History and
Context
Marijuana originally spread from Taiwan. It was first used
as a fiber then expanded its use to cloths, papers, food, various cosmetics
such as soaps and oils and of course, for the alteration of consciousness, both
recreational and religious.
Hemp fibers were likely the first in history. They decorated
clay pots as far back as 8000 b.c.e. Linens first appeared in 3500 b.c.e., an
entire thousand years before the emergence of cotton. Hemp fibers and linens
were used to make bowstrings and ropes for ships in Russia, Greece, England and
Italy as well as the Vikings. During the American Colonial period, England even
ordered the colonies to grow hemp for this purpose but the colonies instead
turned to a more lucrative crop: tobacco. After the civil war, hemp production
in America sharply declined due to processing improvements of cotton. However,
cotton has been criticized for a number of reasons. It yields less fiber per
acre, requires more water and pesticides and causes more environmental harm.
There are many current arguments to begin producing hemp again for these
purposes on a much larger scale.
Hemp paper first appeared in the first century b.c.e. in
China. It quickly spread to Japan and then to the Arab nations. It has been
said that hemp may be more economical and more environmentally friendly than
wood. The plant is ready to harvest quicker and it causes much less damage to
ecosystems. Once again, modern arguments are emerging for the large-scale
production for this purpose.
Industrial hemp actually contains as little as .15% THC.
Those who oppose the manufacture of industrial hemp on moral grounds or because
they don’t want people to smoke it and get high (we will get to this), cannot
use this as an argument. You simply cannot get high with industrial hemp. It is
very different than the marijuana people smoke to alter consciousness and
should be treated as such.
Hemp was used for foods as well. Hemp seed porridge was
found in ancient Russia, Poland and Lithuania. It contains “20-25% protein and
contains healthy amino acids, minerals, calcium, potassium and essential fatty
acids.”
Marijuana’s medical use began around 2737 b.c.e. It was used
for a wide range of physical ailments including pain, seizures, muscle spasms,
poor appetite, anxiety, nausea, insomnia, asthma and depression as well as
labor pains, premenstrual symptoms and cramps. Even the United States
Dispensary in 1868 declared that marijuana “improved appetite, sexual interest,
mental disorders, gout, cholera, hydrophobia [?] and insomnia.”
Marijuana’s use as an intoxicant has a complicated past and
present. Reactions to its use necessarily include the wide spectrum of
reactions to “novelty, pleasure and the unknown.” We will return to this point
in greater detail later. The Chinese it seems were the first to use marijuana
this way around 100 c.e. The Taoists used it to “induce hallucinations.” This
use was more religious than recreational, used in conjunction with other
religious practices such as meditation and yoga.
Marijuana’s transition to illegal status is both complicated
and simple. It is no secret that opium became illegal in the United States due
to racism against Asians. Marijuana can be said to follow suit with comparable
discrimination against Mexicans. Likewise, its illegality corresponds strongly
with a general human tendency to fear the unknown and the different.
Cannabis became essentially illegal in the US in 1937 when
Harry Anslinger championed the Marijuana Tax Act, which created high taxes and
harsh sentences for marijuana. The harsh sentences increased with the 1951
Boggs Act. The dominant perspective of the time was said to be that marijuana
use inevitably led to heroin addiction. This gateway theory we will see later
is completely false.
General Research
and Figures
A researcher named Hilts asked two prominent drug researchers
in 1994 to rank features of six common drugs: nicotine, caffeine, heroin,
cocaine, alcohol and marijuana. Features included the drugs ability to produce
withdrawl, tolerance and dependence in the users. Both researches placed
marijuana last in all three features. Another study had experts rank 18 drugs
on how easily they ‘hook’ people and how difficult they are to quit. Marijuana
ranked 14th behind nicotine (1st), alcohol (8th)
and caffeine (12th). Only MDMA, mushrooms, LSD and mescaline ranked
lower.
How we define drug addiction, dependence and abuse largely
shapes how date is presented. The following criterions are the ones used. Their
accuracy to an unbiased presentation of the evidence may be misleading.
Nonetheless, here are the definitions and findings:
“Dependence” according to the DSM 4 is a collection of three
of any seven symptoms: tolerance, withdrawl, use exceeds initial intention,
failed attempts to decrease use or a constant desire for the drug, loss of time
related to use, reduced activities due to drug use and continued use despite
problems. All symptoms must create “meaningful distress” and occur within the
same year. The drug user must require the drug to function and must make
maladaptive sacrifices to obtain and use it. “Abuse” is defined in terms of
four symptoms: interference with major obligations, intoxication in unsafe
settings, legal problems and the consistent use despite problems. According to
interviews conducted with over 42,000 people who had used marijuana in the last
year, 25% qualified for a diagnosis of abuse and 6% for dependence. Abuse is
much more common in rural areas and dependence is more prevalent in those
persons with depression. 85% of people who used marijuana in the last year
reported none of the problems, 15% reported one, 8% reported at least two and
4% reported at least three.
This current approach of using dependence and abuse definers
may overestimate marijuana’s negative impact. The diagnosis may say more about
the culture and its values than the actual negative consequences marijuana
creates. Although problems are not common, a spectrum of 6% to 23% report some
difficulties with the drug.
Gateways and
Stepping Stones
Data do not support the idea of marijuana being a
stepping-stone or “gateway” drug to harder, more harmful drugs. Marijuana and
hard drugs do share some biological effects. “For example THC, opiates and
cocaine all alter the dopamine system in comparable ways.” The cannabinoids
however have their own receptor that does not react directly to drugs like
heroin and cocaine. They are unique and should be treated likewise. This much
is clear: “Physiological mechanisms do not explain any link between marijuana
and the use of other intoxicants.”
The gateway theory simply does not hold up under basic
critical reasoning. Of all 221 million adult Americans, 76 million have tried
marijuana and 145 have not (2002 figures). Lets assume that the six million
Americans who tried crack cocaine also tried marijuana. That assumption leaves
us with the conclusion that 70 million people who have tried marijuana have
never tried crack. “Thus the correlation between marijuana consumption and the
regular use of these harder drugs in negligible.”
Health Effects
Earleywine says, “In general, the drug [marijuana] is
incapable of creating an overdose. It can exacerbate the symptoms of some
mental disorders but does not appear to cause them. Data fail to show any
marijuana-induced changes in brain structure, but long term exposure to the
drug alters the way the brain functions during complex tasks. People who smoke
marijuana but not cigarettes have yet to show severe pulmonary problems like
lung cancer or emphysema, but mild respiratory problems [do] appear.” Thus, in
the tong term, consistent, lifelong use of marijuana can cause complication in
performing complex tasks. This is it’s negative health effect. Compared to
other legal drugs, marijuana’s “impact on health is minimal.” Said another way,
“Cannabis seems to have fewer negative health effects than legal drugs, like
alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco…”
Social Problems?
Arguments for marijuana’s illegal status often cite the
social problems it might cause including “decreased productivity and
performance in school, dangerous driving, and uncontrollable aggression”. Lets
discuss these three topics independently.
1.
Performance in school and productivity
In terms of performance in schools, over a half a dozen
studies reveal that marijuana users and nonusers have comparable grades in
college. There is no difference in grades whatsoever. Some studies even found
higher grades in marijuana users than nonusers.
High school however shows a different trend. Users do tend
to have lower grades than nonusers. However, this is only the case with “heavy
marijuana smokers.” But most heavy marijuana users earn lower grades prior to
their marijuana use. This suggests that cannabis could not have caused their
poor performance. “High school students who smoke cannabis heavily also tend to
use alcohol and other illicit substances” as well. Causation in these instances
is difficult to establish. The supposed link between cannabis and poor academic
performance simply does not exist. Rather, heavy marijuana use follows a
general “pattern of deviance”. Marijuana use does not cause people, or especially
youth, to become depressed and unmotivated. Rather, depressed or unmotivated or
unconventional people and youth may have a higher likelihood to choose to smoke
marijuana.
The drug itself does not create deviance. There is no
evidence for a marijuana-induced a-motivational syndrome. “Long term exposure
to cannabis in the laboratory fails to show any meaningful or consistent impact
on productivity”.
2.
Dangerous driving:
Many say or imply that marijuana contributes significantly
to accidents. However, there is no data to support these conclusions. Marijuana
does not increase the risk of accidents that cause injury, although it may
increase the chances of other, more minor accidents but there is no data on
this subject. In fact, drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to “drive
more slowly, leave more space between cars, and take fewer risks”. In this way,
marijuana is far different from alcohol, which clearly causes drivers to be
more reckless and dangerous.
3.
Increased aggression:
The association between cannabis intoxication and aggression
is unlikely. Marijuana users “do not show more aggression than people who
receive placebos”. In fact, in some studies users occasionally show a decrease
in hostility. Those that may fit the bill in this instance are more likely to
be aggressive people who also happen to smoke cannabis.
The data in all three categories of arguments is in sharp
and contradictory contrast to the dominant assumptions about the drug.
Law and Policy
Despite all this scientific evidence, marijuana remains
illegal. Debates on its prohibition usually focus on moral and “pragmatic”
issues rather than science and empirical evidence. “Moral arguments in support
of prohibition generally portray the drug as unethical or corrupt”. Pragmatic
arguments in support of prohibition, on the other hand, cite supposed health
consequences, use by youth, and the gateway theory. My argument, that I will be
writing much more about, is that in both instances of moral and pragmatic
argument, the perspective comes from religious assumptions about sin and being
dirty/unclean (both overt and covert – consciously and unconsciously).
More research is unneeded to change current law and policy.
We have all the hard information we need to change the paradigm. However, this
change is not going to come. Why not? Because the political climate, fed by
subtle puritan religious assumptions will not change so easily. Earleywine
says, “If anything is to change, it will have to come about in changes to the
political climate, not to science.” The current laws and policies towards
marijuana and the drug war in general may “reveal unspoken attitudes about the
people who want to alter consciousness.” Some citizens may view people who want
to change their consciousness in general or in certain ways as being evil or
bad. These views, in my opinion, are the strongest determinants of cannabis
policy, particularly as news of the drugs limited harm reaches everyone the
public.
Everyone carries assumptions about thoughts, awareness and
internal life. It is perfectly human to make these assumptions about
consciousness. And to think that it should be a certain way. We all have
stereotypes about techniques designed to alter thoughts and awareness. Both
chemical, physical and mental activities can change consciousness. Mental
activities for changing consciousness can provide good examples. Just examine
attitudes about meditation, frequent prayer, and hypnosis. People who do not
engage in these practices may see those who do as deviant in some way. Yet the
activities remain legal. Perhaps because they cause no harm? Physical
activities also change consciousness. Skydiving and bungee jumping remain
legal. They are not harmless. But more people have died from these activities
than from using marijuana. A few chemicals that alter consciousness also remain
accepted. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol have established effects on thoughts
and moods. Their toxicity is much higher than that of marijuana. Citizens seem
to trust adults enough to let them use these drugs in a way that will not cause
problems. Why is this privilege, on these grounds, unacceptable in regard to
marijuana?
Final Thoughts
Earleywine concludes, “from a combination of economic
incentives and a sense of justice, the world has slouched toward progress in
appreciating diversity. [However} people are starting to respect each other a
little more, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, occupation, sexual
orientation, religion, political affiliation, or education. Many argue that
this greater respect benefits everyone. We approach a point where people might
tolerate others who think differently. Perhaps we could tolerate people who
want to use marijuana without causing harm to themselves or others.” It’s a
beautiful conclusion. And it’s true, there is more respect for diversity now
more than ever in human history. The alteration of consciousness however
retains subtle and intense assumptions that are not easy to perceive let alone
change. How we go about this process is difficult to say. The political climate
changes quite slowly as does the evolution of religious thought. But perhaps we
are reaching a threshold; one where on the other side we can celebrate and
enjoy different ways of experiencing the world in a non-harmful way. Perhaps we
are on the threshold of openly celebrating marijuana and its effects on
consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment