medical mj
January 6, 2003 10:10 PM Subscribe
historical use of medical marijuana for some reason im guessing certain souther baptists will disagree with the assertions of this particular article via newstoday
This is true!
and man, I ordered some of the weed from one of those full page adverts - and oh my god - i'm soooo stoned right now
wish it wasnt 1am. i want chilis southwestern eggrolls
posted by shadow45 at 10:33 PM on January 6, 2003
and man, I ordered some of the weed from one of those full page adverts - and oh my god - i'm soooo stoned right now
wish it wasnt 1am. i want chilis southwestern eggrolls
posted by shadow45 at 10:33 PM on January 6, 2003
Beware of anyone who says that "There can be little doubt that..."
posted by oissubke at 10:44 PM on January 6, 2003
posted by oissubke at 10:44 PM on January 6, 2003
And the pollsters say... Maybe we should ask the people of Weed Church, on Weed Blvd. in Weed, California.
posted by samuelad at 10:55 PM on January 6, 2003
posted by samuelad at 10:55 PM on January 6, 2003
Beware of anyone who says that "There can be little doubt that..."
posted by y2karl at 11:43 PM on January 6, 2003
posted by y2karl at 11:43 PM on January 6, 2003
smoke more pot too help you're speling. dude.
Dr. Earleywine… During intoxication, while people are high, essentially there are definitely some deficits in short memory. So it is very difficult to learn new skills or to memorize material during intoxication. Generally though, long term users, even daily users don't show meaningful deficits in memory when they are not intoxicated. So we might find studies that show list learning tasks where people have to learn long lists of words. And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more. But often the difference is say, half a word on average or one word on a long list.
posted by y2karl at 12:54 AM on January 7, 2003
Dr. Earleywine… During intoxication, while people are high, essentially there are definitely some deficits in short memory. So it is very difficult to learn new skills or to memorize material during intoxication. Generally though, long term users, even daily users don't show meaningful deficits in memory when they are not intoxicated. So we might find studies that show list learning tasks where people have to learn long lists of words. And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more. But often the difference is say, half a word on average or one word on a long list.
posted by y2karl at 12:54 AM on January 7, 2003
First of all, beware of the frickin' Guardian.
Second, it's singularly bewildering that the Guardian and its typical (leftoid) readers will never acknowledge that Jesus even existed, except as an opportunity to call him a pothead .....oh right a "cannabis user". How fascinating.
For Pete's sake:
Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month.
Who comes up with this steaming excrement? High Times? The Weekly World News?
And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more.
So, smoke up, buttercup. And here's a shocking revelation: windbag leftists for legitimization of an illegal drug that induces lethargy, idiocy and the munchies. Keep up the good work.
posted by hama7 at 3:15 AM on January 7, 2003
Second, it's singularly bewildering that the Guardian and its typical (leftoid) readers will never acknowledge that Jesus even existed, except as an opportunity to call him a pothead .....oh right a "cannabis user". How fascinating.
For Pete's sake:
Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month.
Who comes up with this steaming excrement? High Times? The Weekly World News?
And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more.
So, smoke up, buttercup. And here's a shocking revelation: windbag leftists for legitimization of an illegal drug that induces lethargy, idiocy and the munchies. Keep up the good work.
posted by hama7 at 3:15 AM on January 7, 2003
How to win an argument:
Step 1
Label your opponents.
"the Guardian and its typical (leftoid) readers"
Step 2
Ridicule them.
"windbag leftists for legitimization"
It's so much easier than rational debate or supplying factual information.
posted by spazzm at 4:24 AM on January 7, 2003
Step 1
Label your opponents.
"the Guardian and its typical (leftoid) readers"
Step 2
Ridicule them.
"windbag leftists for legitimization"
It's so much easier than rational debate or supplying factual information.
posted by spazzm at 4:24 AM on January 7, 2003
This is an interesting article in that it has connections to two very similar groups that are rarely lumped together. Proselytizing potheads are just as annoying as proselytizing Christians. Obsession is obsession and it's never healthy.
An amalgam of the two would be some sort of über-irritant that might have military applications.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:30 AM on January 7, 2003
An amalgam of the two would be some sort of über-irritant that might have military applications.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:30 AM on January 7, 2003
Mayor Curley, meet the Christians for Cannabis.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:43 AM on January 7, 2003
posted by madamjujujive at 4:43 AM on January 7, 2003
Caustic as ever, hama7 does have a point: the original article is in the current issue of High Times, and one might wonder whether they have a wee bit of bias. The author Chris Bennett has written on kaneh bosm before, and it seems to be a talking point of a crew known as Christians for Cannabis. I'm neither enough of an etymologist nor a exegesist (sp? languagehat?) to say whether the attribution to early Hebrew or the Biblical Hebrew are correct. A timeline from another set of hemp advocates seems to indicate that it was only spreading in northern Europe, via the Scythians, just in time to perhaps have reached the Middle East. Well, there was trade. But this would tend to undercut the idea that there's an old Hebrew word for a Kazakh hemp plant.
posted by dhartung at 5:28 AM on January 7, 2003
posted by dhartung at 5:28 AM on January 7, 2003
Or proselytizing opponents of cannabis
I hope that wasn't directed at me. I'm all for the legalization of pot. I just dislike the people who corner me at parties and gatherings and think that marijuana's illegal status is the greatest injustice in the history of the world. I've heard all about the conspiracy (it apparently involves W. R. Hearst, Dow, The Sunshine Baking Company and Toots and the Maytals) and the illnesses that pot would cure if doctors had access to it (every single terrestrial disease and possibly others). I'm just not impressed-- I still think that they're just incensed that they can't get high in public.
Madam-- that link is amazing. Thanks!
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:59 AM on January 7, 2003
I hope that wasn't directed at me. I'm all for the legalization of pot. I just dislike the people who corner me at parties and gatherings and think that marijuana's illegal status is the greatest injustice in the history of the world. I've heard all about the conspiracy (it apparently involves W. R. Hearst, Dow, The Sunshine Baking Company and Toots and the Maytals) and the illnesses that pot would cure if doctors had access to it (every single terrestrial disease and possibly others). I'm just not impressed-- I still think that they're just incensed that they can't get high in public.
Madam-- that link is amazing. Thanks!
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:59 AM on January 7, 2003
Could legalization come about via a First Amendment (freedom of religion) legal challenge?
posted by toothgnip at 6:24 AM on January 7, 2003
posted by toothgnip at 6:24 AM on January 7, 2003
Hama7, Dhartung and I have duked it out on various threads. On this one......I'll side with them (Dhartung - great historical detective work) and add: It seems like good "Onion" material, but I'll believe it when it comes out as a peer reviewed study published in "Nature" or "Science" - or even "Scientific American". The article could have redeemed itself with a healthy dollop of "might have", "could have", "possibly", etc. But as it stands, it's simply designed to be gratuitiously offensive to many Christians [ Just what we (don't) need - more religious conflict!]. And I think that the "legalize it" advocacy cause (which I generally agree with) is undercut by such silliness.
What's next? Oh yeah....."Jesus was certainly gay, say researchers" - "...recent studies have shown a correlation between higher levels of empathy in males and and inclination towards homosexuality, raising the distinct likehood that Jesus was homosexual. "There's absolutely no question about it", says Larry Phrinck of "Gay Times" -- "Christianity has always been a haven for homosexuals. That's why 1/4 of Catholic priests are gay. Jesus? No question in my mind"...The Catholic Church has declined to comment on this story...."
posted by troutfishing at 7:36 AM on January 7, 2003
What's next? Oh yeah....."Jesus was certainly gay, say researchers" - "...recent studies have shown a correlation between higher levels of empathy in males and and inclination towards homosexuality, raising the distinct likehood that Jesus was homosexual. "There's absolutely no question about it", says Larry Phrinck of "Gay Times" -- "Christianity has always been a haven for homosexuals. That's why 1/4 of Catholic priests are gay. Jesus? No question in my mind"...The Catholic Church has declined to comment on this story...."
posted by troutfishing at 7:36 AM on January 7, 2003
god. hama7 does get his undies in a bunch. if certain religious fundamentalist groups would partake in a little of this natural calming agent - the world would be a better place. would anyone really mind if al queda developed a pot habit?
posted by specialk420 at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2003
posted by specialk420 at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2003
Major Curley:
No offense intended.
I just wanted to point out that annoying shrillness is usually present on both sides of a debate.
Hysterical anti-cannbis crusaders are just as anoying as hysterical pro-cannabis crusaders.
We cool?
posted by spazzm at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2003
No offense intended.
I just wanted to point out that annoying shrillness is usually present on both sides of a debate.
Hysterical anti-cannbis crusaders are just as anoying as hysterical pro-cannabis crusaders.
We cool?
posted by spazzm at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2003
Somebody already said it, but I honestly think that article belonged in the Onion.
Besides, if there was a shred of truth to it, I doubt the knowlege of the oil's "healing properties" would have been lost thru the centuries.
Having said that, I do think that there should be research regarding the use of THC for medical purposes. Seems like I have heard that smoking pot is worse for the lungs than cigarettes, so I wouldn't think it should be used in that form.
posted by konolia at 7:55 AM on January 7, 2003
Besides, if there was a shred of truth to it, I doubt the knowlege of the oil's "healing properties" would have been lost thru the centuries.
Having said that, I do think that there should be research regarding the use of THC for medical purposes. Seems like I have heard that smoking pot is worse for the lungs than cigarettes, so I wouldn't think it should be used in that form.
posted by konolia at 7:55 AM on January 7, 2003
Seems like I have heard that smoking pot is worse for the lungs than cigarettes, so I wouldn't think it should be used in that form.
When smoked in the same amount as cigs are smoked, probably. Regardless, smoking is probably not the most efficient delivery method anyway.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:13 AM on January 7, 2003
When smoked in the same amount as cigs are smoked, probably. Regardless, smoking is probably not the most efficient delivery method anyway.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:13 AM on January 7, 2003
hama7: come by Amsterdam any day and see how the Dutch are anything but lethargic, idiotic or ... well, overweight. You are thinking about TV and talking about pot.
konolia I also heard that South American indians who smoke natural tobacco do not get lung cancer. I personally trust my dope dealer (Ahmed from the Apple coffeshop in the Pijp) quite a bit more than Philip Morris.
posted by magullo at 8:15 AM on January 7, 2003
konolia I also heard that South American indians who smoke natural tobacco do not get lung cancer. I personally trust my dope dealer (Ahmed from the Apple coffeshop in the Pijp) quite a bit more than Philip Morris.
posted by magullo at 8:15 AM on January 7, 2003
I'm torn between my dislike of pot and the joy of letting some of the air out of hama7. hrm...
And here's a shocking revelation: windbag leftists for legitimization of an illegal drug that induces lethargy, idiocy and the munchies.
that sounds terrible! lets stick to something benign, like alcohol.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2003
And here's a shocking revelation: windbag leftists for legitimization of an illegal drug that induces lethargy, idiocy and the munchies.
that sounds terrible! lets stick to something benign, like alcohol.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2003
"an illegal drug that induces lethargy,"
Dr. Earleywine… I looked at everything all the way from the 1600's up to 2002. And to tell the truth there were a few new things that have come out particularly things that were counter to what we all may have learned in health class in junior high. Things like marijuana's impact on aggression, which seems to be non-existent. The idea that marijuana causes A-motivational Syndrome, which the data also doesn't support.
Liane Hansen… What is A-motivational Syndrome?
Dr. Earleywine… A-motivational Syndrome was this notion that you would somehow smoke cannabis and suddenly not want to do anything for society not want to contribute not want to hold a job and be incapable of setting goals and obtaining them. In both education and in occupational domains the data just don't seem to support this. For example, college students who smoke cannabis get grades that are comparable to college students who do not. Cannabis users seem to earn as much money and pay the same amount of taxes. Those sorts of things all seem to kind of defy the idea of A-motivational Syndrome.
idiocy
Dr. Earleywine… During intoxication, while people are high, essentially there are definitely some deficits in short memory. So it is very difficult to learn new skills or to memorize material during intoxication. Generally though, long term users, even daily users don't show meaningful deficits in memory when they are not intoxicated. So we might find studies that show list learning tasks where people have to learn long lists of words. And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more. But often the difference is say, half a word on average or one word on a long list.
"Seems like I have heard that smoking pot is worse for the lungs than cigarettes, so I wouldn't think it should be used in that form"
Liane Hansen… What do you consider the health risks then concerned with the use of marijuana?
Dr. Earleywine… The biggest health risk associated with cannabis use right now just all has to do with lung function and although there aren't any documented cases of lung cancer in people who have smoked cannabis and only cannabis not cigarettes. There do seem to be some small changes in the lungs of people who smoke long term say twenty years or more that suggest they might be at risk for developing lung cancer.
Understanding Marijuana -- A New Look at the Scientific Evidence
Sample Chapters in PDF Format;
Introduction
Chapter One
Index
Original interviewin RealAudio
Again, less rant, more facts: I present the facts--you decide.
That said, the original premise of the post seemed dubious to me from the strart, as--as usual--dhartung, always less rant, more facts, has shown.
Keep up the good work...
posted by y2karl at 8:47 AM on January 7, 2003
Dr. Earleywine… I looked at everything all the way from the 1600's up to 2002. And to tell the truth there were a few new things that have come out particularly things that were counter to what we all may have learned in health class in junior high. Things like marijuana's impact on aggression, which seems to be non-existent. The idea that marijuana causes A-motivational Syndrome, which the data also doesn't support.
Liane Hansen… What is A-motivational Syndrome?
Dr. Earleywine… A-motivational Syndrome was this notion that you would somehow smoke cannabis and suddenly not want to do anything for society not want to contribute not want to hold a job and be incapable of setting goals and obtaining them. In both education and in occupational domains the data just don't seem to support this. For example, college students who smoke cannabis get grades that are comparable to college students who do not. Cannabis users seem to earn as much money and pay the same amount of taxes. Those sorts of things all seem to kind of defy the idea of A-motivational Syndrome.
idiocy
Dr. Earleywine… During intoxication, while people are high, essentially there are definitely some deficits in short memory. So it is very difficult to learn new skills or to memorize material during intoxication. Generally though, long term users, even daily users don't show meaningful deficits in memory when they are not intoxicated. So we might find studies that show list learning tasks where people have to learn long lists of words. And cannabis users might do slightly worse than non-users if they are daily users for two years or more. But often the difference is say, half a word on average or one word on a long list.
"Seems like I have heard that smoking pot is worse for the lungs than cigarettes, so I wouldn't think it should be used in that form"
Liane Hansen… What do you consider the health risks then concerned with the use of marijuana?
Dr. Earleywine… The biggest health risk associated with cannabis use right now just all has to do with lung function and although there aren't any documented cases of lung cancer in people who have smoked cannabis and only cannabis not cigarettes. There do seem to be some small changes in the lungs of people who smoke long term say twenty years or more that suggest they might be at risk for developing lung cancer.
Understanding Marijuana -- A New Look at the Scientific Evidence
Sample Chapters in PDF Format;
Introduction
Chapter One
Index
Original interviewin RealAudio
Again, less rant, more facts: I present the facts--you decide.
That said, the original premise of the post seemed dubious to me from the strart, as--as usual--dhartung, always less rant, more facts, has shown.
Keep up the good work...
posted by y2karl at 8:47 AM on January 7, 2003
Hey hama7, I was just rereading this thread and noticed that in your litany of evils that are induced - lethargy, idiocy and the munchies - you forgot lust!
...and any resemblance of this picture to this poster is purely coincidental.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:55 AM on January 7, 2003
...and any resemblance of this picture to this poster is purely coincidental.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:55 AM on January 7, 2003
I've heard all about the conspiracy
MayorCurley - I think you do history an injustice by writing off the criminalization of marijuana in this way. While I agree with you that maybe there wasn't a "conspiracy," there were certainly efforts by very powerful people behind the Marihuana Tax Act - Hearst and Mellon chief among them.
Apparently, some of us (hama, I'm looking at you) still believe that marijuana is leading blacks and mexicans to rape our white women.
posted by charlesv at 9:47 AM on January 7, 2003
MayorCurley - I think you do history an injustice by writing off the criminalization of marijuana in this way. While I agree with you that maybe there wasn't a "conspiracy," there were certainly efforts by very powerful people behind the Marihuana Tax Act - Hearst and Mellon chief among them.
Apparently, some of us (hama, I'm looking at you) still believe that marijuana is leading blacks and mexicans to rape our white women.
posted by charlesv at 9:47 AM on January 7, 2003
You are thinking about TV and talking about pot.
Amen, brother!
posted by johnny vagabond at 10:42 AM on January 7, 2003
Amen, brother!
posted by johnny vagabond at 10:42 AM on January 7, 2003
"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil... and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ"
Logic quiz time! Who can point out why the preceding argument is valid, but not sound?
Who comes up with this steaming excrement? High Times?
Well, yeah. It even says so in the article.
Oh, and, by they by, as a "leftoid," I'd like to say that most of us do acknowledge the existence of Jesus, but question claims of his divinity.
posted by mikrophon at 11:13 AM on January 7, 2003
Logic quiz time! Who can point out why the preceding argument is valid, but not sound?
Who comes up with this steaming excrement? High Times?
Well, yeah. It even says so in the article.
Oh, and, by they by, as a "leftoid," I'd like to say that most of us do acknowledge the existence of Jesus, but question claims of his divinity.
posted by mikrophon at 11:13 AM on January 7, 2003
When I saw this, and especially seeing that it was from High Times, I reacted the way a lot of you have: Sure, I'm all for legalization, but let's not get desperate, right?
But the more I looked into it, the more interesting it gets. Looking at the issue from a theosophical instead of pharmacalogical perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Jesus' great revolution in Judaism (and what eventually caused his followers' break with Judaism) was to remove the middleman - the priests - between ordinary people and the divine. Anyone who's familiar with the Gnostic gospels knows the prevalence of stories where Jesus explains that not only is He divine, but so is every person he's talking to. This kind of language even survives in the canonical gospels - "ye are gods;" "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" etc.
While I doubt that his annointing oil could have literally produced the "miracles" of the gospels, it could have easily had psychoactive effects, and it sure is interesting, ain't it, that "Christ" means "annointed one." Add to this the very real calamus/cannabis controversy over Exodus 30:23 and the fact that annointing oil was supposed to be reserved for high priests and kings, and we have at the very least an issue that deserves more serious discussion.
posted by soyjoy at 12:11 PM on January 7, 2003
But the more I looked into it, the more interesting it gets. Looking at the issue from a theosophical instead of pharmacalogical perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Jesus' great revolution in Judaism (and what eventually caused his followers' break with Judaism) was to remove the middleman - the priests - between ordinary people and the divine. Anyone who's familiar with the Gnostic gospels knows the prevalence of stories where Jesus explains that not only is He divine, but so is every person he's talking to. This kind of language even survives in the canonical gospels - "ye are gods;" "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" etc.
While I doubt that his annointing oil could have literally produced the "miracles" of the gospels, it could have easily had psychoactive effects, and it sure is interesting, ain't it, that "Christ" means "annointed one." Add to this the very real calamus/cannabis controversy over Exodus 30:23 and the fact that annointing oil was supposed to be reserved for high priests and kings, and we have at the very least an issue that deserves more serious discussion.
posted by soyjoy at 12:11 PM on January 7, 2003
This reminds me of the What Would Jesus Drive campaign from a bit ago. I held then that Jesus (a strange, unemployed carpenter) would have driven a old VW bus or something like a '74 Dodge Dart full of his vagabond friends (apostles) who were too poor to have their own ride. Now that we *know* he smoked weed, it all fits together perfectly.
posted by moses at 12:23 PM on January 7, 2003
posted by moses at 12:23 PM on January 7, 2003
*comes out of a deep doze to hear the fading echoes of a Call for Languagehat, staggers to keyboard...*
dhartung, the word you're looking for is exegete. I don't know enough about Semitic to judge the kaneh bosm thing, but it sounds dubious to me. Respectable etymologies take "cannabis" back to Greek and leave it there; the Greeks certainly got it from somewhere, but it's probably a couple of millennia too late to figure out the source.
*begins to get contact high from wreaths of smoke drifting through thread, staggers out again*
posted by languagehat at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2003
dhartung, the word you're looking for is exegete. I don't know enough about Semitic to judge the kaneh bosm thing, but it sounds dubious to me. Respectable etymologies take "cannabis" back to Greek and leave it there; the Greeks certainly got it from somewhere, but it's probably a couple of millennia too late to figure out the source.
*begins to get contact high from wreaths of smoke drifting through thread, staggers out again*
posted by languagehat at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2003
For an accurate history (1500-2000) of mary jane and most other drugs, check out "Pursuit of Oblivion" by Richard Davenport-Hines. Previously discussed here.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 4:34 PM on January 7, 2003
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 4:34 PM on January 7, 2003
dhartung :the original article is in the current issue of High Times, and one might wonder whether they have a wee bit of bias. The author Chris Bennett has written on kaneh bosm before...
From the article: "There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.
Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism... would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."
Now, if it were just this Chris Bennett guy asserting this without backing it up with any kind of academic info, I might dismiss it outright as stoner wishful thinking. That being said, I would, however, like to read the comment in it's original context and I'd like to hear from other scholarly types before I'd fully accept this as an absolute truth.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:20 PM on January 7, 2003
From the article: "There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.
Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism... would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."
Now, if it were just this Chris Bennett guy asserting this without backing it up with any kind of academic info, I might dismiss it outright as stoner wishful thinking. That being said, I would, however, like to read the comment in it's original context and I'd like to hear from other scholarly types before I'd fully accept this as an absolute truth.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:20 PM on January 7, 2003
« Older Musto | Fuck Hip Hop. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:16 PM on January 6, 2003