[Beyonder]

Originally Posted by Smaerd

Sweet, I never considered not being high a problem. If you do, you've probably lost your interaction with the sober world, if not yet you will.

Hm? You talking to me? I've been smoking three grams straight, every day, for the past 9 years. I'm still waiting. Oh, did I mention that I only smoke bongs? Continuously throughout the day? Like I said, still waiting.

Might wanna read into the smoking causing depression threads. Or does your depression cause you smoking? Trust me I've been there, and it's a long climb down(with any substance). Which is abuse by the way see my definition above...

Yeah. You, on the other hand, might want to read/listen up on neurology and psychology...

Anyway, some food for thought:

Point 1: CG Jung put it quitte nicely when he said that "there are no destructive situations, only destructive experiences".
Point 2: If all the so-called psychological effects of marijuana are really not attributable to marijuana, and if the physical effects that are attributable to it are so unimpressive, what, then, is marijuana? To my mind, the best term for marijuana is active placebo - that is, a substance whose apparent effects on the mind are actually placebo effects in response to minimal physiological action. Pharmacologists sometimes use active placebos (in contrast to inactive placebos like sugar pills) in drug testing; for example, nicotinic acid, which causes warmth and flushing, has been compared with hallucinogens in some laboratory experiments. But pharmacologists do not understand that all psychoactive drugs are really active placebos since the psychic effects arise from consciousness, elicited by set and setting, in response to physiological cues.
What No One Wants to Know About Marijuana by Dr. Andrew Weil (the bearded dude in your vid)
Erowid Cannabis Vaults : What No One Wants to Know About Marijuana, by Dr. Andrew Weil

Dr. Weil called weed an "active placebo", and keeping Jungs observation I mentioned in point 1 in mind, then it's easy to see how an active placebo could create a "destructive experience" (in this case, depression), because this would depend on the response or overreaction of the user. (BTW, if you want to get into the argument of free will in relation to neurology that's ok too, since I listened to 32 lectures by Robert Sapolsky... We should do that somewhere else though)

Besides, from a phenomenological perspective, depression is nothing more than an inability to control ones thoughts... An incompetence in philosophy. Depression is caused by narrowmindedly looking at a problem, in a negative way. Instead of looking at negative experiences in a positive or equipollent way already, or looking at the problem in a novel way, the subject chooses to pin him- or herself down on a single, negative viewpoint. This shows a gross incompetence in using ones mind and free will, since it's choice which defines both. And choice isn't about looking for a single hole to stick your head in, but having an overview of those.
It all fits in our victim society... "I suffer from this or that" instead of "I burried my own hole and now I have to suffer the consequences"... This naturally doesn't hold for everything, but a lot of modern "mental" problems aren't actually caused by structural deficits but by the person himself.

Next to that, statistical evidence does suffer from the problems of induction and deduction, even though people who employ such kinds of evidence try to worm their way out of them by saying that it's based on "averages" when confronted with a falsifying case. In laymans terms, statistical evidence is misleading since it by no means represents each and every unique case, even though it claims evidence in cases where it's true, and states that cases where it's false are because it represents "an average" (whatever that means). This shows that such evidence is mere sophistry at best since it's completely unscientifical according to Karl Popper, the guy who practically created the demarcationproblem in the philosophy of science.

Well have fun asking other people something that doesn't matter, when I gave you overall simple knowledge you can chose to deny for whatever emotional reason you want...

Nah, I'm cool.

Some scientists say you should only use mj once a week, and evidence:
.

Funny that you choose to quote the McKenna part, of all the people who spoke in that vid. He did mention that cannabis should be smoked once a week. But what they failed to mention is that McKenna was an advocate of heroic doses...

Though everything is circumstantial right? right? everyone is different right? wait... Let's just ask more people the same thing until someone is stuck at the same level as me? right? Hope you feel justified.

Is that sarcasm? Take it away. It bites.
Seriously though, are you trying to get a rise out of me?