It’s not often one gets to read a more hyperbolic opinion article.
Thank you. It was a pleasant amusement.
And no, I am not going to attack the article point by point.
But I will say this: Pot damages kids. To what extent is debatable. I do know that everyone I grew up with used it regularly. Some did well, others not well at all. The role pot played in those outcomes is unknown.
But if an adult chooses to use it, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. Just like beer, tobacco, wine and whiskey. And sugar.
My 1st thought was that you must have lived in an "interesting" (but perhaps not unusual) environment. My 2nd thought is that then you have no basis for judgment.
My own background was of a somewhat, uh, wider experience. Granted that my parents expected a lot of me, academically and more, and I mostly hung out with kids from similar families. Basically, tho', there were 4 groups, loosely(!) defined. In high school, the smallest group avoided drugs of any kind entirely. Some drank socially, lightly, or in family situations: Say, a half glass of wine on Great-grandpa's birthday. Most of these kids (and myself) were regular members of a church youth group. Not all this group was academically gifted, but most all of them worked hard at their studies and maximized what they had. The next group was much larger, and judging by the feedback, drank more (and maybe a few times a year to severe excess), and many smoked pot now and then, but not regularly. Few messed with harder drugs, and if they did, it was usually only once. Many athletes were in this group, and so were some of the "irregular" church youth group types. This group showed some variance, IMO, but most were not harmed too much academically by their alcohol and / or pot usage, other than an occasional test or paper blown. ("Man, I should 'a studied all weekend!!!") The next group fits the description you describe (and some drank quite often, too.) Now, don't get me wrong, some could "handle it" fairly well, or were just plain extra-intelligent to begin with, but, as a group, my observation was that these kids generally did not fulfill their potential as well as the 1st 2 groups. Last there were the heavy dopers and drinkers, and except for a few musicians and such, you could generally just write them off, until perhaps later when maybe they'd straighten out...
In college, the intensity of my studies (engineering, and the fact I'm NOT a freaking genius), and working summers, precluded much social activity on my part at all. I had to work damn hard to maintain my academic partial scholarship and make enough money to cover what the scholarship did not. I even had to give up most of my church related activities. Most of the "kids" I studied with were similar. Again, a few of the really smart ones had a little more room for error, but, kids of my ability stayed mostly straight or didn't do well. A beer and pizza on a rare Friday night out with a couple buddies was about it. By the time I was a junior in college, groups 3 & 4 were pretty much "gone": dropped out, changed majors to something easier, or flunked out.
I knew a few kids in the Medical School, and in "heavy" cross-disciplines (Bio-engineering, for example), and while my "sample" size there was much more limited, the observation seemed much the same.
After college was if anything even tougher: Starting my own business with nothing but a little knowledge, the problem solving skills I learned in engineering school, and energy / enthusiasm left little time for fooling around. Eventually that eased up a bit, and through business I was in contact with a lot more people again, and with time, I was socializing with perhaps the widest spectrum of my life. In the last 20 years or so, mostly due to my wife & family, I'm closer to church and regular churchgoers, again. And of the better engineers, in my entire life after 30, not ONE has mentioned smoking pot, offered me such in a social setting, or to my knowledge was a regular user past high school.
I'm sure my "experience" has flaws and gaps, but I'm a fairly good "observer", so I'm fairly confident about how the trends run.
Looking back over the years, I'd have to say that there are some exceptions for sure, but in general, the more one partakes of mind altering substances, beyond very light social use, the more likely one is to not reach their intellectual potential. Some artists and musicians excluded, perhaps.
if an adult chooses to use it, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. Just like beer, tobacco, wine and whiskey. And sugar.
The Libertarian side of me agrees, IF those who use these things are 100% responsible for ALL the consequences. If they can't pay for said consequences (should that come into play), then they will be well armed, tatoo'd on the forehead something to the effect "I hate Allah", and airdropped into the latest / most radical Muslim terrorist camps.
REALISTICALLY, that sort of liberty and responsibility cannot be obtained, and we are left with the problem that society (including you and me) are who pay, in a variety of ways, for the poor decisions of others. If I'm paying for the consequences, do I get a say in regulation of harmful substances?
Alternately, perhaps the TOTAL cost, including lost productivity in all forms, of, say, alcohol consumption in this country, should be calculated, and that product taxed accordingly. That'd be quite a slippery slope.