h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As a fellow "selfless researcher" I find I agree with you fully, an example of the chronic difficulty society has with cannabis was the recent ridiculous ruling by the US Supreme(!?!) Court stopping even medicinal use. Hemp is only illegal in the UK because of a ridiculous addition to the Narcotics Act which has never been reviewed. An excellent book "The Emperors New Clothes" by Jack Herer is an invaluable source of the truth behind Cannabis/Marijuana prohibition and I recommend it to anyone with an interest.

In Holland (a country with enviable de-criminalised status for hemp) there are less violent crimes per capita than any other European country, surely it is obvious what causes this?

I would also like to quote the late great Bill Hicks ".....I had a great time on drugs and while I smoked pot I never got into a fight,....that was for the drinkers and caffeine freaks"

That's cool. no probs with the cannabis smokers, as long as smokers of all substances are outside a two-mile radius! Couldn't you just eat cookies?

We could, and we do, but:

1. It is far more difficult to make cookies than roll a joint (especially if you're stoned)

2. Drug administration via food takes some time and is not as immediate as via inhallation.

3. The whole sociability of the experience is reduced (you can't compare 'pass me that joint' to 'pass me that cookie' - it's just not the same).

OK - point taken - however the sociability of the experience is thoroughly reduced for people like me (a majority) who can't stand polluted atmosphere - especially cigarette smoke.

From my experience, it's not half as foul as cigarette smoke. And, despite the illogical views of those in power, much less dangerous.

How can it be less dangerous? Aren't you usually smoking it in roll your own cigarettes?
Just talked to a friend who was a psychiatric nurse for decades. She says she saw lots of cases of cannibis induced psychosis. Not widely publicised that eh?

Not widely publicised, although it does happen. However this is usually due to dependence (not addiction); although a stubborn, useless habit, it's quite hard to develop unless you're doing it every day.
Although the effects of smoking cannabis are similar to smoking anything in that they cause respiratory problems etc. the drug itself is nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco. It does not contain 5000 chemicals for one thing, several of which are known carcinogens (and plenty more whose effects are unknown- one however, is the deliriant scopalomine, found in jimson weed), it is not more addictive than heroin, more poisonous than strychnine (less than 7 drops of pure nicotine will kill an adult), and isn't the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA. I really hate smoking. I don't have a problem with cannabis; although, as you said, I'd prefer people not to do it around those who object. (It doesn't smell half as unpleasant, either.)

Oh, and nicotine has no value as a medicinal drug, although it is used as a powerful insecticide. (This tells me all I need to know about smoking the stuff- paraquat's probably safer.) Whereas cannabis can be used to ease chronic glaucoma and is just about the only thing that helps with multiple sclerosis.

Actually, marijuana rolled with tobacco is a bit more dangerous than regulat cigarettes, mainly because smokers tend to inhale more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for a longer time. The drug does contain some 400 chemicals, some of whom have not been researched enough to know of their damages.

What we do have is lots of circumstantial evidence of smokers - no psychosis reaction to Marijuana have ever been recorded - this sounds more like the stories invented for the tabloids in the 30's & 40's. Even the drug enforcement authorities don't use those anymore 'cause they know they're absolutely fiction. We would have had a few million psychotics in this world today if that was true (some would say that this actually explains the state of the world today). No long-term negative side-effects have ever been reported with Marijuana, and it's virtually impossible to reach a level of overdose.

What we do know for a fact is that those chemicals actually balance the more dangerous potential aspects of THC, the active chemical in Marijuana. When Eli Lilly, the big pharmaceutical company, released a synthesised version of THC in the late 70's, some unpleasant side effects have been reported, which never happened to people using the drug in its natural form. Though not effective when taken alone, these chemicals do have effects when combined with the THC.

Lastly, THC, contrary to other drugs, is being naturally created by the human body itself - we still don't know to what causes or in what circumstances.

Everything, however healthy, taken too excessively can be dangerous - even tomatoes aren't good for you if you eat too much of them. When reviewing test doen with Marijuana always try to find out exactly what dosages were used, 'cause lots of these experiments are funded by organisations that have an interest about the legal status of the drug.

giluz

I would never use tobacco under any circumstances, because I don't trust it. I take comfort in the fact that no one's ever died from using marijuana. It's a drug that can be used rather than abused (a distinction that anti-all recreational drugs people always miss.)
Is that why they don't synthesise THC for medical use generally? And they refuse to legalise the drug for prescription use. Daft. If a retired police officer and multiple sclerosis sufferer thinks it's worth breaking the law on a regular basis, then it must be good.
Could THC be related to endorphins in some way? Many drugs (especially opiates) are created by the body. The hallucinogen dimethyl tryptemine (DMT) is almost identical to chemicals produced in the brains of schizophrenics. Some think that a deficiency in endorphin production is why certain people are dependent on opiates.
I'm sceptical of the drug laws because they are rarely based on reason. It seems they keep cannabis illegal because it just wouldn't do to have people using a relatively safe, possibly beneficial drug that 'everyone knows' leads to madness, violence and certain death.
Especially when they can use perfectly safe, everyday alternatives like tobacco and alcohol.
Hmmm...

Oh, and regarding the authorities using scare-stories: a friend of mine was saying that when police visited her school, they told a terrifying story of a man who'd taken LSD and now thought he was a glass of orange juice and was paranoid that someone would drink him.
A few days earlier, I'd been reading this and similar stories on the Snopes Urban Legends page, where it was classified as completely false.
Oven-baked baby, anyone?

I suppose my next question would be, medical uses aside, why do you wish to use it?

Because we are naturally a pleasure-seeking species, which likes to engage in consciousness-altering activities. It is interesting to do this and often results in increased happiness.
Because we are creative: artists, writers, poets, dreamers, hopeless romantics, sex-maniacs, fantasists, etc. Anything which gives us inspiration is something we like to do.
Because we like instant gratification and unusual sensations.
And for the same reason some of us like to induce unconsciousness and severe pain through misuse of alcohol, contract hideous diseases and ruin our quality of life with tobacco, and risk punishment and social disapproval through use of illegal alternatives. Some of us aren't interested in the first two examples, even though they're accepted- even condoned- by society in general. To me, the alternative makes a lot more sense.

I found I was never less creative nor particularly happy under the influence of cannabis.

(Did you mean 'I was never more creative'?)
The effects won't be identical for all people, of course. The same as with anything- I know some people who hate chocolate, and the only thing coffee does for me is set off my migraines. And you've probably gathered that I find cigarette-smoking just about the most foul thing in the universe. Also, like most things, it's based partially on mood and setting (LSD is the best example of this.) Some drugs don't suit certain people, which is to be expected. As for creativity, there are countless artists, writers, etc. who famously did their stuff stoned. I'll go and find some names so it doesn't sound like I'm making it up.

Differences of the effects of drugs are not only limited to individuals but also to the social climate. For example, I once watched a TV programme about Ecstasy and club culture, where they did an experiment and gave clubbers questionnaires to fill in during a rave. One group was comprised of people that took Ecstasy and the other group of people who didn't. As the rave progressed there were hardly any differences in the answers given by different group members. It's not that Ecstasy doesn't have any effect, or that being in a rave is enough for the same effects to occur regardless of what you took or didn't. It's just that it's quite impossible to seperate drugs from the social context related to them. Taking LSD in the 60's is completely different to taking the same drug today.

Personally, though I do use drugs for the purpose of having fun and as a creative stimulant, I tend to undermine the influence of drugs on the creative process, 'cause I think it's reductive to the artist and the work of art to be labelled as something different if it's been made under certain influences.

Lots of horrible works of art have been made under the influence of drugs, while lots of great ones have been made by completely clean and sober artists, though their work might still include hallucinatory, mad and unorthodox elements.

giluz

Absolutely- I wasn't making a case for everyone to use drugs because it makes you an instant genius. Just as plenty of fine work has been produced by mad artists, but it's not something to emulate. There have, however, been several famous examples who were also noted for their drug-use; although it is more likely that their personality made them predisposed to experimentation, rather than the drugs unlocking any hidden talent.

Probably the best known example of drug-induced creativity (to DNA's readers, at any rate) is Coleridge's 'Khubla Khan'.

Ken Kesey wrote parts of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' on peyote (and, it's said, undertook mild electric shock treatment) to up the general mentalness. It may be fairly recent, but it is a classic book.

As a jazz muso I have plenty of examples of those who felt their creative talent was in some way enhanced by taking drugs. I would like to think it not so, though I acknowledge that changing brain chemistry could effect just about any process. Sadly, I also know of many examples of those whose creative genius was cut short through taking drugs, too.