Natures Narcotics?

[chadspad]

Hi all,

What are peoples views on natures narcotics ie marijuana and magic mushrooms? These are things that can be grown naturally and yet are illegal to grow and consume. There are a huge amount of plants that can be used for similar purposes instead.

Thought this would get an interesting discussion going!.

[Andy Hamilton]

tricky one.

I have worked in mental health and have picked up the pieces from people who have abused all sort of drugs, including natural ones.

The trouble is now that very strong stuff is about (skunk) and it is not so natural.

I knew a lad who used to smoke all the time as he had stomach cancer, he said it was the only thing that would ease the pain.

Mushrooms - can I keep quiet about them.

[Stonehead]

Not for me thanks - my outlook is pretty odd as it is - but if people want to use mind altering substances in moderation, that's their choice. (And that includes alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine.) I also think the laws are daft - alcohol okay, marijuana not, tobacco legal but not in public, etc.

But, excess consumption can lead to major problems. I know a number of long term dopers - the moderate users (a couple of spliffs or a hash brownie or two a month) are fine; the heavy users (multiple spliffs daily) have various psychoses, lung problems and are pretty much useless most of the time.

Of course, it could be that they already had mental health problems and are self-medicating, but I doubt it in most of their cases.

Where it gets interesting is when substances also have religious and spiritual uses. I once did a story on a coven of witches who used magic mushrooms, and that included being allowed to observe one of their ceremonies (no pics though). I also have a couple of Rastafarian friends, for whom ganja is a sacred herb mentioned in the bible and part of their equivalent of communion.

The law doesn't generally recognise spiritual use, but should it? And how do you define it? The US does accept the use of peyote by native Americans in their ceremonies so why not let Rastafarians use ganja?

If you're an adult and allowed to knock back a Scotch or puff on a cigarette, then you should also be allowed to smoke a spliff, eat a hash brownie, or drop a magic mushroom. Of course, you shouldn't be out driving your car, operating machinery etc afterwards but then you shouldn't be doing that after drink either.

So go for it if you want, but don't expect me to join you. Nettle beer will do me fine!

[AnnetteR]

Just because nature provides it doesn't mean it should be legal or that it's even good for you. You would go out and harvest poison ivy and apply it to your body would you? It grows naturally. Nature produces many products that are not safe or healthy to use. If it's illegal it's probably because it was problematic and something needed to be done to reduce the problem. I know a lot of people that smoke pot and think they are completely unaffected by it. They think the only effect that it has is to make them mellow. Wrong. Most alcoholics don't think drinking changes their behavior in any significant way either.

I have nothing against people, with a long standing history, using certain substances for ceremonial purposes. Of course if it became problematic I would change my mind.

[Stonehead]

Just because nature provides it doesn't mean it should be legal or that it's even good for you. You would go out and harvest poison ivy and apply it to your body would you? It grows naturally. Nature produces many products that are not safe or healthy to use. If it's illegal it's probably because it was problematic and something needed to be done to reduce the problem.

But who decides what's good for you personally? if you want to apply poison ivy, then yes, I'd think it probably wasn't a good idea but that doesn't necessarily mean I should stop you.

Where I think the law should step in is when you want to apply poison ivy to someone who doesn't want you to do it, who is mentally or emotionally incapable of making their own decision, or where they are unaware of consequences that you are fully aware of.

Same with alcoholics - if they want to drink themselves into a stupor and destroy their health, that's their choice. If they decide to drive a car, operate machinery, harass other people, lie on the road, then again that's where the law has a role.

The whole "we know what's best for you" attitude is only a very short step from totalitarianism - let's ban everything we, the "majority", don't like or accept. Obviously, people (particuarly the vulnerable) have to be protected from exploitation and abuse, but equally the establishment of the day should not be allowed to cater to every whim of the mob.

[hedgewizard]

What Stoney said, mostly. The view that "if it's illegal it must be because it was problematic" does tend to assume that the collective leadership of nations is intelligent, well-informed and actually understand the issues. This is rarely the case. Just being difficult to tax is enough to get something banned.

Regarding hash, what Stoney said. Ordinary stuff in moderation is unlikely to cause serious problems; there is demonstrable risk, but it's probably safer than alcohol if you exclude the many legal and practical hazards. Skunk bad news all round.

Regarding mushrooms, the problem of flashback is high enough to keep me well away (that's the possibility of a random "hit" some considerable time later without a related dose). Low doses seem relatively benign, high doses are potentially incredibly scary. Incidentally since the species is native to many European countries, in the UK it is not illegal to eat it. It is, however, illegal to cultivate it or prepare it in any way.

To quote Jim Morrison, "There are things we know, and things we don't know... and in between there are the doors". Fine and dandy, and no question he got some insights under t'influence, but the trouble is that drugs blast all those doors off their hinges and the trouble is they never really shut properly again afterwards. The brain is a finely-balanced self-regulating biocomputer (so finely-balanced in fact that it often gets out of kilter) so the last thing you want to do is fetch the thermostat a hefty kick.

If you really want to feel high, climb a mountain! Or if you must, take a look at the careful, controlled, ritual use of some natural drugs in this book. Magical and Ritual Use of Herbs

[AnnetteR]

But who decides what's good for you personally? if you want to apply poison ivy, then yes, I'd think it probably wasn't a good idea but that doesn't necessarily mean I should stop you.

Where I think the law should step in is when you want to apply poison ivy to someone who doesn't want you to do it, who is mentally or emotionally incapable of making their own decision, or where they are unaware of consequences that you are fully aware of.

Same with alcoholics - if they want to drink themselves into a stupor and destroy their health, that's their choice. If they decide to drive a car, operate machinery, harass other people, lie on the road, then again that's where the law has a role.

The whole "we know what's best for you" attitude is only a very short step from totalitarianism - let's ban everything we, the "majority", don't like or accept. Obviously, people (particuarly the vulnerable) have to be protected from exploitation and abuse, but equally the establishment of the day should not be allowed to cater to every whim of the mob.

Overstatement.

I've nothing further to say on the matter.

[Stonehead]

Funnily enough, I just caught a bit of Demolition Man, set in the future with Stallone as Detective John Spartan. The bit I caught has him sitting in a restaurant asking for the salt - Sandra Bullock's character hastily explains that salt is bad for you and therefore illegal.

It might be fiction (and a celluloid pap), but it does make the point...

Anyway, as for marijuana being made illegal because it was bad for you, that's far from the truth.

Marijuana was first made illegal by the Mormons in Utah in 1915, in response to some Mormons bringing it back from Mexico. It was feared the Mexican "disease" would spread to the Mormons and undermine their faith. Other US states in the south and west quickly followed suit not because marijuana was bad (in fact, the US had actively encouraged farmers to grow marijuana) but because it was another way of targeting Mexicans. (I'm not going to get into US-Mexican relations at that time because that's another long story!)

Over on the east coast, marijuana was made illegal by various states because it was closely linked to African-Americans and jazz music. There was a widespread belief that smoking marijuana made Mexicans and African-Americans forget their place, start thinking they were important and that they could look white people in the eye.

Fear mongering by the Hearst media, political dirty tricks and more racism saw the US ban marijuana federally on 2 August 1937.

In the UK, the Dangerous Drugs Act in 1920 targeted opium, heroin, morphine and cocaine.

The bill came out of the development of the disease model of drug use, which arose from the religious and moral inspiration of the temperance movement mixed with a good dose of racism (eg linking Chinese immigrants with opiates, black immigrants with marijuana etc). Basically, the disease model recast moral disapproval and turned drug use into something that could be "scientifically" shown to be bad for you.

Britain banned the possession of marijuana in 1928, again to stop outsiders from undermining British culture and civilisation. Never mind that Britain had made a fortune out of the trade in opiates and hemp - with the public inflamed by the media (and its age-old vitriol about dirty foreigners) and a moralising establishment, it was time to get tough and crack down. Sound familiar?

Ironically, it is a combination of the "war on drugs" (which actually dates back to the 1930s) and "free trade" that has made the illegal drug industry so profitable. All the crackdowns forced prices higher, while the dumping of food crops by the US and Europe in the Third World saw peasant farmers turn from food crops to cash crops (ie drugs).

Nowadays, an absolutely huge and powerful section of the economies of Britain, the US, Europe and the rest of world is dependent on the drug trade. Think about the number of people employed in law enforcement, health, social services, finances etc. Now, think about all the tools they use, the uniforms, the computers, the ships, planes and cars, the high-tech gadgets, etc. Think about the regular conferences, the air travel, the hotels, the convention centres, the media, etc. Think about the prisons, the construction industry, the energy demands.

Remove the illegal drugs trade and a huge "legitimate" section of the world's economy would be in serious danger of collapse.

That's not overstatement. Do the research - use Google as your starting point and take it from there.

Oh, and this is not to argue one way or another but just to point out that you should never take anything for granted, that just because everyone believes something to be so doesn't actually make it so, and that facts matter - even if they are buried deep.

So be for or against drugs, it doesn't really matter to me but at least make sure your decision is informed by facts and not by prejudice, hype and false assumptions.

[Wombat]

The brain is a finely-balanced self-regulating biocomputer (so finely-balanced in fact that it often gets out of kilter) so the last thing you want to do is fetch the thermostat a hefty kick.

Mine goes out of kilter enough WITHOUT putting any other substances in there!

Nev

[hedgewizard]

'sfunny, I remembered writing that when I was cutting the grass this evening... I have to kick the lawnmower a couple of times before it will start