on your job. Musicians, for example, seem to have done quite well when high and in the studio. Great. I'd like to think that if I ever need surgery my doctors are straight. Likewise the bloke driving the train, or bus, etc.

Personally, I'm all for drugs. I have taken quantities of hallucinogens sufficient to decimate the entire breeding stock of the National Stud in Kildare, and about the worst thing that happened was I managed to hold a conversation with a fire.

 

[Josh Heuer]

The physicist John Stewart Bell said he came up with his theorem while stoned. Thing was, he wasn't at work at the time. He'd taken a break from CERN, and was lying back on a hillside in France, smoking a doobie and looking at the clouds when the theorem came to him.

There are probably many, many instances of people finding inspiration while high. As for working, I'd suggest it very much depends on your job. Musicians, for example, seem to have done quite well when high and in the studio. Great. I'd like to think that if I ever need surgery my doctors are straight. Likewise the bloke driving the train, or bus, etc.

Personally, I'm all for drugs. I have taken quantities of hallucinogens sufficient to decimate the entire breeding stock of the National Stud in Kildare, and about the worst thing that happened was I managed to hold a conversation with a fire.

This is what I'm getting at. It's very circumstantial. It depends on the job, the drug, the individual.
I spent a couple hours looking at a Rubik's cube way back in the day. I didn't get very far. I didn't learn anything about how it worked or why.
I took LSD and tried again. I solved it in 40 minutes, and the next time 20 minutes.
I can now solve it in about 20 seconds consistently, and with fewest moves, under 60 moves consistently.
I attribute this entirely to LSD; it's a great problem solving drug. Maybe not the drug to use for extreme physical labor, but again it's all circumstantial.

the division seems to be you're either sober or impaired. That's not true. You say you want a surgeon who is 'straight.' I say I want one that performs at his or her best, even if that requires some alteration of the mind.

 

[Pete Tar]

...Sure, if they're piss drunk and stumbling, that's noticeable. But there's a tough line when it comes to things like marijuana, or pills, or even things like caffeine or nutmeg. .....

Not sure why you seem to think being high on nutmeg wouldn't be noticable,

In case reports intoxications with nutmeg had effects that varied from person to person, but were often reported to be an excited and confused state with headaches, nausea and dizziness, dry mouth, bloodshot eyes and memory disturbances. Nutmeg was also reported to induce hallucinogenic effects, such as visual distortions and paranoid ideation. In the reports nutmeg intoxication took several hours before maximum effect was reached. Effects and after-effects lasted up to several days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg#Psychoactivity_and_toxicity

Content from External Source

 

[David Fraser]

This is what I'm getting at. It's very circumstantial. It depends on the job, the drug, the individual.
I spent a couple hours looking at a Rubik's cube way back in the day. I didn't get very far. I didn't learn anything about how it worked or why.
I took LSD and tried again. I solved it in 40 minutes, and the next time 20 minutes.
I can now solve it in about 20 seconds consistently, and with fewest moves, under 60 moves consistently.
I attribute this entirely to LSD; it's a great problem solving drug. Maybe not the drug to use for extreme physical labor, but again it's all circumstantial.

the division seems to be you're either sober or impaired. That's not true. You say you want a surgeon who is 'straight.' I say I want one that performs at his or her best, even if that requires some alteration of the mind.

But all evidence shows drugs like LSD impairs judgement and performance. I am still waiting on an example of a drug that enhances performance, but to tighten the net not on a philosophical level, but at the level Bill describes.

 

[Mick West]

the division seems to be you're either sober or impaired. That's not true. You say you want a surgeon who is 'straight.' I say I want one that performs at his or her best, even if that requires some alteration of the mind.

If you were given a choice, and this is all the information you are given, then would you prefer a surgeon who was:

A) On LSD
B) Not on LSD?

 

[Josh Heuer]

Not sure why you seem to think being high on nutmeg wouldn't be noticable,

In case reports intoxications with nutmeg had effects that varied from person to person, but were often reported to be an excited and confused state with headaches, nausea and dizziness, dry mouth, bloodshot eyes and memory disturbances. Nutmeg was also reported to induce hallucinogenic effects, such as visual distortions and paranoid ideation. In the reports nutmeg intoxication took several hours before maximum effect was reached. Effects and after-effects lasted up to several days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg#Psychoactivity_and_toxicity

Content from External Source

I'm hard pressed to believe that article. I've taken plenty of nutmeg. At a regular dosage it gives a very pleasant feeling. I had a very customer oriented job at one point and I was having very bad anxiety when dealing with people, so I began taking nutmeg, usually 2-3 nuts a day, maybe twice a week. I felt very positive, and had a much easier time dealing with people. It definitely improved my work situation.

 

[Josh Heuer]

If you were given a choice, and this is all the information you are given, then would you prefer a surgeon who was:

A) On LSD
B) Not on LSD?

Do you come into this choice a lot? Is this a part of real life?

 

[Mick West]

Do you come into this choice a lot? Is this a part of real life?

It's the choice an employer has to make when setting drug policy.

So let's say you run a hospital. Would you say "just do whatever feels right" to your surgeons? Where would the line be?

 

[Bill]

You're all over the place Billy.
I'll spell it out for you again:

• You made claims about people who use illegals drugs and alcohol
• You then 'proved' this point by referencing studies on marijuana, which I pointed out as moving the goalposts.
• Your defense has been a) I have been focusing on marijuana and b) it's the topic of the thread.

Maybe you should have
A) retracted your first claims about all illegal drugs and alcohol and instead said marijuana, as that's what you obviously meant, or
B) stuck with your claim about all drugs and alcohol and cited evidence supporting that instead.

You're all over the place Bill. It's giving me a headache.

My initial claim was in response to the statement:

LOL, I actually don't like to get high, I use CBD Tintcure which has no euphoric value, no high just healing. two puffs of the flower before I go on my daily walk for exercise, I would hardly call "getting high", things are changing, the stigma of the unproductive pothead is heading on it's way out, very functional cannabis users are taking up seats next to you at your job.

And I focused on the idea of functioning users with the comment.

There are functioning users of many drugs, including but not limited to functioning alcoholics and recreational users of morphine, heroin and cocaine. A few exceptions does not negate the stereotypes or remove the stigma. If you want to get high at home that's your business, if you work for me and you come in high I'll fire you, just like I would if you came in drunk.

The closest I came to using the phrase "all illegal drugs" is the statement:

No. I run a business. An employee operating under the influence of a mood/mind altering substance puts my company at risk in a number of ways...None of the currently illegal drugs or alcohol have been shown to improve performance only to distract from it in various ways.

So I'll be happy to retract that statement for clarity purposes and say "none of the illegal drugs previously mentioned have been shown to improve performance only to distract from it in various ways."
I stand by my focus on marijuana in the original search because that is the topic of the thread and you have been focused on pot smokers.

...Because of some stereotype you have embedded in your mind about pot smokers?...The majority of pot smokers I know are very productive, social beings, so I don't buy into that stereotype.

...Are you saying someone cannot eat a pot brownie before work and come in and genuinely do a good job?

It seemed to be the drug you are concerned with.

If you'd like I' be happy to go through the different drugs with you. I would ask that you actually read the studies though so I know I'm not just wasting my time. We will need to start another thread because the research is extensive.

 

[David Fraser]

Do you come into this choice a lot? Is this a part of real life?

For some it in, but you are claiming it should not be a choice

 

[Josh Heuer]

It's the choice an employer has to make when setting drug policy.

So let's say you run a hospital. Would you say "just do whatever feels right" to your surgeons? Where would the line be?

No, not do what feels right. Do what works best for you to perform your best.
I'm sure a majority of the surgeons would choose total sobriety, because that is what makes them perform best. Some might need to pop a Xanax or something to get stress free. Some might drink 2 liters of Mountain Dew and a monster energy drink to get them going.
Some might need to step outside every so often and smoke a cigarette.
If it's a problem, then yes, deal with it. If someone does perform up to par, I'm not too worried about what they do. After all, by hiring them in, I'm telling them I put my trust in their ability to perform at their best.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I stand by my focus on marijuana in the original search because that is the topic of the thread and you have been focused on pot smokers.

I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension...
I'll say it again, YOU brought pot smokers into this when you tried to justify your claim about illegal drugs and alcohol by pointing towards studies on marijuana users. As I mentioned already, if you make a sweeping claim about illegal drugs and alcohol, back it up with evidence to THAT, not just studies on marijuana. Quit saying I'm focusing on marijuana. In fact, I'm trying to get away from marijuana, and move back to your claims about illegal drugs and alcohol. You keep pushing the opposite direction. Welcome to my ignore list.

It seemed to be the drug you are concerned with.

. No, YOU are. You even justify it by saying you brought it up because it's the topic if discussion. I should probably get a warning actually for NOT bringing up marijuana. I was talking about your claim on illegal drugs and alcohol. I'm sick of typing that.

If you'd like I' be happy to go through the different drugs with you. I would ask that you actually read the studies though so I know I'm not just wasting my time. We will need to start another thread because the research is extensive.

That's great, let's make sure you hit them all.

 

[Pete Tar]

I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension...
....

Um, really ditto. It's so clear, simple and reasonable. If you can't follow the context in which it was written, then something is missing.

 

[Pete Tar]

It is a moral obligation to adjust your behaviour to give appropriate consideration to the concerns of those in the environment you are in.
Being in someone's place of work where there is a concern and perception that drugs will effect performance, then you are morally obliged to not transgress on that concern.
(and yes that perception is based on evidence. That there may be exceptions to it does not negate it.)

Your own knowledge of how drugs affect you is not the issue - morally, if someone thinks you will be adversely affected, then you should be sensitive to their concern. You can 'cheat' and get away with it and not have any problems, but that is still unethical.

 

[Bill]

I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension...
I'll say it again, YOU brought pot smokers into this when you tried to justify your claim about illegal drugs and alcohol by pointing towards studies on marijuana users. As I mentioned already, if you make a sweeping claim about illegal drugs and alcohol, back it up with evidence to THAT, not just studies on marijuana. Quit saying I'm focusing on marijuana. In fact, I'm trying to get away from marijuana, and move back to your claims about illegal drugs and alcohol. You keep pushing the opposite direction. Welcome to my ignore list.

. No, YOU are. You even justify it by saying you brought it up because it's the topic if discussion. I should probably get a warning actually for NOT bringing up marijuana. I was talking about your claim on illegal drugs and alcohol. I'm sick of typing that.


That's great, let's make sure you hit them all.

You seem to have a very selective ability to read. Smokers were already a part of the conversation unless you just want to conveniently omit the previous post. You have seized on one thing as proof of that I'm being disingenuous or have attempted to move the goal post and tried to skew it as proof against my argument rather than showing that any of the evidence I have presented is wrong or that any of the rationales I presented for business concerns were invalid. I am not justifying anything. I've explained what I did and why I did it. Do you really want an article by article drug by drug list of the detrimental effects of drugs. Face it. Your stance does not have any support on these pages and you are just making yourself look like someone who is desperate to defend their views on drugs despite the overwhelming evidence you are wrong. Since you immediately chose pot brownies as your example in that paragraph you don't have much of an argument about the focus and data I selected.
Rather than just saying no it's not or you moved the goal post why don't you present some actual data to support your position.

 

[Bill]

I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension...
I'll say it again, YOU brought pot smokers into this when you tried to justify your claim about illegal drugs and alcohol by pointing towards studies on marijuana users. As I mentioned already, if you make a sweeping claim about illegal drugs and alcohol, back it up with evidence to THAT, not just studies on marijuana. Quit saying I'm focusing on marijuana. In fact, I'm trying to get away from marijuana, and move back to your claims about illegal drugs and alcohol. You keep pushing the opposite direction. Welcome to my ignore list.

. No, YOU are. You even justify it by saying you brought it up because it's the topic if discussion. I should probably get a warning actually for NOT bringing up marijuana. I was talking about your claim on illegal drugs and alcohol. I'm sick of typing that.


That's great, let's make sure you hit them all.

Here you go since you think it is somehow relative. I'm sure I probably left some drugs out. I'll leave it to you to show which ones are performance enhancing.
Search terms: Performance Effects, Drug name.
Search range: 1970 - 2013

LSD:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00059.x/abstract;jsessionid=33AD53438914E43A552D264221B5DC55.f01t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
The Pharmacology of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: A Review

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00402765
Alterations in the behavioral effects of LSD by pretreatment with p-chlorophenylalanine and α-methyl-p-tyrosine

http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/92/2/285.short
Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide upon Performance of Trained Rats

Cocaine:
http://www.neurology.org/content/54/12/2285.short
Differential effects of cocaine and cocaine alcohol on neurocognitive performance

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627300803748
Acute Effects of Cocaine on Human Brain Activity and Emotion

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jeab.1979.31-127/abstract
EFFECTS OF COCAINE AND d-AMPHETAMINE ON THE REPEATED ACQUISITION AND PERFORMANCE OF CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATIONS

Opiates (including morphine, codeine and heroine):
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/7579.full
Opiates inhibit neurogenesis in the adult rat hippocampus

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871603002643
Impaired performance in a test of decision-making by opiate-dependent tobacco smokers

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938483901701
Opiate antagonists overcome the learned helplessness effect but impair competent escape performance

Ketamine and PCP (both NMDA receptor antagonist):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0893133X95001373
NMDA receptor function and human cognition: The effects of ketamine in healthy volunteers

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Cognitive, dissociative and psychotogenic effects of ketamine in recreational users on the night of
drug use and 3 days later

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=496531
Subanesthetic Effects of the Noncompetitive NMDA Antagonist, Ketamine, in HumansPsychotomimetic, Perceptual, Cognitive, and Neuroendocrine Responses

MDMA:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-003-1714-5
Effects of MDMA (ecstasy), and multiple drugs use on (simulated) driving performance and traffic safety

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/6/719.short
Impaired cognitive performance in drug free users of recreational ecstasy (MDMA)

http://jop.sagepub.com/content/17/4/379.short
Dissociable Effects of a Single Dose of Ecstasy (MDMA) on Psychomotor Skills and Attentional Performance

 

[Pete Tar]

What about stimulants?
There are a whole class of drugs called 'performance enhancing' that are tested for in sports, so clearly they exist.

But we're talking recreational usage to get high, and that is rarely going to lead to enhanced performance long-term.

I do wonder though if any concert violinists or pianists were regular users when they were performing?
Drugs that enhance concentration or sensual feedback might be useful in that arena.
Still, that is moving it to an arena that is not what is commonly referred to by 'work'.