At 06:13 AM 6/30/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Francis,
I have some responses that I felt were important after reading your
response to my first post.
>Glad to hear Mr. Nicotine hasn't got his hooks in you. You don't say in your
>message that you smoke cannabis with tobacco, but I assume you do.
Actually, I don't smoke cannabis with tobacco and I am sure that there is
no tobacco in the cannabis which I do smoke. In fact, when I am enjoying
the sweet leaf, I am quite annoyed when another person in the group decides
to light up a cigarette.
>I imagine the issue of nicotine addiction as a by-product would depend on
>how frequently one smoked dope. Somebody who smoked a cigarette or two every
>day would be in danger of developing withdrawal symptoms if they didn't have
>their ciggie. If the tobacco is taken in the form of a daily joint or two,
>then I suppose the same craving might develop.
I am an occasional user, perhaps twice a month on average. And never feel a
craving such as I do for caffeine occasionally which leads me to believe
that there is no chemical addiction involved.
>I know people who smoke dope. They will smoke several joints a night. They
>tell me that the first one is the best (getting them high). The subsequent
>joints get them stoned. Like many things, a taste may be better than a glut.
>My suspicion is that the desire to smoke the subsequent joints arises partly
>from a wish (perhaps not even recognised) to satisfy a craving to smoke.
This could be a valid analysis for the motivations, however, I believe that
several joints a night every night reflects a psychological addiction to
the effects of heavy dosages which comes with several joints a night. I
have heard that such heavy usage leads to an increase in tolerance which
requires a greater dosage of THC to achieve the same high. I have been
lucky enough to be a "light weight" and do not require even a whole joint
to get sufficiently stoned, and it hasn't changed for me since I started.
So basically, I would explain that effect, which I have also noticed in
other users I know, to the combination of psychological addiction and
tolerance.
>Then again, there is the question of damage to the lung tissue.
>
>Here in the UK there is quite a debate going on regarding smoking cannabis.
>The laws are being relaxed. It is becoming more socially acceptable.
>Doctors, though, are warning that it may not be as harmless as its
>supporters assert. Strains of cannabis are now much stronger than that
>smoked in earlier times (I wonder what the position of dope smokers will be
>on Genetically Modified Marijuana if/when it arrives?!) And they point out
>that any smoke in the lungs is not good for you.
I am sure that smoke cannot be good for you even if isn't full of tar like
cigarettes, there is a reason the body has a response like coughing for it.
However, governments should not even be having this argument if you
consider that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Saturated Fats are legal considering
they produce an equal amount of health problems the I'm glad to hear that
things are progressively changing in the UK. Things in the US are only
getting worse with the latest wave of government lies, false data, and
emotional bullshit which are now on national TV.
>I suppose we have drifted off the area of Foucault analysis. Perhaps govts
>should (from their point of view) encourage drug taking because it makes
>some people who might otherwise organise and take part in political
>resistance more apathetic (or just plain forgetful). Or, perhaps they should
>encourage these people to become involved in hard drugs so that they are too
>busy sorting out their next fix to consider revolution.
I suppose we might have gone astray from Focault, but this seems very
pertinent when it comes to the issue of legalization and reasons for laws
against such a harmless drug. I want to tie back into Mr. Boxer's theory
and agree with Aris Mousoutzar as you have to make a clear distinction
between drugs that are chemically addictive and drugs that are not such as
THC. Simply making a single observation of an Heroine addict who also
drives a Ford and eats potato chips and drawing the conclusion that Fords
are addictive automobiles is folly.
James
Francis,
I have some responses that I felt were important after reading your
response to my first post.
>Glad to hear Mr. Nicotine hasn't got his hooks in you. You don't say in your
>message that you smoke cannabis with tobacco, but I assume you do.
Actually, I don't smoke cannabis with tobacco and I am sure that there is
no tobacco in the cannabis which I do smoke. In fact, when I am enjoying
the sweet leaf, I am quite annoyed when another person in the group decides
to light up a cigarette.
>I imagine the issue of nicotine addiction as a by-product would depend on
>how frequently one smoked dope. Somebody who smoked a cigarette or two every
>day would be in danger of developing withdrawal symptoms if they didn't have
>their ciggie. If the tobacco is taken in the form of a daily joint or two,
>then I suppose the same craving might develop.
I am an occasional user, perhaps twice a month on average. And never feel a
craving such as I do for caffeine occasionally which leads me to believe
that there is no chemical addiction involved.
>I know people who smoke dope. They will smoke several joints a night. They
>tell me that the first one is the best (getting them high). The subsequent
>joints get them stoned. Like many things, a taste may be better than a glut.
>My suspicion is that the desire to smoke the subsequent joints arises partly
>from a wish (perhaps not even recognised) to satisfy a craving to smoke.
This could be a valid analysis for the motivations, however, I believe that
several joints a night every night reflects a psychological addiction to
the effects of heavy dosages which comes with several joints a night. I
have heard that such heavy usage leads to an increase in tolerance which
requires a greater dosage of THC to achieve the same high. I have been
lucky enough to be a "light weight" and do not require even a whole joint
to get sufficiently stoned, and it hasn't changed for me since I started.
So basically, I would explain that effect, which I have also noticed in
other users I know, to the combination of psychological addiction and
tolerance.
>Then again, there is the question of damage to the lung tissue.
>
>Here in the UK there is quite a debate going on regarding smoking cannabis.
>The laws are being relaxed. It is becoming more socially acceptable.
>Doctors, though, are warning that it may not be as harmless as its
>supporters assert. Strains of cannabis are now much stronger than that
>smoked in earlier times (I wonder what the position of dope smokers will be
>on Genetically Modified Marijuana if/when it arrives?!) And they point out
>that any smoke in the lungs is not good for you.
I am sure that smoke cannot be good for you even if isn't full of tar like
cigarettes, there is a reason the body has a response like coughing for it.
However, governments should not even be having this argument if you
consider that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Saturated Fats are legal considering
they produce an equal amount of health problems the I'm glad to hear that
things are progressively changing in the UK. Things in the US are only
getting worse with the latest wave of government lies, false data, and
emotional bullshit which are now on national TV.
>I suppose we have drifted off the area of Foucault analysis. Perhaps govts
>should (from their point of view) encourage drug taking because it makes
>some people who might otherwise organise and take part in political
>resistance more apathetic (or just plain forgetful). Or, perhaps they should
>encourage these people to become involved in hard drugs so that they are too
>busy sorting out their next fix to consider revolution.
I suppose we might have gone astray from Focault, but this seems very
pertinent when it comes to the issue of legalization and reasons for laws
against such a harmless drug. I want to tie back into Mr. Boxer's theory
and agree with Aris Mousoutzar as you have to make a clear distinction
between drugs that are chemically addictive and drugs that are not such as
THC. Simply making a single observation of an Heroine addict who also
drives a Ford and eats potato chips and drawing the conclusion that Fords
are addictive automobiles is folly.
James