Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/o...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

For Michele Leonhart, the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, there is no difference between the health effects of marijuana and those of any other illegal drug. “All illegal drugs are bad for people,” she told Congress in 2012, refusing to say whether crack, methamphetamines or prescription painkillers are more addictive or physically harmful than marijuana.

Her testimony neatly illustrates the vast gap between antiquated federal law enforcement policies and the clear consensus of science that marijuana is far less harmful to human health than most other banned drugs and is less dangerous than the highly addictive but perfectly legal substances known as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana cannot lead to a fatal overdose. There is little evidence that it causes cancer. Its addictive properties, while present, are low, and the myth that it leads users to more powerful drugs has long since been disproved.

That doesn’t mean marijuana is harmless; in fact, the potency of current strains may shock those who haven’t tried it for decades, particularly when ingested as food. It can produce a serious dependency, and constant use would interfere with job and school performance. It needs to be kept out of the hands of minors. But, on balance, its downsides are not reasons to impose criminal penalties on its possession, particularly not in a society that permits nicotine use and celebrates drinking.

As with other recreational substances, marijuana’s health effects depend on the frequency of use, the potency and amount of marijuana consumed, and the age of the consumer. Casual use by adults poses little or no risk for healthy people. Its effects are mostly euphoric and mild, whereas alcohol turns some drinkers into barroom brawlers, domestic abusers or maniacs behind the wheel.

An independent scientific committee in Britain compared 20 drugs in 2010 for the harms they caused to individual users and to society as a whole through crime, family breakdown, absenteeism, and other social ills. Adding up all the damage, the panel estimated that alcohol was the most harmful drug, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana ranked eighth, having slightly more than one-fourth the harm of alcohol.

Why does pubic policy continue to ignore empirical evidence?

Full article at the link, it's part a series on Marijuana the Times is running. The series has been really well done.

 

[May16]

Why does pubic policy continue to ignore empirical evidence?

People don't like to admit that something they've believed for a long time isn't true.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/o...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0





Why does pubic policy continue to ignore empirical evidence?

Full article at the link, it's part a series on Marijuana the Times is running. The series has been really well done.

Because they don't know it? Most people aren't smokers and don't look it up until they read stuff like this. All they get is DARE and PSAs.

The policymakers are at fault.

But on the topic of health effects.

The only thing I fear of it becoming legalized is that the fact that a lot of its effects are subjective and can freak people out. Not that its dangerous I just think people should be reminded Its not like getting drunk. Like a warning label or something.

 

[entremet]

Because they don't know it? Most people aren't smokers and don't look it up until they read stuff like this. All they get is DARE and PSAs.

The policymakers are at fault.

But on the topic of health effects.

The only thing I fear of it becoming legalized is that the fact that a lot of its effects are subjective and can freak people out. Not that its dangerous I just think people should be reminded Its not like getting drunk. Like a warning label or something.

I didn't know know that edibles could be potentially be more harmful. I've only tried MJ a few times from a joint, not my thing at all, but it's criminalization is seriously dumb.

 

[Abounder]

Hopefully once more politicians see the money from Denver's marijuana sales they'll follow in their footsteps

My only problem with legalizing marijuana is that it smells terrible

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw

People don't like to admit that something they've believed for a long time isn't true.

I don't think this is quite true because the public is shifting. Even older folk (the times).

 

[OldRoutes]

But on the topic of health effects.

The only thing I fear of it becoming legalized is that the fact that a lot of its effects are subjective and can freak people out. Not that its dangerous I just think people should be reminded Its not like getting drunk. Like a warning label or something.

I would agree with this, the same way you put a description label of the effect of some prescription drugs.

People shouldn't make decision or drive under the influence of anything. But you can't regulate that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I didn't know know that edibles could be potentially be more harmful. I've only tried MJ a few times from a joint, not my thing at all, but it's criminalization is seriously dumb.

Its not really more 'harmful' but the effects can mess you up. Psychoactive drugs can do a lot of things to different people and thinks like the setting and mood of the person can matter.

Alcohol is similar but there is such a culture in place on how to drink, how to react, what to expect.

Weed culture has a lot of that but it's not know by peope outside of that. And some people will wonder in and do something stupid (go read the times columnist who ate an edible and flipped out into a panic attack). People are gonna so that and a few more forceful education on that would reduce peoples fears and make sure bad trips aren't common.

 

[AdventureMike]

Why does pubic policy continue to ignore empirical evidence?

You have to police those crotch hairs before they get out of control!


In seriousness to the OP: I ask myself this same thing almost every day. Some people just want to ignore facts.

 

[evilromero]

Why is there no talk about lung cancer resulting from smoking weed?

Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked.

Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana.

Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue.

Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
It's a pretty logical conclusion that you're inhaling this smoke directly into your lungs, which is no different than smoking tobacco. So again, the most obvious health issue seems to be glossed over. Is it just inconvenient for pro-marijuana supporters?

Also, I don't care what drugs you do as long as I don't have to pay for your health care, I don't have to inhale your second hand smoke and you're not putting other lives as risk (driving a car, etc).

 

[OldRoutes]

Why is there no talk about lung cancer resulting from smoking weed?


http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
It's a pretty logical conclusion that you're inhaling this smoke directly into your lungs, which is no different than smoking tobacco. So again, the most obvious health issue seems to be glossed over. Is it just inconvenient for pro-marijuana supporters?

Also, I don't care what drugs you do as long as I don't have to pay for your health care, I don't have to inhale your second hand smoke and you're not putting other lives as risk (driving a car, etc).

Marijuana is a plant ; you don't have to smoke it to get the effects of it. You can eat it, heat it or even transform it into oil.

 

[ponpo]

An independent scientific committee in Britain compared 20 drugs in 2010 for the harms they caused to individual users and to society as a whole through crime, family breakdown, absenteeism, and other social ills. Adding up all the damage, the panel estimated that alcohol was the most harmful drug, followed by heroin and crack cocaine.

Eh, this is just because alcohol is the most prevalent, right? There's no way if they were on equal terms than alcohol would be more harmful than crack cocaine.

 

[evilromero]

Marijuana is a plant ; you don't have to smoke it to get the effects of it. You can eat it, heat it or even transform it into oil.

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

 

[NegroNinja]

I'm glad that this article pointed out the addictive properties of marijuana. A lot of people don't like to admit it's addictive, but it definitely is although it's more of a mental addiction. I just wish we could get rid of this stupid ass drug testing for marijuana.

 

[Malvolio]

Why does pubic policy continue to ignore empirical evidence?

Follow the money.

 

[Wray]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

You're missing the point. What you described isn't a health risk of smoking weed. Its a health risk from....smoking.

 

[KrellRell]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

There are major differences between the two. Frequency of use, amount smoked, and additives to the product. Smoking anything is harmful, but the way weed is smoked makes it far less harmful compared to tobacco.

Plus, the boom in vaporization really helps address the health issues.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Eh, this is just because alcohol is the most prevalent, right? There's no way if they were on equal terms than alcohol would be more harmful than crack cocaine.

Its a compound of everything, but in a sense yeah. Heroin isn't used by fathers or mothers who provide for their family. Alcoholism can wreck families and kids by destroying their parent. Stuff like that is what they mean by 'more harm'

 

[OldRoutes]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

Well I'd go on a limb with the anecdotal evidence that if it wasn't for nicotine, people wouldn't be smoking 1 pack a day. You probably won't see the majority of Marijuana smokers smoke more than 1 or 2 joints a day, therefore it greatly reduces the risk of health related issue.

Then to your other point ; most of the marijuana user agree that inhaling vapors is better for your health, as well as gives you more effect.

 

[Kurdel]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

Yeah, people will keep smoking it for a long time, but portable vaporizers are gaining popularity. Smoking vapour instead of smoke really makes a huge difference, even if it is more of a hassle to clean and maintain. I have a Pax and I really love it:

 

[FiggyCal]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

I've read elsewhere that the link is inconclusive. But we could actually count how many different cancers we know smoking tobacco causes, versus how many cancers might potentially be linked to cannabis-smoking maybe. I don't see a push to outlaw tobacco or alcohol (which also causes multiple types of cancers, inlcuding: mouth, throat, breast, and liver among others). I think outlawing it because it's dangerous and scary is silly considering how many other legal drugs are dangerous and scary.

 

[Mango Positive]

Why is there no talk about lung cancer resulting from smoking weed?


http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
It's a pretty logical conclusion that you're inhaling this smoke directly into your lungs, which is no different than smoking tobacco. So again, the most obvious health issue seems to be glossed over. Is it just inconvenient for pro-marijuana supporters?

Also, I don't care what drugs you do as long as I don't have to pay for your health care, I don't have to inhale your second hand smoke and you're not putting other lives as risk (driving a car, etc).

The difference between MJ and tobacco is that no one is smoking 2 packs of weed every day. Thus, the reduced tar statistic.

Really though, it's all about vaping! It's inconspicuous, the smell is only barely noticable if you're within 2 feet, and there is no lung damage or tar! It's the only way to fly.

 

[Paskil]

You just completely evaded the point of the health risks of smoking weed. Marijuana is going to be sold in cigarette form and I would wager to bet a majority of those who use weed are going to smoke it. You could have easily said the same for tobacco yet how do the majority of people use tobacco products?

Also, tobacco is a plant ya dingus.

Maybe at the national level, if legalized, it will be sold like cigarettes. Marijuana is sold loose in most dispensaries, or in food, as far as I'm aware. I think your question is the one that is irrelevant.

 

[Aurongel]

Them estimating alcohol being more dangerous than heroin and cocaine is the real news here.

 

[joelseph]

Why is there no talk about lung cancer resulting from smoking weed?


http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
It's a pretty logical conclusion that you're inhaling this smoke directly into your lungs, which is no different than smoking tobacco. So again, the most obvious health issue seems to be glossed over. Is it just inconvenient for pro-marijuana supporters?

Also, I don't care what drugs you do as long as I don't have to pay for your health care, I don't have to inhale your second hand smoke and you're not putting other lives as risk (driving a car, etc).

There are studies showing combusted marijuana plant material does not lead to an increase in cancer. It is not the same as smoking cigarettes. You should also reword your argument, smoking tobacco is completely different than smoking cigarettes.

 

[KrellRell]

Them estimating alcohol being more dangerous than heroin and cocaine is the real news here.

I'm not sure that's really what they are saying. Alcohol has caused more harm, likely due to availability. There is no doubt that heroin and cocaine are more harmful than alcohol.

 

[gwarm01]

Them estimating alcohol being more dangerous than heroin and cocaine is the real news here.

Most people don't realize this, but alcohol is similar in rates of addiction and negative health consequences to these drugs. I'm not sure if we are unaware of this due to the negative stigma behind illegal drugs or just general acceptance of a long legal drug. There is actual scientific evidence to support those claims with regard to dopamine release and changes in the reward pathway in the brain, along with the obvious physical health effects.

I'm not sure that's really what they are saying. Alcohol has caused more harm, likely due to availability. There is no doubt that heroin and cocaine are more harmful than alcohol.

Are they though? Think about what they do to the body. Heroin causes euphoria, slows breathing, reduces GI motility (ie constipation), lowers blood pressure. It is essentially the same drug we give patients in the hospital for pain every single day. The real dangers come from overdose (something easy to do with alcohol as well), and the method of delivery (dirty needles, sharing needles, poor technique). Over all the effect profile isn't entirely dissimilar to alcohol. The real danger is in the lack of regulation and education.

 

[Lowmelody]

I didn't start smoking mj until 24-25 and that was due to not really knowing any way to get it where I grew up. It's enriched my life like no other 'thing' possibly could. It's difficult for me to speak in non hyperbolic terms about it. I have a number of health issues that marijuana not only mitigates but it also serves as much needed oil in the grinding gears of this shitty world.

 

[joelseph]

The difference between MJ and tobacco is that no one is smoking 2 packs of weed every day. Thus, the reduced tar statistic.
.

The difference is that tobacco is smoked in cigarettes that contain all kinds of additives.

 

[Paskil]

There is no doubt that heroin and cocaine are more harmful than alcohol.

Not according to this, or many other studies.

 

[Aurongel]

I'm not sure that's really what they are saying. Alcohol has caused more harm, likely due to availability. There is no doubt that heroin and cocaine are more harmful than alcohol.

I'm at work so I haven't dug deeper into the study so I might have misinterpreted that line in the OP. If not then holy shit at that statistic.

 

[joelseph]

There is no doubt that heroin and cocaine are more harmful than alcohol.

Why say something like that when you have no idea?

 

[KrellRell]

I didn't start smoking mj until 24-25 and that was due to not really knowing any way to get it where I grew up. It's enriched my life like no other 'thing' possibly could. It's difficult for me to speak in non hyperbolic terms about it. I have a number of health issues that marijuana not only mitigates but it also serves as much needed oil in the grinding gears of this shitty world.

Damn, I need to remember that. Beautifully said.

 

[evilromero]

You're missing the point. What you described isn't a health risk of smoking weed. Its a health risk from....smoking.

We're actually both looking at two valid points, though mine isn't any less valid. The truth is we're avoiding the fact that smoking tobacco and weed causes lung cancer. No matter how you spin it, a big part of why users of tobacco get lung cancer is listed in my original post. You're right, it doesn't matter that it's tobacco. What matters is people are getting lung cancer from smoking it. Does that remove the importance of why smoking weed will also have dangerous health effects?

 

[KrellRell]

Why say something like that when you have no idea?

Sorry that my strong wording offended you. I'm speaking strictly of physical harm to the body vs dosage.

 

[KrellRell]

Not according to this, or many other studies.

The studies speak of 'overall harm' which can't be measured as precisely as physical harm to the user, since it's so subjective. I should have clarified. I meant harm to the user.

 

[joelseph]

Sorry that my strong wording offended you. I'm speaking strictly of physical harm to the body vs dosage.

Out-dated drug ideas pushed onto us by DARE is the reason for this thread.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

People don't like to admit that something they've believed for a long time isn't true.

it's more that the DEA GREATLY benefits from the war on drugs. It's like mercenaries who benefit from conflict: it does them no good for there to not be a war because that's their livelihood.

So of course theyre going to say that it's dangerous and it's the most awful thing ever. Their department is being funded partly through the war against weed. they're protecting their interests.

 

[J-Rod]

If weed was legal it could be mass produced like tobacco and people wouldn't have to smoke it. People smoke it because it lasts longer that way. People use smokeless forms of tobacco as well as different delivery methods of nicotine that don't involve tobacco at all. Further, you can take like 2-3 puffs of dope and be satisfied whereas you have to smoke entire cigarettes many times throughout the day for nicotine. What keeps people smoking it is it being illegal and expensive. If it was cheap and legal they could process it into other forms that can be consumed or vaped. Do people even roll good dope into cigarettes anyway?

 

[OldRoutes]

We're actually both looking at two valid points, though mine isn't any less valid. The truth is we're avoiding the fact that smoking tobacco and weed causes lung cancer. No matter how you spin it, a big part of why users of tobacco get lung cancer is listed in my original post. You're right, it doesn't matter that it's tobacco. What matters is people are getting lung cancer from smoking it. Does that remove the importance of why smoking weed will also have dangerous health effects?

No it doesn't, but tobacco doesn't have all the health benefits of using marijuana, either.

Truth to be told, legalizing marijuana would only make it easier to consume the plant in other form than in a joint. People are getting more and more health aware, and would undoubtedly use the plant for beneficial purpose that would lead to the less harm.

Cigarettes are being smoked so much because of its nicotine product that creates addiction. One of the only benefit of smoking cigarettes is to prevent the nicotine craving.

Tobacco in itself is not that harmful ; it's when it's put with other additive in cigarettes and when it's smoked to outrageous amount that it's really harmful.

 

[evilromero]

Out-dated drug ideas pushed onto us by DARE is the reason for this thread.

The original article, yes. But I've put forward evidence of why smoking weed is harmful. The problem is it requires you to look at the issue objectively, which I'm gathering is impossible for pro-legalized marijuana supports to do (I understand the sensitive nature of vocally protecting your position). I'm not sure why such an argument is swept under the rug when it's the most blatant issue associated with smoking cigarettes.

Unfortunately, most will see me as trying to making weed illegal, which isn't the case. I'm simply stating the fact that yes, smoking weed is indeed dangerous for many of the same reasons that smoking tobacco is. So you can't blame any of those lame DARE campaigns on issues of very real health risks. Whether or not you choose to smoke is none of my business unless it directly or indirectly affects me (as I mentioned, paying for health care, second hand smoke or driving).

 

[Malvolio]

The original article, yes. But I've put forward evidence of why smoking weed is harmful. The problem is it requires you to look at the issue objectively, which I'm gathering is impossible for pro-legalized marijuana supports to do (I understand the sensitive nature of vocally protecting your position). I'm not sure why such an argument is swept under the rug when it's the most blatant issue associated with smoking cigarettes.

Unfortunately, most will see me as trying to making weed illegal, which isn't the case. I'm simply stating the fact that yes, smoking weed is indeed dangerous for many of the same reasons that smoking tobacco is. So you can't blame any of those lame DARE campaigns on issues of very real health risks. Whether or not you choose to smoke is none of my business unless it directly or indirectly affects me (as I mentioned, paying for health care, second hand smoke or driving).

The entire argument changes when you replace "smoking" with "consumption".

 

[evilromero]

No it doesn't, but tobacco doesn't have all the health benefits of using marijuana, either.

Truth to be told, legalizing marijuana would only make it easier to consume the plant in other form than in a joint. People are getting more and more health aware, and would undoubtedly use the plant for beneficial purpose that would lead to the less harm.

Cigarettes are being smoked so much because of its nicotine product that creates addiction. One of the only benefit of smoking cigarettes is to prevent the nicotine craving.

Tobacco in itself is not that harmful ; it's when it's put with other additive in cigarettes and when it's smoked to outrageous amount that it's really harmful.

Again, you're avoiding my point. I'm not arguing with you about the medical benefits of marijuana. I'm simply saying that there are health risks with SMOKING weed. I understand it's difficult to look at this objectively when you've probably spent a lot of time defending weed and its benefits. But again, that's not what I'm trying to argue. Nor am I arguing whether it should be legalized or not. It's irrelevant.

The entire argument changes when you replace "smoking" with "consumption".

Of course it does, but we're not arguing about the "consumption" of marijuana so it's irrelevant.

 

[OldRoutes]

The original article, yes. But I've put forward evidence of why smoking weed is harmful. The problem is it requires you to look at the issue objectively, which I'm gathering is impossible for pro-legalized marijuana supports to do (I understand the sensitive nature of vocally protecting your position). I'm not sure why such an argument is swept under the rug when it's the most blatant issue associated with smoking cigarettes.

Unfortunately, most will see me as trying to making weed illegal, which isn't the case. I'm simply stating the fact that yes, smoking weed is indeed dangerous for many of the same reasons that smoking tobacco is. So you can't blame any of those lame DARE campaigns on issues of very real health risks. Whether or not you choose to smoke is none of my business unless it directly or indirectly affects me (as I mentioned, paying for health care, second hand smoke or driving).

Well then I could cherry-pick my own researches that proves that a moderate amount of smoking marijuana has no effect on your lungs ...

"With up to 7 joint-years of life-time exposure, we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function," the researchers wrote in study, published in the Jan. 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In fact, the researchers found a slight increase in occasional marijuana smokers' lung function. That increase may be indicative of marijuana smokers taking deep breaths and holding the smoke in, the researchers said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-smoking-marijuana-bad-for-your-lungs/

 

[GeordieMark]

I didn't start smoking mj until 24-25 and that was due to not really knowing any way to get it where I grew up. It's enriched my life like no other 'thing' possibly could. It's difficult for me to speak in non hyperbolic terms about it. I have a number of health issues that marijuana not only mitigates but it also serves as much needed oil in the grinding gears of this shitty world.

I can't agree that taking a drug of any sort is necessary to make life more bearable. If that's the case, you really should be addressing the issue of why life feels like a grind, rather than making yourself comfortably numb to get you through. It sounds like you are using it as a crutch.

The hand you hold can be the hand the holds you down.

 

[Malvolio]

Of course it does, but we're not arguing about the "consumption" of marijuana so it's irrelevant.

In a thread about marijuana use, I'd hardly say it's irrelevant.

 

[daycru]

The original article, yes. But I've put forward evidence of why smoking weed is harmful. The problem is it requires you to look at the issue objectively, which I'm gathering is impossible for pro-legalized marijuana supports to do (I understand the sensitive nature of vocally protecting your position). I'm not sure why such an argument is swept under the rug when it's the most blatant issue associated with smoking cigarettes.

Unfortunately, most will see me as trying to making weed illegal, which isn't the case. I'm simply stating the fact that yes, smoking weed is indeed dangerous for many of the same reasons that smoking tobacco is. So you can't blame any of those lame DARE campaigns on issues of very real health risks. Whether or not you choose to smoke is none of my business unless it directly or indirectly affects me (as I mentioned, paying for health care, second hand smoke or driving).

You should be far more concerned about fast food drive-throughs RE: health care and driving than marijuana.

 

[Lowmelody]

I can't agree that taking a drug of any sort is necessary to make life more bearable. If that's the case, you really should be addressing the issue of why life feels like a grind, rather than making yourself comfortably numb to get you through. It sounds like you are using it as a crutch.

The hand you hold can be the hand the holds you down.

Well, I'd rather not defensively justify it as I would likely slip in sarcastic passive aggressive jabs along with revealing certain medical facts about myself that I'm not comfortable talking about openly and either or neither would fair to you for simply saying your piece.

I will say that I am happy for you that you genuinely enjoy your experience of life without aid. I do really mean that.

 

[dorkimoe]

People don't like to admit that something they've believed for a long time isn't true.

hot damn nailed it. Its so funny to me that wasnt slogan for Obama's election "change" ? And everyone was on board with change..but in reality we arent..

 

[andymcc]

I can't agree that taking a drug of any sort is necessary to make life more bearable. If that's the case, you really should be addressing the issue of why life feels like a grind, rather than making yourself comfortably numb to get you through. It sounds like you are using it as a crutch.

Do you apply this same rationale to someone that is prescribed anxiety meds?