Slashdot Mirror
Carl Sagan Was a Secret Pot Smoker
alphuris writes "CNN.com has a little nugget of info about Carl Sagan being an avid Marijuana user. Apparently Marijuana's effects were a good part of Sagan's motivation to write his books and do his research. Who says Marijuana's a downer?" The article also says, "Ann Druyan, Sagan's former wife, is a director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The nonprofit group promotes legalization of marijuana."
In fact, the only animal safety studies on Marijuana use ever completed killed vervet monkeys by asphyxiation from carbon dioxide poisoning, not from a drug overdose; showing that THC, while showing high efficacy, is one of the safest drugs known to man.
My mistake. I should have caught that before hitting submit. Those monkeys were killed from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, not Carbon Dioxide. D'uh.
Look, man, just because I might not think you should go to _jail_ for getting stoned does _not_ mean that you become an intellectual wizard for doing it. That's an absolute crock. Now, if you're that maladjusted that you _cannot_ think or deal with reality _unless_ heavily numbed by THC, I sympathize- I've been there. But don't think for a moment that it's giving you a damn thing- it's not, no bud ever had an idea or drew a picture or played a note on an instrument.
The best that you can say for it is that it might not get in the way too heavily when getting you out of yourself. That's not a good enough reason for relying on it constantly. Get _yourself_ out of yourself. As Frank Zappa said, you are bullshitting yourself if you expect pot to do this for you. Know why I stopped? It _stopped_ _working_ and I wasn't able to bullshit myself about it any more. Fear that...
I personally support this fellow's perspective, but there's an angle that he didn't mention, which is addiction. Marijuana is damned addictive stuff, all in the psychological sense like getting addicted to food or compulsively handwashing. Claiming that it's not addictive is a crock, that's a technicality- _people_ are addictive, _people_ develop habits, and pot is about the most insidious thing you'll ever run into because it doesn't fsck you up physically (insert Cheech and Chong cough here, assume deadly pallor), it's not a hazard to society (okay, everybody who's _hit_ something like a bush or tree when driving in a car stoned, raise your hand), and it becomes your best friend (I've seen heroin junkies have a harder time giving up pot than their heroin!)
You can't _get_ a more insidious drug. It doesn't _need_ to lead to anything to screw you up completely, especially if you lose the volition to do anything _but_ smoke pot and end up struggling to come up with the money to _get_ the pot. You'll lie, manipulate, and con anybody, your own mother, your best friend, to get it. I smoked it for years, years ago when I was growing up. Me and my best friend had a little routine we'd go through- we'd go in on a bag, and then one of us would divide and the other pick. This is my best friend and he couldn't trust me to be fair- he knew I couldn't- and of course I couldn't trust him either! How many of you have to do this? One divides and the other picks? Is that a really _mellow_ spiritual approach?
*rrrgh* damn, spare me from Pot Nation...
Uhhhhhh.... *COUGHCOUGHCOUGH* yeah man, I uhhhhhhh *COUUUUUGGGHH* I uhhhhhhhh *COUIIIIUUIIIIIIIIIIIGH* no risk man, I uhhhhhhh *HACK!* uhhhhhhhh....
*klunk*
"My GOD, he's not dead! Gimme some of thaaaaaat!"
I do. Prohibition just ain't working- the government needs to be able to tax it. The money can be used to help people who are really addicted and _want_ to get their heads straight, and for a million other purposes more useful than hiring drug enforcers and building jails for pot smokers. That's just stupid. Put them in jail and throw away the key when they drive stoned and run over little kids or little old ladies- but let them rot on the couch all they want- you _cannot_ pressure a person to stop using drugs, it's addictive behavior and you _have_ to want to stop, otherwise forget it. I don't smoke, drink or use drugs. I also don't drink coffee, though I still find myself getting compulsive over coca-cola or tea- sheesh, it never stops, but you have to draw a line somewhere or you end up an ascetic drinking distilled water in a locked room. I used to do all those things, and it really messed with me, I'll tell you. I don't _regret_ it, but damned if I'll go back to what drugs ended up becoming for me, and that includes if pot gets legalized. If that happened I'd laugh until I cried, man. I can never use again without really _locking_ _in_ to that gimme-more, hide-out-and-use, full-on, take-no-prisoners using style I gradually developed over the course of ten years of smoking pot. It doesn't go backwards. I can never have that first high again. Not even if it's legal. Instead I'd have only compulsion and escapism to look forward to. That's a nasty trap- it's like a sort of torture- my instincts will always be telling me to use, but I don't have to, and I don't use now. Except for guzzling coca-cola ;) if that bothered me as bad as pot ended up bothering me, I'd quit it too.
They smoke hash legally in Turkey, moron.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I was a closet budsmoking genius for ten years. I sat and watched, in the clouds of smoke, the shadowy forms of a million brilliant ideas. Once I even built one- once in ten years.
I stopped, and since then I've had two articles published in the top High End audio journal, have written a novel, have built most of the things I vaguely sensed were out there waiting to be invented, have released free software to the world under the GPL, and have a web site (see 'URL') full of pictures, writings, programs, essays, Window Maker titlebars and X pixmaps, music... _all_ of it after I stopped smoking, which I did because I was suffering and feeling really compelled and trapped in the stoner lifestyle, going nowhere reaaalll sloooowly.
Sorry, man. The stereotype is true. I've been there. That's not to say it should be a crime- it shouldn't, I support legalization. But I support it so it can be taxed and so we don't have to spend so much money on jails for stoners, I don't support it for me. I hated being a worthless leech on society. Being a stanford-binet 'genius' did not help a damn bit.
Sorry, dude. When I was a closet budsmoking genius- I smoked bud. Don't look for many people to be able to show you results. They can probably show you a lot of roaches, though, and if you're hurtin' you can scrape their bongs- nasty nasty stuff that is, but it'll give you a buzz and a headache. _That's_ the results.
Sorry.
"I'd also guess 50% of you smoke Marijuana on a "regular" basis. But yet, Your brains have not melted, you have a good job, and you don't sleep around." ;P ;) I've had sex. It was pretty cool, I enjoyed it, and in fact in a controlled way I've 'slept around'. Excuuuuse me if that doesn't meet with your hemp-laden morality ;)
Er. What have _you_ been smoking?
I smoked Marijuana for ten years on a regular basis. I tended not to be able to afford massive amounts of it, but I still ended up pretty spazzed out, unemployable, and feeling like worthless crap.
I am so sorry to have to bust your bubble, but you're talking crap- you're making implications that are not warranted.
Besides, what's with this 'sleep around' business? That's a weird tangent to take- where's that come from? When I was a stoner, I never _had_ sex. It was too difficult compared to getting high. Now that I'm clean and sober, well
"I'd also guess 50% of you smoke Marijuana on a "regular" basis. But yet, Your brains have not melted, you have a good job, and you don't sleep around." ;P ;) I've had sex. It was pretty cool, I enjoyed it, and in fact in a controlled way I've 'slept around'. Excuuuuse me if that doesn't meet with your hemp-laden morality ;)
Er. What have _you_ been smoking?
I smoked Marijuana for ten years on a regular basis. I tended not to be able to afford massive amounts of it, but I still ended up pretty spazzed out, unemployable, and feeling like worthless crap.
I am so sorry to have to bust your bubble, but you're talking crap- you're making implications that are not warranted.
Besides, what's with this 'sleep around' business? That's a weird tangent to take- where's that come from? When I was a stoner, I never _had_ sex. It was too difficult compared to getting high. Now that I'm clean and sober, well
Damn, you're right. Now I'm pulling all my books on the subject, searching the web, and doing deja.com searches to find my reference on this in order to clean that statement up. Haven't found it yet, but here's an interesting quote along the same lines:
Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding: First report of the national commission of Marihuana and Drug Abuse, pg. 83-84, published and handed over to the President and congress in 1972:
This report, handed to President Nixon and the '72 congress, was the first in a long line of publicaly funded studies on marijuana use and public health policy which recommended decriminalizing the drug immediately. Needless to say, Nixon took one look at it's findings and tossed the report in the trash -- showing that politicians have no regard for any science that doesn't back up their pre-conceived notions.
Thanks for both of your replies, BTW.
Some anonymous coward noted:
As a minor aside...in regions of the Southeast US that are dry counties (there are some in Tennessee and Georgia, and approximately 50 percent or more of the counties in Kentucky are dry; other Southern states in the "bible belt" prolly have "local option" laws) alcohol is quite illegal; in most places that are dry one can actually be charged with bootlegging for merely POSESSING alcohol, and the penalties are similar to those against marijuana posession. Penalties for SELLING alcohol can range all the way up to felony convictions policed by the ATF.
I can also state--from experiences of friends-- that in those areas of the Southeast where one MUST buy alcohol from a bootlegger, it is quite common that the bootlegger is either growing marijuana or deals in marijuana (and occasionally in harder drugs as well). In fact, most of your former "shiners" do marijuana farming as a side business or have gone completely to farming pot and bootlegging Jack Daniels and Budweiser (at twenty dollars a six-pack, yet).
As an aside--some fun statistics for folks. Kentucky--which has one of the higher percentages of dry counties of Southeast states (I don't know how many dry counties exist in Alabama or Mississippi or other states far deeper in the clutches of the Religious Reich than Kentucky is)--also had, until fairly recently, possibly the strictest law on cannabis posession in the US. (The law was eventually ruled unconstitutional because it was overbroad; the law as written defined marijuana so widely [it listed marijuana as being de jure "plants of the genus Cannabis or any parts or products derived thereof (my emphasis)] that posessing hemp rope [which is made from a Cannabis species posessing little if any THC] or taking dronabinol [the medical name for THC; more on this in a bit] would be technically illegal in Kentucky.)
Oddly enough, Kentucky is the #1 producer of marijuana in the US and it has been stated that if marijuana were taxable marijuana would likely be Kentucky's #1 cash crop (surpassing even tobacco, and Kentucky is in the top three tobacco producing states). If marijuana were legalised even for medicinal purposes in the US, most farmers could probably abandon farming tobacco; the climate and soil in Kentucky are next to perfect for growing cannabis, and in fact the US Government set up huge hemp farms in Kentucky during WW II for the war effort ("Hemp for Victory"). It is also thought it is likely impossible to eliminate all of the marijuana harvested in Kentucky, as a fair percentage of it is either growing feral in national forests or wildlife areas (where spraying paraquat is prohibited) or is outright planted in areas where spraying is prohibited.
Perversely, the main psychoactive principle in marijuana (delta-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC) is legal in the US, whilst marijuana isn't for the large part. THC is sold and marketed legally as a Schedule II drug called dronabinol (trade name is Marinol) and has been since the late 80's. The FDA, under considerable pressure from the DEA (and it may come as a surprise, or maybe not, that the DEA does have much influence over drug scheduling) has so far refused to even drop pure marijuana to Schedule II (which would legalise it for medical use in the US) even though pure THC is listed under Schedule II and even though a federal court has ruled that the FDA should drop scheduling of both pure THC and marijuana to "Schedule IV or V" (this being in a lawsuit by NORML).
(A note on how the US does drug scheduling. Drugs that have psychoactive abilities are listed from Schedule I (illegal for any use, and used for drugs considered "dangerous" and/or with no legitimate medical use that isn't served by "safer" drugs) down to Schedule V (possibly addictive in some form if you take it in the long term, but in some cases considered safe enough that prescriptions aren't required).
(Examples--heroin is listed as Schedule I here in the US (in Britain it'd be listed in the equivalent of our Schedule II). Morphine and most really strong opiates (fentanyl, oxycodone, etc.) are listed as Schedule II, along with pure amphetamine and dextroamphetamine (still legal for treatment of narcolepsy and for weight control). Schedule III is, mostly, medium-strength opiates such as codeine derivatives, a few strong benzodiazepines, and some amphetamine and barbituate derivatives [if memory serves, barbituate itself is also Schedule III]. Schedule IV includes most "downer" drugs--a lot of barbituate derivatives and drugs that metabolise to barbituates [like Ritalin], most legal benzodiazepines [Valium, Xanax, etc.], etc. as well as most codeine preparations and some barbituate relatives [Phenteramine, the "phen" part of "phen-fen", was Schedule IV before it was pulled from the market]. Schedule V listed drugs are fairly rare; the only ones I know of offhand are paregoric and "Cheracol" [which contains a weak opiate], both of which are listed as "exempt" narcotics and at least in Cheracol's case is available as an OTC drug in many states.
(No, the way the US does scheduling makes no sense at all. Hallucinogens and narcotics are seen as Really Bad and usually get listed as Schedule I or II; benzodiazepines, like Xanax or Valium, are well known to have a high potential for abuse [lots of people, LOTS, have been hooked on Valium and other tranquilisers; I happen to know a member of my family who has been hooked on Xanax for approximately the last twelve years yet refuses to get help, and the doctors fear the shock of withdrawal at this point would cause her serious harm] yet are listed as Schedule IV in most cases [along with codeine which takes some time to get addicted to--it's been said one can get hooked on Valium after a week or so of use]...I know of one case where a benzodiazepine has been listed as Schedule I (Rohypnol; "roofies", "date-rape drug") and only because it was being used in assaults and people had OD'd on it, and valerian root (which actually contains a very small amount of Valium in it, and has other active principles which your body metabolises to Valium--it's where the whole idea for benzodiazepines came from!) isn't even scheduled at all and can be bought over the counter at your local grocery in the "health-food" or "vitamins-n-herbs" section. The vast majority of drugs that can cause hallucinations at ANY dose [LSD, ketamine, psilocybin, ibogaine, etc.] are listed as Schedule I, even in cases where medical benefit has been proven in clinical trials [ibogaine has been proven to be useful in treating addictions to cocaine and heroin, and is one of the few useful agents known for treating the former]; usually at the moment it is discovered clinical trials are being started, permission is denied for continuing trials by the DEA. Marijuana is in much the same boat; in part the drug was banned in large part due to lobbying from liquor companies [who had JUST had liquor re-legalised and who were scared to death that marijuana would sink their chances at re-establishing legal business] and the DEA refuses to re-legalise because of the canard that marijuana is a "gateway drug" and also because marijuana is classified as a hallucinogen. [As a minor aside--Ectasy is also banned as a hallucinogen, NOT as an amphetamine derivative. As another aside, "anti-drug" programs with kids are also starting to label tobacco and alcohol as "gateway drugs"--especially tobacco. I expect after tobacco and alcohol have been banned they shall start next on cappuccino being a "gateway drug" and calling for the coffeehouses of the US to first stop serving to anyone looking younger than thirty, then closing up altogether.] Ketamine, which is a Schedule I drug in humans, isn't even scheduled AFAIK in veterinary use [where it is used as an anesthetic in larger animals, particularly equines--and yes, before one asks, veterinary drugs ARE scheduled just like human drugs are; many opiates used for tranquiliser darts and the like are licensed as Schedule II drugs [like carfentanyl] or are dual-scheduled [PCP was formerly Schedule I save for veterinary settings, in which it was Schedule II...] Nicotine for medicinal use [in "quit smoking" programs] isn't even scheduled AT ALL and most forms are available OTC, even though most scientists who have studied mechanisms of addiction will state nicotine is at least every bit as addictive as heroin or cocaine, if not more so; methadone is listed as Schedule II for treatment of addiction to opiates [and yes, it is directly comparable].
(If I were drawing up the scheduling, morphine and Valium would BOTH be at Schedule II, with all the strict licensing requirements and paper-trail required; marijuana I'd place in Schedule IV or V for medical use. The medical data just aren't there for it to be at tighter scheduling; there is evidence (from old copies of the US Pharmacopeia all the way to informal trials) that marijuana and cannabinoids DO have benefit in a number of illnesses, such as AIDS Wasting Syndrome, cancer wasting syndromes, severe vomiting from chemo, glaucoma, and epilepsy; in many cases pot is being used for treatment of illnesses that are refractory to standard treatment--nothing else works. The FDA apparently thinks there's enough benefit to allow *pure THC* as a legal drug, and a number of companies are working on cannabinoid derivatives that don't get you high but still have the same medical effects [they could work with pot, but pure pot is still Schedule I and even pure THC (which doesn't work as well for cancer patients and AIDS patients, which indicates that THC derivatives or "chemical cousins" in pot may also be helping there) is Schedule II which many doctors don't like to prescribe--one of the big problems with pain management in terminal cancer patients in hospitals/nursing homes/hospice is that doctors in the US are very hesitant to prescribe strong opioid painkillers because they are convinced their patients will become addicts and/or they do not want to deal with the red tape involved with Schedule II drugs (you have to have a DEA license to even prescribe them, prescriptions CANNOT be renewed, you CANNOT write prescriptions for over a month's supply, the pharmacist must likewise be DEA-licensed, and the DEA can block a prescription being filled if they feel it's for an "excessive" amount and bust the doc for drug trafficking), even if the only way a patient CAN get relief is through a Schedule II drug]. There is [at least according to the 1989 version of the Physician's Desk Reference, in the prescribing info for Marinol (dronabinol)] only one recorded death even remotely attributable to THC overdose, and even then it is doubtful whether THC was all that was involved [other drugs were in the person's system]...it isn't as dangerous as Valium, certainly, or other benzodiazepines [Valium is very, very bad to take with alcohol or other depressants; people have died from this; people have also died from accidential OD's of Valium and Xanax, as well as from deliberate OD's in suicide attempts], and I seriously doubt that even a six-month supply of pure THC [which is the maximum for Schedule IV or V drugs; some states have lower limits] is going to kill someone unless they already have something seriously wrong with them. Hell, people have been known to get addicted to Cheracol cough syrup, and it's listed as an "exempt narcotic" which can legally be sold OTC--to the point some states have legal restrictions on how many bottles one can buy, or keep the stuff behind-the-counter. The only iffy thing is synergy effects, but as far as that goes--both NSAID drugs like ibuprofen and aspirin and acetominophen and its derivatives are Very Bad to take if you are drinking alcohol, and Seldane (an antihistamine) was sold OTC in Canada till it was found out that it caused fatal heart rythym disturbances when taken with damn near everything from common antibiotics to medications for yeast infections and athlete's foot sold OTC. [It and Hismanal, a similar drug, got pulled from the US market around a year ago. Dunno if the Canadian equivalent of the FDA did so, too.] At the very least, if they legalised the stuff even for medical use it'd help a lot of farmers here in Kentucky, especially considering that if things keep going the way they are the largest legal cash crop in the state may eventually become illegal [tobacco] and Kentucky is not a particularly rich state to begin with; besides, the state already makes nearly *all* of its money on vices [gambling (the horse industry), alcohol (mess of distilleries, mostly bourbon but other stuff too--perversely in a lot of dry counties), tobacco, coal-mining (often, unfortunately, strip mining), exporting drivers of fast cars to NASCAR, and marijuana if you ignore the fact it's slightly illegal] to begin with. :)
(Another fun drug fact--many people note that marijuana is safer than aspirin and/or acetominophen. This is true. What many people may not realise is that aspirin and acetominophen *both* were grandfathered in when the FDA was formed. It's been stated that were they developed under today's drug safety testing schemes, aspirin would likely not get FDA approval and FDA approval would be iffy for Tylenol (the main way it'd get in is as an alternative for people who absolutely CANNOT take NSAIDs [the large class of painkillers known as Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agents of which aspirin is one member], and whom doctors do not want to use steroids or opiates in--because aside from Tylenol one's choices ARE pretty much NSAIDs, opiates, or steroids). One of the main reasons ibuprofen, ketoprofen, etc. are marketed and have done so well is BECAUSE those NSAIDs are safer than aspirin and are proven well enough to be sold safely OTC. [Ibuprofen is actually *better* at treating some kinds of pain, too--in particular, it blocks prostaglandins which are a big cause of menstrual pain. Women all over the US *still* silently thank the FDA for the day they approved Motrin OTC. :)] Also, I should probably refer to asprin as acetylsalicylic acid rather than aspirin, considering Aspirin (R) is actually a registered trademark in most of the rest of the world [including Canada] for what we in the US just know as Bayer aspirin. :) [Thank the gods that the Canadians aren't Trademark Nazis or I'd have a mess of Mounties riding down to carry me away. :)])
Just my approximately 87 cents :)
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Wrong. This is not my "perspective," as you so eloquently state, but referenced opinion based on studies reported in the medical literature. Marijuana is NOT addictive. Period!
Physical addiction is generally a manifestation of a neurological dependence on some arbitrary substance, such as nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, narcotics, or barbiturates. When an individual "becomes addicted," it's because the drug mimiced a particular brain chemical such as a neuro-transmitter or neuro-inhibitor. By mimic, I mean that the drug winds up binding to a particular receptor normally used by neuro-transmitter or neuro-inhibitor. When this happens one runs the risk of allowing that part of the brain which manufactures said chemical to atrophy; meaning that afterward it will produce less of that particular chemical because the receptors have become satiated by an external source. If an individual in this condition suddenly stops taking the drug which is binding to those receptor sites, after the portion of his/her brain which manufactures that particular chemical has atrophied, then the person winds up experiencing drug withdrawals. This is physical dependence. Since different drugs mimic different neuro-chemicals the effects and symptoms of withdrawal are specific to each drug. However, marijuana does not produce this condition in people, or any other mammal. Period.
The Canadian "Le Dain Commission Interm Report," commissioned on the recommendation of Minister of National Health and Welfare and appointed as a "Commission of Inquiry" into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, presented it's report to the Canadian government in 1970. Here is a summary of what it has to say on the potential for physical dependence of marijuana, as obtained from the "Consumers Union Report: Licit & Illicit Drugs", Pg 460: Now, you may want a quote on psychological dependence as well:I happen to like spinach more than just about any other green leafy vegetable. By your logic, does this mean that I'm "addicted" to spinach? How about coffee? If I don't get my morning coffee, I get one hell of a headache! Not so if I miss a day of spinach. According to this, if I were a heavy marijuana user and suddenly stopped smoking pot, I should expect as many withdrawl symptoms as if I had just stopped eating spinach. Maybe less -- as I just might experience extreme constipation from giving up spinach (it's good roughage).
You can't _get_ a more insidious drug. It doesn't _need_ to lead to anything to screw you up completely, especially if you lose the volition to do anything _but_ smoke pot and end up struggling to come up with the money to _get_ the pot. You'll lie, manipulate, and con anybody, your own mother, your best friend, to get it. I smoked it for years, years ago when I was growing up. Me and my best friend had a little routine we'd go through- we'd go in on a bag, and then one of us would divide and the other pick. This is my best friend and he couldn't trust me to be fair- he knew I couldn't- and of course I couldn't trust him either! How many of you have to do this? One divides and the other picks? Is that a really _mellow_ spiritual approach?
This is mostly just unsubstantiated person opinion. IOW: CRAP! As for how you used to split bags of dope, well that sounds like a perfectly sane Machiavellian approach to your relationships. People fuck each other over for sex, money, status, and just about anything else desirable, including pot. So, your point is?
...to see if their homogenized, middle-America, Sunday-insert world has been rocked by the news that one of their most frequent and visible contributors liked to toke?
Should make for an interesting teen-feedback segment: Parade asks: Would you smoke pot if it meant you could write a screenplay starring Jodie Foster?
Once back when I was at Cornell, I had the pleasure of sharing an elevator with the elusive Mr. Sagan. Around about the third floor, he hit the emergency stop button, pulled out a one-hitter, and asked me if I wanted some.
True story. Except the part about where he stopped the elevator and smoked marijuana.
I wonder what Howard Huge is up to this week...
wcb
Or directly, because they had really low blood preassure, and the first joint they tried made their blood preassure drop really low.
There were a few people there, all of which, except for me, were stoned. I go "Hey, where's Tracy?" and they all start giggling. "She
fell asleep!". Well, she didn't, she fainted and would have died if I haden't made her eat a whole bunch of cofee and salt.
Oh, dear....
I hope you didn't hurt her too badly. How did you diagnose her "low blood pressure"? A sphygmomanometer? Or by looking...
How did you know she was dying? This is a big deal, you know. We don't generally go around dying (in the short term).
Was it low blood sugar? Did you have access to a blood sugar measuring device?
Did you know that coffee is a diuretic, with the effect of reducing the total fluid volume of the body? The result is reduced blood pressure.
Did ou know that if you create a hypertonic solution in someone's stomach, the tendency is for the body to shift fluids (H2O)to reduce the salinity of the slug of salt to less toxic levels? The short term result would be a dropping of intravascular volume as fluid shifted to the site of greater concentration. This process is called "osmosis".
The better solution for the situation would have been to encourage the consumption of isotonic or hypotonic solutions, to bolster intravascular volume. If there was actually a problem.
What you did was likely harmful to her, and possibly the very worst thing you could have done.
Please don't make medical diagnoses and then perform therapy modalities unless you know what you are doing. You obviously didn't.
I apologize for being so unkind and blunt with you, as you seem to be a caring individual. Since you do have an inclination to mess with people in what you perceive to be a medical situation, please get some training. There are many good first aid programs out there, and MANY hard core books. Get one, or five, and read it.
Or, call 911. But, I confess, I'm glad you didn't, and didn't have to.
So you don't wanna get old, fat and bald? Consider the alternative.
Amazing how we legalize alcohol, which causes thousands to be killed in automobile accidents, but make marijuana illegal. Marijuana makes you about as dangerous as a tree. But yet one is socially acceptable, and one is not.
What hypocrisy! The only causualties of the war on drugs has been our civil rights. I don't care if people use drugs - it's their body and their life. The government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do as long as it does not cause injury to another. And I would like to remind our legislators that if you want something done - make it illegal for kids to do it.
Look in countries like Ireland where they have legalized it - it's a non-issue. Nobody gets "smoked up" and plays baseball with other people's mailboxes. It lost all of it's "forbidden fruit" value once it was legalized, and now it's not even interesting.
In short, it's a big joke. So what if people want to smoke pot? Atleast they aren't getting tanked up and doing something really stupid like buying Office 2000....
--
In The Dragons of Eden, Sagan tells how his "informant" become aware of the presence of a "silent watcher" after using pot. I remember when I read that I thought the report of the experience was so vivid that it should have been himself. But he also said that marijuana couldn't improve one's capability of understanding philosofy, for instance, so it should "suppress the left emisphere and let the stars to come out".
It is all in the "Lovers and Madmen" chapter.
Well, never did really like Carl Sagan, but that's besides the point. I guess now we know why he kept repeating himself over andover and over. That too is besides the point.
People: marijuana kills you.
At best, you're slowly turning your brain into mush.
I've seen people die because of marijuana. Either indirectly, because they were dumb enough to operate heavy machinary (namely cars and motorcycles) under the influence.
Or directly, because they had really low blood preassure, and the first joint they tried made their blood preassure drop really low. There were a few people there, all of which, except for me, were stoned. I go "Hey, where's Tracy?" and they all start giggling. "She fell asleep!". Well, she didn't, she fainted and would have died if I haden't made her eat a whole bunch of cofee and salt.
Now I'm not trying to tell all of you not to smoke pot. I wish you didn't, and I want you all to know that even though I've never met you, it hurts me personally to know people do that.
what I'm saying is, don't try and justify your own actions by the actions of others. Jesus, who cares if Carl Sagan smoked something or not? You think because he, or the President of the United States did it, that makes it ok? Well, it doesn't. If you want to smoke pot for your own sakes and ruin your own brains with chemicals, that's your own business, not Carl Sagan's.
Yes, major rant, but this hit a raw nerve.
When you guys lose as many friends to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, you'll be saying the same things.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
So, let's see, Richard Feynman did it, Carl Sagan did it, Allen Ginsberg and his crowd did it and *so* much more, Edgar Allen Poe was alcoholic for a good deal of his life, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, the list goes on and on and on. Reminds me of an article The Onion did that the drug czar had to revise his "winners don't use drugs" propaganda; sometimes winners do use drugs.
What's a teetotaling person to do? Sure, most people who use drugs might be losers who are trying to escape from their loser lives, but some are actually experimenting with altered states of being. (Click here for an interesting article on what it is to *experiment*, not recreate, with drugs.) So I make the choice not to use too many chemicals to alter my consciousness. But even chocolate, caffeine, a good meal can do that. Exposure to the sun, rain, Dickens, a boring lecture, a rousing makeout session, all these externals affect my mood and state of mind whether I intend it or not.
Maybe a conscious user, one who's experimenting rather than recreating, asks the question in T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock": "Do I dare disturb the universe?" Except, I say no, and he says yes.
I dearly hope I'm not wrong.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
In fact, he named his book "Billions and Billions" just that as a joke to the longstanding perception that he used that phrase. In the book he states:
"I never said it. Honest. (...) I said "billion" many times on the Cosmos television series, (...) but I never said "billions and billions". For one thing, it's too imprecise."
He goes on to say that the myth of that saying started with Johnny Carson, who used that phrase when doing an impression of Sagan.
But, Sagan knew he wasn't the most gifted cosmologist technically, but he was a gifted communicator. He explained and abstracted intricately complex concepts so that the general public could understand science. His television shows and books sparked interest in science in many lay-people. And who knows how many children he inspired to become scientists.
So, I suppose Sagan's gift was to make science more accessable to the masses. And I say he did a bang up job of it.
Your friend did not die from pot, he died from impared driving.
Alcohol or talking on a cell phone would have done the same thing.
I think you missed the point, which is: Many people don't smoke pot for a "cheap kick". Many people get intellectual gains from it, and enhance what their brain is already giving them. Certainly more so than alcohol. It's always been this way, but basically, US government propoganda has been trying to convince people otherwise for the last 60 or so years. This isn't paranoia, this is obvious to anyone who's smoked much pot. And yes, the US government has self-interested motives here, financial and otherwise. (For example, at least one major US presidential candidate is getting a lot of money from the prison industry. There are many very different examples too; ask me if you want to hear them.) The US government then applies pressure to other governments around the world.
Much development of human culture has come from brains enhanced by drug experiences, including some of our most influential computer scientists, and many if not MOST artists of ANY medium, ever. The problem is, they're not allowed to speak about it because of the current political climate. They'd risk their careers, not to mention jail time. Any pro-drug, anti-propoganda opinions are very effectively censored by this threat. So you very rarely hear those opinions in any public forum, but believe me, those opinions are out there. The only opinions you ever hear are either inexperienced, or lying.
I don't mean to give you a hard time, Jan. I admire you for having the attitude that "people can do whatever they want"; I wish more people in this country (USA) thought that way. Instead, because of the "War on Drugs", literally millions of people are rotting away in jail here for non-violent drug offenses. In many ways, they are in jail because of their political beliefs, a "crime" which is only defined as such by a government they strongly disagree with. So to the end of rectifying this extremely corrupt human rights abuse, I try to correct any misinformation I see. I'm trying to confront the propoganda head-on.
(And yes, I agree that many people are pretty lame and waste much of their potential by abusing (not just using) drugs, but that's no reason to throw them in jail. I have no right to tell a stranger how to run their life, if they're not imposing on me.)
I don't smoke anything, but I also think that pot is probably the least dangerous illegal drug out there -- alcohol has got to be 10x as bad for you.
I find it ironic that when I went on a month-long bender after my girlfriend dumped me and society just shrugged. Even though I almost ended up in detox a couple of time and barely remember most of January that year, it was OK.
Of course, if I'd started smoking pot, they would have had to lock me up for my own good and to protect society from me.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Hi Jethro,
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, as is everyone, and as an apparently caring person (you) I'd usually be the last to critisize your opinions. But I'm gonna, cuz I've had a raw nerve on this issue for quite some time as well.
>>People: marijuana kills you.
Life kills you, the moment you start it.
Children in cars can kill you with distraction.
High School sports can kill you (saw it twice, both athletes that I knew)
My point? It's not how long you lived, but *how* you lived, at least to many people.
Furthermore, studies have shown that the Jamaican Rastafarians, on average, live longer and it's tentatively attributed to reduced stress levels. Studies schmuddies. Who cares, people will always be able to spin numbers.
>>Or directly, because they had really low blood
>> preassure, and the first joint they tried made
>> their blood preassure dropWell, she
>> didn't, she fainted and would have died if I
>> haden't made her eat a whole bunch of cofee and
>> salt.
Oh Come On!!! Do you really pass through life believing that you saved hers? Do you really believe that giving coffee and salt to someone who 'has dangerously low blood pressure' is in any way a medically sane option?
>>what I'm saying is, don't try and justify your
>> own actions by the actions of others. Jesus, who
>> cares if Carl Sagan smoked something or not?
Because the world needs to know that people of 'credibility' sometimes do things that are counter to our governments list of approved behaviors that you won't get thrown in jail for. In my home state, (midwestern), the governer actually tried to pass a law that would have made a mandatory sentence of 30 days in jail (not county, not city, the STATE PEN) for anyone caught with any amount, period. 1 roach, 30 days, no questions. Geezuz, talk about hitting a raw nerve. Most people aren't in the position to stand up and say. "Yeah, I do it, so what?" *I* am not in that position as a founder and executive in a hardcore Sports organization, which is why, today, I'm an anonymous coward. I hope not to be, someday.
My life is *MINE*! our government needs to change it's views and every little bit of credibility helps, believe me, the corporate spin machines are ready maintain the status quo, even crank it up a notch. Disposable urine tests? *sigh*
Educate yourself. visit http://www.yahooka.com and seek out some scientifically sound information.
thanks for listening - shaggy
BTW - I do my best software debugging with a gentle buzz.
Your argument assumes that illegal = never happens. If that is true, what;s the war on drugs about?
The war on drugs presents society with a never ending bill. First we pay for enforcement, then we pay for jails, then we pay welfare for people who would have had good careers if not for their conviction. We also loose the benefit to society those people could have provided. Then we loose our rights so that enforcement can be effective (yeah, sure)
I really doubt the additional medical bills would add up to all of that.
As a side note, the very same 'esteemed' lawmakers who are responsable for all of that get really upset when they are asked if they have ever smoked pot (One wonders how THEY would like being required to pee into a bottle).
Keep in mind that it is quite possable that the only difference between the guy cleaning toilets where you work and our 'esteemed' president isthat 30 years ago, a cop saw what he was smoking.
People: marijuana kills you.
Please back this statement up with facts. Cigarette smoking kills about half a million people annually, while according to this PBS "FrontLine" report there were "...too few deaths to meaningfully study the other main hypothesis, that marijuana use would be associated with increased respiratory disease mortality." and "...relatively few adverse clinical health effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans."[references available at PBS site] In fact, Marijuana has no known LD 50, that is lethal dose in 50% of cases, not because data on health affects is lacking, but because no report has ever been filed of a death from Marijuana overdose. In fact, the only animal safety studies on Marijuana use ever completed killed vervet monkeys by asphyxiation from carbon dioxide poisoning, not from a drug overdose; showing that THC, while showing high efficacy, is one of the safest drugs known to man. It's safer than aspirin, buddy.
At best, you're slowly turning your brain into mush.
The psychological and brain physiological effects of Marijuana use simply aren't well known in the United States because the FDA has repeatedly refused to allow human studies. They won't even allow studies which purport to give marijuana to test subjects, when they are really only giving a placebo. However, anecdotal evidence from the lack of emergency room visits due to marijuana intoxication, compared to alcohol, cocaine, and heroin overdoses are telling. As the second most popular recreational drug in America, it causes fewer emergency room visits than all other drugs combined. Stick that in your pipe and smoke.
Marijuana use is at least as old as alcohol consumption, going back many thousands of years. And it's noted that today a large segment of society smokes pot without anywhere near the same level of ill health affects as alcohol. This is not to say that smoking pot is good for you in general, just that in comparison to alcohol, it's far safer.
I've seen people die because of marijuana. Either indirectly, because they were dumb enough to operate heavy machinery (namely cars and motorcycles) under the influence.
No doubt, anyone operating heavy machinery under the influence of any drug (even many prescribed medications) run risks associated with cognitive impairment. No one should drive a car while taking oxycodone, alcohol, or marijuana. Period.
Or directly, because they had really low blood preassure, and the first joint they tried made their blood preassure drop really low. There were a few people there, all of which, except for me, were stoned. I go "Hey, where's Tracy?" and they all start giggling. "She fell asleep!". Well, she didn't, she fainted and would have died if I haden't made her eat a whole bunch of cofee and salt.
This anecdote doesn't back your statement up. Sorry.
I don't see many folks bringing up hemp as an industrial resource, nor do I see many folks pointing to it's use as a medicine for the terminally ill. I've seen Marijuana work wonders for people dying of AIDS and know one person who swears it's what got him through Chemo-therapy alive. Yet our government continues it's war on citizens as though we can't manage our own bodies and personal lives without government interference. I have no problem with obeying traffic laws which state I must drive sober, but when our government puts good people away for long prison sentences simply because they were trying to live through a terminal illness, we have a serious problem with a political institution way out of touch with it's citizenry.
I support legalizing drugs, and believe that it ought to be up to the individual how he/she decides to live his/her life. Laws and the police should protect citizens from violent crime and fraud, not self abuse and self destruction; that's a job for psychiatrists and clergy.
Originally Jethro's comment came in at a two, and has been moderated down. However, even though Jethro posted non-factual statements, it's turned into the most interesting comment thread among all the posts in this discussion forum (my opinion). So, moderators, please up this comment, and please go down and read some of the Anonymous Coward posts... at least one of them I noticed is very good.
The mistake most people who've posted are making are assuming that their experiences are universal; everybody reacts differently to pot. It makes Carl Sagan draw curves in the shower, it makes others giggle, it kills others.
As for arguments about the relative dangers of tobacco, they're irrelevant. I've no doubt whatsover that cigarettes are vastly more dangerous, but to insist that pot is harmless is just silly. It has dangers for some, and some people do become psychologically addicted. To the best of my knowledge, no-one can become physiologically addicted, but I'm willing to be corrected by an authoritative source.
Speaking personally, I'd like to attest to the effectiveness of hash (grass is damn difficult to get in Ireland) as an anti-nausea drug; when I was undergoing chemotherapy, it was the only thing that kept me from barfing the day away. Of course, I'm only talking about its effect on me. Your mileage may vary.
I don't care if W. Bush used drugs, as long as he doesn't care if we do.
The problem is that W. Bush used drugs, but doesn't want us to. He said he's "learned from [his] mistakes" and realizes that drugs are bad and need to be eradicated.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just because Carl Sagan was one of the founders of extra-terrestrial awareness and happened to do drugs doesn't make drug use "correct". You can hold him up as a pillar of the community and say, "See, he did it!" or you can respect the laws of whatever country you are in and abide by them while trying to change them. All this proves is that Carl Sagan was human. He had his virtues and he had his vices, just like every other human. Somehow, I don't think that when Carl Sagan was in public, giving his speeches, promoting his ideals and preaching his message that he was stoned, or that those ideas were a result of marijuana's influence. Marijuana didn't expand his concept of the universe, and the geek community shouldn't hold Sagan up as proof that marijuana can benefit society.
Part of the lies surronding Cannibus is that is worse for your lungs than smoking cigarettes. I will attempt to counter this completely false view.
/mythidx.shtml
War on drugs drones state that pot is three times worse for your lungs than tobacco. Where do they get this idea? From the fact that marijuana has 3 times the tars as tobacco. This is true but there are LESS Aromatic Hydrocarbons (known to be carcinoens). Also... being both a cigarette smoker AND a pot smoker i dont smoke 20 joints a day but i often smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day. So... if the input level is lower then you can't claim that the 3x amount of tar makes it 3x worse for you. Another issue is that most tobacco is LOADED with chemicals from your friends at phillip morris or wherever. If you know where your weed came from then you should no exactly what is on it.. fertilizers, pesticides, additives. Do you know whats on that tobacco you just smoked? I sure dont.
Point is... everything is fraught with dangers... red meat increases cholestorol and fat.. more heart attacks... but I don't go around screaming DONT EAT THAT STEAK. You can get in a car and die 5 minuets later from a drunk driver. You wouldn't say.. DONT RIDE IN A CAR!! If it is something that you enjoy or need (and there are legitimate medical uses for pot) you should be able to do it regardless. there is an excellent reference on many more myths and facts about pot here: http://www.norml.org/canorml/myths
Use Your Head
Enjoy your stone...
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Nice post, however I have one criticism: "As the second most popular recreational drug in America, it causes fewer emergency room visits than all other drugs combined." This is not impressive. I am not positive, but I believe it safe to assume the same could be said for any other drug, as in: "PCP causes fewer emergency room visits than all other drugs combined".
It's relevant in that the recreational use of marijuana is second to only alcohol in popularity, while causing fewer hospitalizations than all other drug use combined -- including alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP. This means that a very large population of users generate fewer hospitalizations than from the use of all other drugs combined. While PCP users presumably represent a very small number of the drug using population, they certainly generate more hospitalizations annually (by definition).
Sure there are people who manage to stay productive while being regular pot users, but how large a percent are they?
As long as it's illegal, we'll never know. The people you're talking about won't likely admit to smoking pot because of their position. The only ones you'll see are the ones that are adversely affected and can't hide it. It skews the data.
Line up a random group of people. None of them will admit anything, but you know some of them drink alcohol. You will find the serious alcoholics easily (look for the ones who smell like beer and are staggering around). Next to be found will be those with severe cirrosis of the liver. After that, you'll catch the ones with bad judgement who screw up their lives.
At this point, you're left with the majority still undetermined. Because they have good judgement, and are successful, you'll never suspect them. From that, you might be tempted to conclude that drinking makes you a looser, and harms your health while successful people with good judgement don't drink.
That is exactly what happened with pot. Nobody sees the silent majority of pot smokers who are not seriously affected.