• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Drug usage among musicians

...Please don't cite wiki and then use that as fact... anyone can write whatever they want on a webpage, yes wiki too! If you get enough gullible people to believe something all of a sudden it becomes true I guess right? I've heard just as much government cover up, infiltration and conspiracies from pro Marijuana People, about drugs as I have the alien crowd, about "Roswell"...
+1 about Wikipedia. Wiki-anything is NOT a credible source of information. I've read wiki articles before that were full of total B.S. but they were on wikipedia so idiots all over the country were quoting from it. If you REALLY want to know anything about drugs and their effects on health, etc. look at some reputable journals. These are usually peer reviewed. For those who didn't pay any attention in school and have no idea what that is, a peer reviewed journal is one that has been reviewed by other experts in the field. For example a peer reviewed article about a dental procedure would have to be reviewed by a panel of dentists before it could be published in a peer reviewed journal. That way several experts can make sure the information was researched and tested, etc. before it was written about. Those are the most reputable sources. New England Journal of Medicine is an example of a peer reviewed work.

The other thing is...anyone who has spent any time at all in the military can tell you that conspiracy theories are largely just stupid--for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the goverment is simply NOT organized enough to pull off most of the stuff they're accused of. The bigger the conspiracy; the bigger the pile of B.S. Some of these stupid theories reach a level that would require THOUSANDS if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of participants! There just aren'that may people out there trying to hurt you who are even organized enough to do it. The other thing is, most of these stupid theories revolve around things that the federal gov't and the people in it don't care about or wouldn't want to participate in. For example, the insane notion that the 9/11 attacks were done by our own military. That's just absolutely some stupid s**t. You couldn't even find any military pilots that would be willing to do something like that American citizens much less the Pentagon itself. NO way! You get the name of ONE current military pilot who would do that and I'll start to listen...just ONE name. Here's the craziest part about alot of it. Many of people who are crying conspiracy are the same group who voted for a president who openly said that he was going to fundamentally change our form of government. A president who has well known ties to communist, socialst dictators, and racists groups. A president who has aligned himself with groups and people who represent oppresive systems that promote totalitarian control over people and remove freedom. Many of our conspiracy theorists voted for a president like that...so I'd say the conspiracy theorists are their own worst enemies. While being busy looking for conspiracies, they ignored the roaring lion that just walked in the room.
 
in what ways? I hear this often, and the most anyone can tell me is that inhaling smoke of any sort is not good for you, which in reality isnt all that good for you, but I can't say its at a level I would deem 'hazardous'.
What authority or expertise are you basing your assessment on? What I mean is, if you are going to deem things (i.e. smoke) as hazardous or non-hazardous are you basing this on any scientific or medical research or is it just your opinion?

To be honest, I haven't done much research on marijuana and the benefits vs risks of it. I don't smoke it so I never bothered to research it. If you have, I'd really like to know what you found out (and what your sources are).
 
What authority or expertise are you basing your assessment on? What I mean is, if you are going to deem things (i.e. smoke) as hazardous or non-hazardous are you basing this on any scientific or medical research or is it just your opinion?

To be honest, I haven't done much research on marijuana and the benefits vs risks of it. I don't smoke it so I never bothered to research it. If you have, I'd really like to know what you found out (and what your sources are).

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been
accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very
ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would
be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand
between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of
the evidence in this record.

The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator
conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no
lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that
it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge
recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to
Schedule II.

Dated: SEP 6 1988

Francis L. Young
Administrative Law Judge

'DEA Docket 86-22'

Let's have a moment of silence for those that died in prison, or worse, from marijuana use.
 
Getting "high" is relative to where you are at.
Would you work side by side with another Lineman on a 12,000 volt power line after he smoked a doobie? Would you fly in a commercial plane with the pilot "high"? No.
Our Guitar player smokes a little now and then during practice and it really has an impact on his playing to the negative side.
He forgets, noodles with tuning too much, etc.
I don't care much for behavior modification drugs.
I can't say much because I like beer.
Getting "high" is not cool.