If you think I called you out because I know this poster, you’re only about two percent correct. Not everyone can be reasonably expected to have read your entire oeuvre. You introduce yourself anew every time you write a new piece. Lemme sum up: your rude, rude commenter may be rough around the edges, but you come across as an arrogant know-it-all on a regular basis, as does almost everyone here. Hooray for that, I say… but don’t expect pussyfooting in return.

And I’m sorry, Lex, but I wasn’t focusing on one sentence, you and JS were in your own comments. I thought you had some interesting ideas and might want to hear a different point of view. Now that you’re so insulted you can no longer parse what you yourself wrote, I have no idea whether that horrid man will return. I wouldn’t bother, but hey. I’m the mean one.

But since he didn’t introduce himself, how the fuck am i supposed to know about any possible physical ill effects he might suffer from looking at a computer monitor?

Ann, you’re focusing on one sentence, and that’s fine…except the four sentences after that one pretty well express what i think the answer to my question is. It still stands, i’d be interested to hear what Jason (or anyone) has to say.

Well, that’s not exactly true…i really don’t care anymore.

I couldn’t have parsed it from this, though: More importantly, i’d like to see some evidence or from the following thread. That seemed a bit odd at the time. However, since the comments picked upon it and were taking an interesting if tangential turn, I thought that the viewpoint of someone with a great deal (unfortunately) of simultaneous experience of weapons, violence and drugs might be interesting.

As for his not being on an acceptable response schedule, your commenter might be waiting for his chronic physical disability to subside for a while, at least long enough that the light of the monitor as he replies doesn’t trigger a week or so of incapacitating pain. Just a thought.

I also told Jason that i’d be very interested to hear the perspective of a stoned, combat vet…but so far, Jason has only promised contribution.

More importantly, i’d like to see some evidence that getting high makes someone a terrible soldier.

Isn’t this a question about being stoned in combat? Maybe Jason thought your own question was worth addressing; especially you and JS have been going on about it for several comments now.

It may also be important to note that all the videos going around of ANA guys getting high show them smoking spliffs. Those aren’t “hash cigarettes” since you can’t roll hash up and smoke it. So they’re not doing the equivalent of the American style of rolling up straight grass and smoking it; mixed heavily with tobacco, the effect is not quite the same.

My guess is that the Afghans use hash the same way guys in Vietnam used Thai stick, to knock down the adrenaline after the fact rather than prepare for battle…and to combat the boredom and anxiety between battles. (And it’s easier to carry around than booze.)

BTW, i’m not sure what about this is so different from the USAF handing out methamphetamines to pilots.

Doubtless, a flood of adrenaline during combat counteracts some of the effects of any drug. But I’m just speaking for myself, here. If it were I, I’d want the full benefit of the clarity and improved reflexes one gets from adrenaline. I wouldn’t want it modified by drugs. And, sheesh, the long term muzziness from heavy marijuana use is not something I’d want to carry around with me every day in a war zone.

But this is about me. I like to be in control of my faculties. You mileage may vary.

JS: I’ve never been stoned in a firefight, but from what i’ve read situations like being shot at mostly turns off the high. Like other things, people who use it regularly are affected much differently than people who use it sporadically. I don’t really drink, so i’m pretty much useless after three beers or so, but i know lots of people who can do many things effectively with that much alcohol in their systems…and being high does a lot less to impair cognitive and physical functions than drinking alcohol. (e.g. even the most bazooted can generally pass a road-side sobriety test)