6 ms·

I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much abou

I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much about weed abuse. Though we've come across the problem of alcoholism in those days too.

knowThySelfx 9y ago
Who is having an agenda here?
- posterboy 9y ago
  I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.
  - giancarlostoro 9y ago
    Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.
    - knowThySelfx 9y ago
      Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes. Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Too much water will kill you eventually. Funnily enough, we know how much water it takes to kill you, but we haven't discovered that limit on cannabis yet... but there surely is one. In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.
    - mcbits 9y ago
      Well, at my high school, the "stoners" were also drinking, sniffing glue, eating nutmeg, smoking banana peels, etc. In adult life, the few people I've met who only smoke weed have been pretty level-headed. There's some selection bias because I try to avoid people who appear to be of the glue-sniffing variety. Maybe they're just big reefer junkies after all.
      - giancarlostoro 9y ago
        I wouldn't call adults who casually smoke weed stoners though. We're talking about people who are long-term or chain smokers. High school pot smokers do not yet show the long-term signs of marijuana use typically.
    - wolco 9y ago
      The research is at its very basic level now. There are many different types with different affects. Studies that generalize all strains are inheritly flawed. It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths
    - damnfine 9y ago
      That is the most intelectually lazy thing I think I have ever seen posted on HN. Would 'nigger' end your argument on black people?
  - sputr 9y ago
    The negative health affects are definitely there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.
eropple 9y ago
Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it. It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.). More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  Yeah, used for rituals etc. I think most of the world too. It's also used in medicines. Ayurveda has always used it. And of course, modern medicine uses its contents. But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.
  - eropple 9y ago
    I can't speak to most countries, but the United States did so largely due to concerted efforts to tar it as a drug of "negroes" and "Mexicans" and to attach to it mostly-untrue stories. "Reefer Madness" is an awful movie, but it's an awful movie that exists to push a policy position.
    - knowThySelfx 9y ago
      Understood. Here's a little overview of what happened in India: https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illegal-in-India-and-what-was-its-legal-status-prior-to-the-NDPS-act https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illega...
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
yodsanklai 9y ago
> I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  > Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol? Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound. I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)
int_19h 9y ago
The British studied this very question in India (where such use was pervasive) back in 19th century. Here's what they found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission "In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ... In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ... In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ... Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  These findings kinda still holds true upon general observation.

knowThySelfx 9y ago

Who is having an agenda here?

posterboy 9y ago
I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes. Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Too much water will kill you eventually. Funnily enough, we know how much water it takes to kill you, but we haven't discovered that limit on cannabis yet... but there surely is one. In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.
  - mcbits 9y ago
    Well, at my high school, the "stoners" were also drinking, sniffing glue, eating nutmeg, smoking banana peels, etc. In adult life, the few people I've met who only smoke weed have been pretty level-headed. There's some selection bias because I try to avoid people who appear to be of the glue-sniffing variety. Maybe they're just big reefer junkies after all.
    - giancarlostoro 9y ago
      I wouldn't call adults who casually smoke weed stoners though. We're talking about people who are long-term or chain smokers. High school pot smokers do not yet show the long-term signs of marijuana use typically.
  - wolco 9y ago
    The research is at its very basic level now. There are many different types with different affects. Studies that generalize all strains are inheritly flawed. It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths
  - damnfine 9y ago
    That is the most intelectually lazy thing I think I have ever seen posted on HN. Would 'nigger' end your argument on black people?
- sputr 9y ago
  The negative health affects are definitely there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.

eropple 9y ago

Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it. It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.). More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.

knowThySelfx 9y ago
Yeah, used for rituals etc. I think most of the world too. It's also used in medicines. Ayurveda has always used it. And of course, modern medicine uses its contents. But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.
- eropple 9y ago
  I can't speak to most countries, but the United States did so largely due to concerted efforts to tar it as a drug of "negroes" and "Mexicans" and to attach to it mostly-untrue stories. "Reefer Madness" is an awful movie, but it's an awful movie that exists to push a policy position.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    Understood. Here's a little overview of what happened in India: https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illegal-in-India-and-what-was-its-legal-status-prior-to-the-NDPS-act https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illega...
- digi_owl 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

yodsanklai 9y ago

> I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?

knowThySelfx 9y ago
> Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol? Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound. I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)

int_19h 9y ago

The British studied this very question in India (where such use was pervasive) back in 19th century. Here's what they found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission "In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ... In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ... In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ... Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."

knowThySelfx 9y ago
These findings kinda still holds true upon general observation.