
Pothead Ph.D. - This is most definitely not a cautionary tale - robg
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/07/2008070201c.htm
======
jrockway
The comments here are interesting. I think some people get upset as soon as
they hear the name of an illegal drug, and instantly get ultra-defensive.
You'd think people that claim to be among the most intelligent wouldn't
immediately make such an emotional judgment. After all, when is the government
ever right about anything? What they consider legal or illegal should not
affect your judgment; 50 years ago it was essentially illegal to be black.

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

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

~~~
josefresco
Thank you for this comment BTW, refreshing to see someone with such an open
mind.

------
josefresco
Wow, an entire article about the benefits of pot and working and no mention
from this "Ph.D" about the difference between Indica and Sativa marijuana.

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

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

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

~~~
jey
This seems to be accurate, but I've never been able to find any scientific
explanation for the difference in effect. I've heard it attributed to the
different ratios of THC to CBD, but I can't find any articles/papers to
confirm this.

~~~
rms
There are also a number of analogs of THC present such as THC-V which is 500
times stronger than THC.

[http://designer-
drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/t...](http://designer-
drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/thc/index.html)

~~~
rms
and for anyone with a chemistry background reading the above, be warned that
ordering olivetol is a quick way to get a DEA agent to show up at your door

~~~
aswanson
Damn it, I want my Kratom.

~~~
rms
the 7-hydroxymitragynine precursors are ok but I don't have the capital to set
up an industrial synthesis... for any intrigued chemical engineers there is a
lot of money to be made here.

~~~
LPTS
Here is the thing. For anyone who's good enough at setting up chemistry
equipment to be good enough for you, why wouldn't they rather make a few
batches of MDMA or LSD instead. Shit, Shulgin has 3 whole books, which, in
addition to being keys from an extraterrestrial into the ways our brain works
and we experience ourselves, are also recipes for unique psychedelics.

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

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

------
petercooper
Before anyone starts taking this guy seriously, consider the impact that drug
use could have on your life in terms of the social effects rather than the
drug itself.

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

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

~~~
neilk
Let's see what the risks are. I'm going to guess most readers here are from
the USA, and besides, it has some of the harshest laws in the developed world
about marijuana.

According to:

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
petercooper
My point is not necessarily the risk of incarceration or the inconvenience of
being arrested, but in being able to accept any risk (and clearly there is
one, even if it's small) of what problems it might cause in your life if you
were to be arrested or have even a minor offense on your file (and considering
how deep those files go and how easily they are shared nowadays, that could be
a big issue).

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

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

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

~~~
menloparkbum
This is something to consider. It is relatively easy to avoid being busted if
you're in a relaxed place like the Bay Area. However it is easier to get
busted in other places. Unfortunately, if you're poor or not white, you're
also more at risk for being busted. Two of my friends are barred entry to
Canada because of previous possession charges, and Canada has some of the most
relaxed pot laws in the world. Also, if you have a pot bust on your record, it
is hard(er) to get your passport renewed. If you want to become a heavy pot
smoker, it is a good idea to be white and rich enough to afford a good lawyer.
Whatever you do, if you're black, you or your friends smoke pot, and you
travel to Dubai, make sure you clean off your shoes.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-
jailed...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-
Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html)

~~~
LPTS
No one should ever travel to Dubai for any reason. You do not have any
recourse if they decide to fuck you.

------
dejb
OK if we are talking about anecdotal evidence then how about a colleague of
mine who smoked pot every day while doing his PHD. He spent several years
doing very little work and then ended up having a major psychotic episode.
Without people to support you this sort of thing could entirely derail your
life. Fortunately he managed to complete the PHD only after getting off the
pot.

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

~~~
0x44
I've never used an illegal drug, but the plural of anecdote is not data.

~~~
aswanson
It may not be information, but it is most certainly data.

------
patrickg-zill
If the roughest thing in life you ever encounter are the "rigors" of a PHD
program in a non-scientific field like whatever CritLit field this guy is in,
then you are truly living a blessed life.

------
dgabriel
For me, it just makes me paranoid, sleepy, or sick, which are three good
reasons to avoid it. I pass no judgment on others, though. It's clearly a
substance that should be legal, whereas tobacco should be banned.

~~~
dejb
I was just about to vote you up then I saw the tobacco should be banned. As an
ex-smoker (tobacco) I am against any smoking happening near me but banning it
is not the answer.

~~~
dgabriel
The funny thing is that I'm a smoker on my third attempt to quit. Tobacco is
insidious and deadly, and if it were impossible to buy, many thousands of
lives would be extended, and health care costs would be significantly reduced.
I don't necessarily believe _any_ substance should be banned by the
government, but comparatively, weed does far less damage.

------
DanielBMarkham
This was really funny.

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

What were we talking about again?

------
tyn
Marijuana actually impairs memory and learning
<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10607>

~~~
josefresco
All Marijuana studies actually funded in the US (they are rare and typically
have 1 result) should be cautiously taken into account with the knowledge that
our administration does whatever it can to spread FUD to the public about the
drug. Follow the money trail ...

~~~
astine
That's an ad hominem argument write large. You can't dismiss a study just
because it was funded by someone you disagree with. You have to take it on its
own terms. If the study is flawed, show the flaws, if not, it shouldn't matter
who funded it.

~~~
josefresco
Funding, like all procedures and data used in the study is very relevant. In a
perfect world it wouldn't, but sadly who is paying the bills often dictates
the results of these studies. In that perfect world, there would also be
scores of scientists who are paid to analyze studies like this to
prove/disapprove the conclusion, but again our imperfect system means funding
for intelligent study of Marijuana is severely lacking.

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

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

~~~
astine
If the data is there, show it. I'm open. I think that the 'drug war' is a
total waste of time and money, and that having one fewer red-herring for the
police to chase around can only be a good thing.

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

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

------
edu

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

No comment.

------
pavelludiq
when i was 15 or 16 i used to smoke a lot of pot. I got bored and started some
more interesting hobbies, like parkour and football(real football, not that
American parody of a sport). Anyway, if you are realy bored, go ahead and
smoke, but if you are still bored, thats because you are a boring person, i
realised im boring and started to unbore myself. Now im satisfied with my self
and i don't realy need weed. If somebody offers me to go smoke i might agree,
if i have nothing better to do at the moment, but for me it is esentialy the
teenage anti=boredom drug. Because most teenagers are really bored a lot of
them smoke.

------
youngnh
before clicking through, I thought this was a joke judging from the url.

------
Alex3917
"For that matter, it ain't alcohol, which is far worse for one's body and
mind."

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

~~~
josefresco
What about for alcoholics? If refraining from something completely is bad,
should we all experience LSD/Cocaine/Heroine infrequently?

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

~~~
Alex3917
"I would think the real damage of teetotalism would be the stress involved in
constantly thinking about and addressing it."

Then you would be wrong:
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EED9143FF...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EED9143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63)

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
This article shows benefits from moderate drinking for individuals at high
risk of heart disease, not the population at large:

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

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

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

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

------
st3fan
Personally I think _smoking is disgusting_ and _smoking pot is dumb_. Thinking
that smoking pot is good for you is even dumber.

Health Issues of Marijuana -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues>

~~~
palish
Chewing tobacco is also disgusting and possibly dumb (because it causes mouth
cancer), but it is not illegal. Pot is though. That's my problem with the
anti-drug tirade: Nicotine is a drug and is not illegal, but THC is also a
drug and is illegal.

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

~~~
astine
Tobacco is a local industry. Marijuana is not.

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

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

~~~
evgen
> Tobacco is a local industry. Marijuana is not.

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

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

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

~~~
pmorici
"when you see period documents that talk about "hemp""

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

~~~
evgen
While that theory has some support, I would also suggest that you not discount
the synergistic effect of the popular association between marijuana and that
"scary" jazz/beatnik scene which probably seemed quite threatening to the
dominant culture of the time.

------
edw519
Oh you poor baby!

You have trouble reading and writing and 'rithmetic, so you need a little
chemical help. You pussy.

Get out of cocoon, er I mean school, get a real job, get married. have a
couple of kids, get a mortgage and a couple of car payments, raise those kids
without worrying too much about the evils around them, visit Mom in her
nursing home, do things for others in need, and, if you have time, have a nice
life too. But don't drop a single egg while you're juggling. And don't you
dare miss a day of work, no matter how mind numbingly boring or lame it is, or
how sleepy or depressed you feel.

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

~~~
LPTS
Your life sounds like it sucks because you did not use the consciousness
altering properties of drugs to decide how to meet life on it's own terms and
do your work here on earth. Doing drugs while you are young is a great way to
avoid becoming this bitter later in life.

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

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

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

~~~
edw519
You figured all that out about me from a single post? Amazing.

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

