Is Marijuana Harmless?

[dlorde]

In my experience some people do get high first time, some don't - and one guy got a sea-sickness type nausea the three times he tried it. A close friend and long-time stoner has a girlfriend who for years had never been able to get high, despite numerous attempts in various ways, then suddenly one day, politely sharing a spliff with friends, she did get high, and has done happily ever since - this is unique in my experience, and I have no explanation.

I didn't think I was high my first time until, halfway through babbling about how amazing a wall poster looked, a companion told me I was just stoned. I was going to deny it until I realised that the effect was subtler and quite different to what I had been expecting.

 

[Iamme]

"Sobering up" is somewhat of a myth. "Sobering up" is really just being in a more alert mode than you once were; you do not really become "sober".

In the same sense, if I drink many drinks and become stone drunk, I could try to "sober up" by drinking coffee; but coffee doesn't actually do anything. It gives me something else to drink, but that's about it; it also makes me more alert, but it does not make me any less drunk. Sure, I'm an alert drunk, but that doesn't mean that my sense of balance and coordination have come back to me. Nor would my thinking process be less impaired; being more alert and drunk may mean that I think faster than when not alert and drunk, but compared to not being drunk at all, it's not much of an improvement.

I actually agree with what you said. But for borderline cases of being high or drunk, this makes it seem like you are more sober to not only yourself but to others. Sure beats being hunched in a a chair, blindly staring into space going, ..."uh..far out..dig...like this is...far out man"

 

[Iamme]

What's a "profound" experience, exactly ?

Like when you get high...go to a 3D movie at the theater and watch bats flying at you while wearing those glasses! You just got to experience that once.

Thinking you see flashing red lights in your rear view mirror is also quite an experience.

 

[Iamme]

As for driving while stoned, I have only ever done it once. I didn't intend to, but I ended up having to drive home unexpectedly. I was very slow and cautious, but I kept forgetting where I was. I'd look around like, "oh, yeah, okay, now I have to go...what, where?"

This happens to me on occassion. Sober.

 

[Iamme]

What's a "deeper" emotional level, exactly ?

Just try the stupid stuff!

It will make you actually think your I.Q. level went up by 20 or more and that others are dumb and unaware of things, compared to you... and that is one reason why you can get giggly while observing other people doing mundane repititious humanlike things...like while shopping in the grocery store, stoned out of your gourd.

Up in Eagle River back inthe early-mid 70's we were all in McKevers grocery store laughing...while the clerk told us that we just missed seeing John Belushi and Dan Akroyed that stopped in the store (probably also wasted) during a shoot either up here or when they were in Chicago. It was like the time when the bars closed.

 

[Iamme]

Lots of people shouldn't drive while sober.

So we allow everything bad then? Because one thing is as bad perhaps as another?

 

[Iamme]

Why does marijuana have to be harmless before people will agree to legalize it? Most things that are legal are not harmless. Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, rock & roll, salsa dancing, . . .

Usually that is why laws are made regarding them. It is recognized that they can have a negative impact and steps are taken to mitigate the affects.

This is actually a very good question.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Why my experience is unlikely to have been placebo effect:

Being young and naive, I had no idea how much to take or how long I would need to wait to get an effect. Me and my boyfriend at the time were on a mini cruise to amsterdam and got some hashcake at a hash bar. After about 15 minutes, neither of us felt anything, so we just assumed that it hadn't worked, or we hadn't taken enough of the stuff. So we carried on looking around the city. A little while later, everything started to go a bit weird and floaty and I couldn't judge distances properly - I had to try really hard not to trip up or walk into people. Just at the point when I was really starting to notice this, my boyfriend said "Woah, I am going to have to sit down for a bit", because he was getting the same thing happen.

Now if this was placebo effect, surely I (and boyfriend) would have felt these effects within the timeframe that we expected the drug to start working, not after we concluded the drug hadn't worked.

 

[Belz...]

So we allow everything bad then? Because one thing is as bad perhaps as another?

A typical post by you, Iamme, showing that you don't read posts like the rest of us do.

 

[Dancing David]

Evidence? I got reaaaaly freaked out the first time I smoked pot. About 48 years ago, when paranoia was getting deep.

"paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep..."

 

[Dancing David]

In my experience some people do get high first time, some don't - and one guy got a sea-sickness type nausea the three times he tried it. A close friend and long-time stoner has a girlfriend who for years had never been able to get high, despite numerous attempts in various ways, then suddenly one day, politely sharing a spliff with friends, she did get high, and has done happily ever since - this is unique in my experience, and I have no explanation.

I didn't think I was high my first time until, halfway through babbling about how amazing a wall poster looked, a companion told me I was just stoned. I was going to deny it until I realised that the effect was subtler and quite different to what I had been expecting.

I think it has to do with the quality of the drugs and the ability to inhale enough to get it into your blood stream, but you never know. Most people don't eat it the first time either.

As a note to those wishing to try "toast" the dope in the oven for twenty seconds or fry with butter for fiveteen seconds. Use approxiamately one tenth to one quarter of what you would normaly use.

Strong tatstes like chocolate will help with the gag reflex, which is why brownie. But do not eat too much, don't eat more that you would smoke normally and expect to get ten times the effect.

 

[Cuddles]

Are advocates of "legalization" for an all or nothing approach or are there some substances on the following list they would not consider appropriate for legalization?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/DrugsofAbuse.html

Alcohol doesn't even seem to be on "the list"
but is such a big problem it deserves its own "institute":

This is mainly due to differences in the way the dangers of certain drugs are measured. Alcohol on its own is not all that bad. Drinking lots of it regularly can be. On the other hand, somthing like heroin can be seriously bad just from one hit. The trouble with all the lists rating how bad drugs are that I have seen is that they look at drugs based on how we use them now, not on their intrinsic dangers. Anyone arguing that alcohol is as bad as heroin is, wuite simply, nuts, but this is what happens quite a lot because alcohol as we use it now causes more problems than heroin as we use it now. In order to compare drugs sensibly you have to look at how that drug behaves based on how it could be used. One shot of heroin can get you addicted, or even kill you, so it is obviously not a sensible drug to legalise. On the other hand, alcohol can be used in moderation without causing any problems at all, so having it legal is not a problem.

Knot has made an intriguing entrance into this forum. That would make two people put on ignore that I know of, because of simple disagreement.

I think this is my first ignore. Do I get a badge or something?

 

[Georg]

One shot of heroin can get you addicted

Is there scientific evidence for that statement, or is it a urban legend spread by the anti-drug warriors?

 

[calebprime]

...
One shot of heroin can get you addicted, or even kill you, so it is obviously not a sensible drug to legalise. On the other hand, alcohol can be used in moderation without causing any problems at all, so having it legal is not a problem...

I'm with Georg. That's way too general.

There are a number of studies of Vietnam vets (I posted one over in the "Drug Money Finances Terrorism" thread) which show that they found the habit fairly easy to quit.

While we're allowing anecdotes, some of my own, for what they're worth.

I tried heroin at age 15. (Snorted it.) Because I wasn't in any pain beforehand, and because I was young and healthy, any relief it might have given me was non-existent. Instead of getting high I merely puked for 2 days straight. Not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Studies of rats with nothing to do but sit in their cages or take a drug are inherently flawed--people are not rats, and people have choices for seeking pleasure and meaning in different ways.

Change the environment, and the response to a drug changes.

Change set and setting, and the response changes.

Change the myth, and the response changes.

That being said, I've also heard that monkeys who are tortured by being reared away from their mothers seem to find much more consolation from heroin than booze. (from the neurologist Alice Flaherty The Midnight Disease I can look it up if you like)

And yes, heroin is more addictive than alcohol. That's why in my 8'd up Utopian vision, you'd need a license to use it.

Here comes Dancing David to set us straight....

My bottom line--if you're not in psychic or physical pain, heroin will hold no appeal unless you've become habituated to it.

The instant addiction you describe is largely a figment of the "addiction memoir"--a popular, but sleazy genre intended to appeal to our prurience as well as our tut-tut side--like the true crime genre.

 

[Georg]

And yes, heroin is more addictive than alcohol. That's why in my 8'd up Utopian vision, you'd need a license to use it.

Sounds quite reasonable. Being undecided myself about legalisation of heroin because of knowing some people who died after an overdose, I think it is necessary to look at all the evidence available before making up your mind.
Recreational use of heroin seems to be possible. I still wouldn´t recommend it…….

http://www.gcal.ac.uk/news/pressoffice/releases/030205.html

 

[Cuddles]

Is there scientific evidence for that statement, or is it a urban legend spread by the anti-drug warriors?

Probably just propaganda. However, the point stands. Some drugs are much worse than others, both in their addictiveness and their lethality. Alcohol is much less addictive and much harder to overdose on than heroin, the exact figures are irrelevant. My point was simply that in order to have a sensible discussion about legalisation we have to know how dangerous the drugs actually are, not just how much trouble they cause the way they are currently used. The lists I have seen on drug danger do not do this. Saying alcohol is worse than heroin based on alcohol abuse in society is just sily, because if heroin was used in the same way it would be much worse.

For example, here is the latest drug danger table from the UK. Is having a few drinks really more dangerous than injecting yourself with steroids? Or is it just that alcohol is easily available in large quantities and is acceptable in our society? While it is useful to have a chart like this to see how things stand, it is useless for making descisions about the future because it does not take into account how drugs would be used if changes were made.

 

[calebprime]

Just so we're clear...I too (not too surprisingly) think heroin is more dangerous than alcohol.

and, injecting anything (except insulin) is a horrible idea.

and, drugs are not all the same.

Found the Alice Flaherty quote, page 210:

"A few scientists studied the neurochemistry of bereavement in unpleasant experiments in which they took a baby animal away from its mother and then counted the number of whimpers as an index of the infant's grief. The researchers then tried various drugs to treat the bereavement. Alcohol, a traditional favorite of humans in mourning, turned out to be fairly ineffective. It didn't calm the whimpering until the baby animal was nearly asleep. The results were similarly dismal for tranquilizers such as diazepam (Valium). But very low doses of opiates were startlingly effective. They quickly eased the infant's whimpering and let it resume its normal activities. Opiates also take the place of social interaction in normal unbereaved animals and make them less interested in contact with others. And drugs that block endogenous opiates make both animals and humans more sociable.

The opiate theory of social bonding explains why talking to others helped my pain..."

"Sometimes, I feel like a motherless child." Well, there's always the Internet...

 

[Dancing David]

Sounds quite reasonable. Being undecided myself about legalisation of heroin because of knowing some people who died after an overdose, I think it is necessary to look at all the evidence available before making up your mind.
Recreational use of heroin seems to be possible. I still wouldn´t recommend it…….

http://www.gcal.ac.uk/news/pressoffice/releases/030205.html

I am torn about the recreational use of opiods. But we allow the uncontrolled perscription of them by doctor's who are supposed to monitor thi8er use. So it would be equivalent.

Cocaine and meth are more likely to kill someone but heroin and all opiates are dangerous. Like barbituates you begin to tolerate the "high" but the lethal dose remains about teh same. So if you continue with heavy long term use, you will have to accept not getting high or overdosing.

Add alcohol and a car and you have a really low death threshold.

 

[Dancing David]

Just so we're clear...I too (not too surprisingly) think heroin is more dangerous than alcohol.

I don't know, heroin has a higher addictive laibility/potential.

But when i think of all the hard core alcoholics I have met I have to wonder.

Just my USD 0.02

and, injecting anything (except insulin) is a horrible idea.

Yeah back when meth was called crank, there was the population that would mainline it.

Which is why "Speed kills". Most of the old hippies I knew stayed away from crank, especialy when the users were tweaking.

and, drugs are not all the same.

Quite true.

Which is why it is funny that MJ is so demonized. It was commonly smoked during the middle ages, I belive I read once.

I think it has more to do with punishing the black man than anything.

 

[Georg]

Probably just propaganda. However, the point stands. Some drugs are much worse than others, both in their addictiveness and their lethality. Alcohol is much less addictive and much harder to overdose on than heroin, the exact figures are irrelevant. My point was simply that in order to have a sensible discussion about legalisation we have to know how dangerous the drugs actually are, not just how much trouble they cause the way they are currently used. The lists I have seen on drug danger do not do this. Saying alcohol is worse than heroin based on alcohol abuse in society is just sily, because if heroin was used in the same way it would be much worse.

I don´t have a problem at all with the point itself that you make. The problem is mixing propaganda with facts. That´s what most governments do on this issue and that is counterproductive. As soon as people find out that they are lied to by someone, they hardly believe anything coming from that source and that can be followed by very negative consequences.
Example? Someone who tried heroin and of course didn´t get addicted the first time despite being told so maybe then underestimates the real dangers of it that are told by the same sources. That has nothing to do with you personally, cuddles, I´m just fed up with the misinformation that is spread (at least partly successful, as we can see with you making the “addicted after one shot argument”) by politicians who should and probably do know better, just for the goal of enforcing their stupid ideologies.
But to make it clear: I´m convinced that heroin is more dangerous than alcohol, and that alcohol is more dangerous than weed. I wouldn´t call weed completely harmless either, but compared to all the other illegal drugs it seems to be the one that causes the least damage to the individuals as well as to society.
But the topic of legalisation/decriminalisation shouldn´t be decided only on a “danger scale” for the different drugs. That´s an important point, but not the only one. Other questions that need to be answered are:

Would really more people take for example heroin as soon as it is legal/decriminalised and doctors could prescribe it for people being already addicted?
I´m not sure about that. If someone is addicted and then gets it prescribed/handed out by a doctor there is not much point anymore for a dealer to make someone addicted, since then he can only sell a couple or maybe a couple of dozen shots to one person instead of selling the stuff for a couple of years or even decades. And that small profit is hardly worth the risk. That could very well be the end of that kind of business model, especially since dealers are often addicted themselves and need the money for their own supply. Prescription could maybe break that vicious circle.

How many people would actually die if they could rely on the same strength of the drug under controlled sales and quality conditions?
Anecdotal evidence only, but after talking to a lot of junkies I got the impression that the differing strength is a huge problem. Weak stuff on the market for a while, people inject bigger portions. Stronger stuff on the market without prior warning, overdose.

How would the rate of offenses motivated by the user's need for money develop if prescription would be possible?
As far as I know there have been trials in Switzerland but since I have to pretend to be working in the moment, I don´t have the time to google. My guess would be the rate drops. O.K., that would shift the burden of paying for the drug to the health care systems, but the costs would be less because heroin could be produced/delivered/sold cheaper than while being completely illegal.

What about the responsibility of society for those ill people?
I call them ill without knowing the official definitions of illness, but I think you know what I mean. Is it really O.K. to let them suffer they way they do now, their whole lives circling around how to get the next shot? Injecting stuff adulterated with whatever? Or would it be better if they get their drug from the doctor? Maybe that would enable at least some of them to lead a quite normal life again.

Disclaimer: My points after the questions are not stated as facts, but as a basis for a lively discussion, if anyone is interested. I do not have a “final” opinion on these matters and therefore would be thankful for additional input.