Slashdot Mirror

I bet the list of things that can trigger psychotic episodes in mentally ill people includes pretty much everything.

The only honest to goodness negative reaction I've ever seen with marijuana use (outside of the physical effects like smoking too much and getting the spins/nauseous) is increased anxiety, and that was only a couple times, both times involving someone that probably didn't want to smoke in the first place and was just doing so to "go along with the crowd" and hadn't really gotten high before, so the effects freaked them out.

In those cases, though, I find it hard to blame the weed itself for that; nobody should consume an intoxicating substance just to "fit in", but then we've all been to high school and now how THAT goes...

On the other hand, I have "high anxiety" in that I used to suffer from panic attacks, but marijuana actually calms me and mitigates the attacks completely. Many people with high anxiety self-medicate with marijuana--in my case because I trust a plant that has been in continuous use by humans for thousands of years over a for-profit company that invents drugs by trial and error. On the other hand, I have encountered plenty of people who can't touch the stuff because it makes them paranoid and anxious and many of them benefit tremendously from prescription pharmaceuticals--to each their own. The effects vary by dose, strain, delivery method, and person. It's not for everyone, but others absolutely adore it. One thing it is not is addictive as anyone who was once a broke college student knows. I'm sure someone has linked to this essay already, but Carl Sagan summed it up pretty well.

On a side note, I have two younger step-siblings. One has been off of heroin for a couple of years and the other is in rehab. Both got hooked in their teens. When I was a teenager, "everyone" knew that pot was completely harmless and that heroin was horribly addictive. Meth was a different story; it was the "new" drug and I saw a lot of people ruin their lives with that stuff. My siblings, on the other hand, grew up in the era of "Drugs are bad, mmm-kay" where they were taught that marijuana is a "gateway drug" and it is just as bad as all the others--a Schedule I narcotic just like LSD and heroin. The message they seemed to have absorbed is "I tried pot and it was pretty mellow--so all these other drugs can't be that bad." I mean, look at the propaganda on whitehouse.gov. Sure, they don't out-and-out lie, but they try so hard to make marijuana seem dangerous: "In 2009, marijuana was involved in 376,000 emergency department visits nationwide." Yah, and I bet 100% of those cases also involved alcohol! The LD50 for pot is about the same as H20... The point is that informing kids about drugs works--but not if you lie to them. No one told us about meth and all my step-siblings got was fact-free propaganda.

Well, I guess that's true too. I also think the a lot of the problem is regular people, people who just don't get it...people who will go on and on about 'what the founding fathers would have wanted' while maintaining some hard-assed 'tough on drugs' policy, and think that anyone who wants drugs legalized is some dumb worthless hippie (since as we all know all cannabis users are stupid) meant to be dismissed. I think politicians don't want to take serious action for fear of looking like a drug supporter or something. Of course, banning booze would be outright evil, but there's a million reasons why different laws should apply to someone else's fix.

One other benefit I can think of, I think it'd be pretty darned cool to study the farm ecology of hemp/cannabis whenever it finally gets legalized...you can't grow something, even hemp, in huge quantities without some bug or bacteria overcoming it's pest defenses. Not related to the legal issue itself but I eagerly await that day. That could probably provide a whole lot of useful data on future crop biodiversification projects. Data collected on that might be the only good thing to come out of that stupid law.

I fully understand that some of the more vocal potheads are idiots. Fully get that.
I do happen to be for the legalization (not decriminalization, but legalization) and taxation of Hemp for smoking purposes.
Cigs are obviously Harmful and Liquor and do damage to it's drinker if not careful in many ways. I'm not saying either of theses should be abolished, but that Hemp should be in that line with them

The Legitimate Science to the effects of Hemp Smoking have come out in FAVOR of utilizing Hemp for Medical - and in the more laid-back scientist minds - Recreational.
Yes, their is a chance of addiction - but it's about 9% verses the 90% to 100% chances on other drugs that are legal - but I digress.

If you wish you can always read over some Essays by Scientists and others who have smoked pot and haven't become utter failures. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/ This in particualar is by the late, great Carl Sagan.

it's Ok if you don't agree, but at least know why you don't agree.

No, this is what happens when you put scientists on pot:

Mr. X.

an artist who has never ever touched a drug will inherently be a better artist than one who has had their faculties degraded due to drug use

So...my mom is a better trumpet player than Miles Davis or Louis Armstrong?

Your first mistake is to treat "drugs" as a single entity. Your second is to assume that talent never comes into play. Your third is to believe that no drug can have positive creative effects.

no artist, who has ever lived, has ever claimed that their drug use made them better artists.

WRONG! From the link:

I decided to do some tests. I made digital recordings of formula compositions in identical situations while completely free of any drug effects and while stoned on a dose-measured amount of marijuana. I did original music concerts in standardized conditions, performing to the best of my ability while intoxicated on marijuana and while not intoxicated. (Please note: when I say, "not intoxicated," I mean I did not ingest marijuana for at least four days prior to the session). I wrote my subjective observations about the difference between playing while high versus when not intoxicated. I compared recordings, listening for nuances of difference. I also allowed others to listen to and compare the recordings.

My research showed that when I was stoned, I was far more likely to take "chances" with my music. I experimented with novel chord structures and lead lines, stacked instruments in unlikely combinations, detuned instruments, varied rhythms and pacing, and added sound effects. Vocally, my stoned performances were a revelation. My voice was far more expressive and evocative. My range was extended, and I was more willing to take chances with phrasing and word usage.

Some final caveats. Cannabis was not uniformly beneficial for all my musical talents. I make more "mistakes" while stoned, and often forget my own songs. My hands at times freeze up or are hard to control, with critical dexterity and motor skills impaired. Lyrically, I noticed that if I had created a chorus, I often forgot it before the end of the song, necessitating the creation of a new chorus while I stalled for time, trying to recall the old one!

This guy has a more realistic view than you: that there are benefits and drawbacks to using marijuana to enhance their craft. I speak only of marijuana because in a discussion like this specifics are needed and marijuana is the one with the strongest argument to be made by looking at musicians who admit to its creative use, including the two I mentioned above.

I'm not advocating drug abuse. I'm not saying that getting high every day and always smoking before you play is going to make you better--that would be magic. I'm saying that when you've got something that sounds okay but not great, playing with it after smoking might give you some new, good creative ideas that you wouldn't have had otherwise. The drug can be a lifestyle, and in that case it may do more harm than good, but the drug can also be a tool.

We use our sanctioned drugs as tools all the time: caffeine to enhance alertness, Aspirin for preventing pain from distracting our attention, Viagra for overcoming ED...the list goes on. Marijuana, in addition to its validated medical uses, can also be seen as a creativity enhancer.

I suspect that much of this applies to psychedelics as well, but I would be speaking out of ignorance if I phrased it any stronger than suspicion.

Heh... yes, I've found that physics is often more enjoyable stoned (and I'm a pretty damn big physics geek even when I'm sober, so that's really saying something). So do a lot of other scientists- the most famous being the late Carl Sagan: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

You just fired off a bunch of things that COULD be wrong with the studies. That's like me saying that your parents could have been the ones who assasinated JFK. Its not really based in fact

In science, if something *plausible* COULD be wrong with a study, it deserves to be analyzed before the study is assumed to be rigorous. This also applies to studies on the other side, i.e. the ones which claim marijuana cures death and stops global warming. In your analogy, you can't possibly give me any plausible evidence that my parents killed JFK. I pointed out a rather common methodological flaw (check the literature) with using self-reporting in smoked marijuana studies.

Look, I agree that people CAN cook cannabis and they SHOULD use a vaporizer if they want to smoke it. However plenty of people do smoke it in bowls. In fact I'd bet money that In the United States, most people smoke it without using a vaporizer. Even more people smoke it then cook it.

Would you say there's an honest culture of information about cannabis in the United States? I wouldn't. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'd be all for a campaign to educate people on the safe use of marijuana. In the Netherlands, most coffee shops stock a vaporizer and a lot of Dutch people I've talked to would prefer to use a vaporizer. Ultimately, people will probably still smoke cannabis because of the social bonding aspect, but they should be educated about the alternatives. After that, it's a choice you make for yourself.

In case you were NOT being sarcastic, here are some websites that advocate safe marijuana use:
safer choice, regulate, marijuana uses (not really an organization, but an emeritus harvard professor who's studying the positive uses of marijuana)

of course if I had the $ and a good supply I'd never quit because marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.

I agree 100% with this statement. Lester Grinspoon MD, a former Harvard professor and all-around genius, has some things to say about his first experiences with marijuana, when he was in his 40s. He came to the conclusion that everything should be thought about both stoned and straight, in order to gain a great deal of perspective on any matter.

Marijuana effects everyone differently. Take into consideration as well that genetically, there are many different types ("strains") of Marijuana, which carry effects related to their genetic disposition. There are two main families of marijuana, Sativa and Indica. Sativa varieties are native to the equatorial regions in what would largely be considered tropical climates. North Africa, Vietnam, Thailand. Sativa varieties provide what is often called a "mental" high, a very uplifting and energetic feeling combined with inspirations and new ideas. Sativa varieties tend to be very tall and branchy with limited flower (bud, marijuana) production, which dramatically affects yields. Sativa connoisseurs however are always willing to sacrifice quantity for quality. Indica varieties are from places like Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, more mountainous regions with higher elevations. Indica varieties tend to grow short and fat, shaped like a christmas tree. Indica varieties produce more flowers than Sativa varieties. Indica varieties provide a "body" high, with amplification of physical sensation, it makes you sleepy, it makes you just want to sit still. Most commercial marijuana is hybridized between these two main types of Marijauna, optimized for high and yield.

The point I'm getting at with the above paragraph is that commercial pot is sometimes a crap shoot when it comes to the effect, and since the effect generated is one generated through hybridization, the mix of cannabinoids may (and often does) affect different people differently. I know people who can't think straight ("maintain") while influenced by marijuana, and then there's people like me who don't even miss a beat.

I find marijuana carries one detriment that I must acknowledge: my short-term memory does suffer in terms of capacity and recollection ability, but I have a voice recorder to compensate for that, leaving me with oodles of insight and perspective with few recognizable detrimental side-effects.