What's also interesting is that you would expect that such extreme polarization would show equally extreme negative effects, if they exist, since it means you have a large population of users exposed to high doses where negative effects should be most obvious.
(Imagine that it takes 10 times per month to put someone at risk of going crazy, robbing or killing people, torching houses, etc. If the distribution of use was a straight line down to just a few % of the heaviest users reaching 10 times per month, you wouldn't necessarily see much of an increase in population numbers. But with a crazy distribution like that, it's >20% of users who would be exhibiting side effects!)
He has experimented with lots of drugs, up to and including LSD.
By the way, a close relative does smoke pot (it's legal in my country, Uruguay) and we believe it has brought to the front some (probably preexisting) mental problems which could be described as "going crazy".
I do support legalization, but it's not entirely innocuous (it is my belief it's milder than alcohol, but then again, alcohol does bring some extreme reactions and kills a lot of people)
I was being sarcastic about peoples' fears about marijuana, yes, and hopefully making my observation a little more salient: since the distribution of consumption is so ridiculously bimodal (look at pg15, it's amazing), that means there are a lot of people getting extremely high doses, but without obvious ill effects.
(Imagine that it takes 10 times per month to put someone at risk of going crazy, robbing or killing people, torching houses, etc. If the distribution of use was a straight line down to just a few % of the heaviest users reaching 10 times per month, you wouldn't necessarily see much of an increase in population numbers. But with a crazy distribution like that, it's >20% of users who would be exhibiting side effects!)