Marijuana & Health

[Ego]

IMO psychedelics are simply another (possibly more efficient) way to jumble the information you hold between those boxes in your mind to create something unique (i.e. permaculture, etc) or a new perspective. Can you have these crazy insights without the use of drugs? Certainly. But a drastic change in perception can accelerate this process heavily.

Much of the current interest in psychedelics has grown out of the life-hack movement - a movement I like very much but one that operates on what I like to think of as the Pareto fallacy... applying Pareto's law to everything in life and assuming it works equally well.

Shortcuts can be great. But there are times when the trade-offs for reaching the goal quicker are not readily apparent, (a hidden damage, an induced weakness) caused by the shortcut itself. We live in a short-attention-span society so we become very skilled at ignoring the subtle trade-offs to GET IT NOW!.

Might be why people describe going through "ego deaths" when taking certain psychedelics.

I chose my name well.

Is the drug induced ego death the same as naturally reaching this enlightened state through years of practice? I have not experienced either, so I cannot say for sure.

We have lots of examples of those who claim to have reached this ego-death pinnacle by way of drugs and others who did so through meditation/mindfulness. Since many of the drug-induced folks had their experiences in the sixties, we can see how they have lived their ensuing years. Same for the gurus.

Here's the thing that bothers me. When I look at them, the two groups seem very, very different.

[7Wannabe5]

Eh, men and their vision quests. I've done my share of experimentation and in my opinion the truest path to ego death is breast-feeding.

[Dragline]

Eh, men and their vision quests. I've done my share of experimentation and in my opinion the truest path to ego death is breast-feeding.

Yes, that is generally what men are aspiring to on vision quests. (As the feedee, not the feeder).

[Slevin]

Much of the current interest in psychedelics has grown out of the life-hack movement - a movement I like very much but one that operates on what I like to think of as the Pareto fallacy... applying Pareto's law to everything in life and assuming it works equally well.

...

Is the drug induced ego death the same as naturally reaching this enlightened state through years of practice? I have not experienced either, so I cannot say for sure.

We have lots of examples of those who claim to have reached this ego-death pinnacle by way of drugs and others who did so through meditation/mindfulness. Since many of the drug-induced folks had their experiences in the sixties, we can see how they have lived their ensuing years. Same for the gurus.

Here's the thing that bothers me. When I look at them, the two groups seem very, very different.

Oh goodness, if we are going to start the old Lao Tzu vs Confuscius (Daoism vs Confuscian) arguments we should probably start another thread .

[7Wannabe5]

@Dragline- lol- Right. I was actually attempting to make a scientific or ecological observation about the natural source of endocannabinoids. The look on a baby's face when he falls sated off your breast is exactly the same look as that of a stoned person. And, voila, it is the case that the compounds in marijuana mimic the compounds found in breast milk which aid development by increasing or regulating the baby's appetite and helping the baby to relax and sleep. Meanwhile, the unique sugars found only in human breast milk (much more naturally sweet than that of other mammals)are being processed through the brain barrier and enhancing its rapid maximum growth and unique bacteria are being transmitted to the infant's gut (recent research shows link between mood and gut flora.) Therefore, I would say that although unknown, it is quite likely that infants sort of "trip out" on breast milk. In any case, what we all may have observed to be true is that the brains of very young children are less rigid and more open to sensory input and creative interpretation. IOW, young children generally have better imagination than adults, especially adults who are experiencing stress. Obviously, adults are known to behave like children when under the influence of marijuana or other substances, but the opposite is also true. If you behave more like a young child then you will feel more like you are stoned. This became apparent to me when I took a course on the topic of incorporating imaginative play into the classroom. The instructor had us all do exercises designed to free our ability to engage in play and it definitely ended up looking not unlike a room full of seriously stoned adults.

Anyways, I mostly agree with Ego, except it sort of sounds like what he is trying to convey is that the "natural" path to what you are seeking when you want to smoke some pot is through ever higher levels of adult masculine functioning (discipline, directed work or practice), whereas I believe that the most direct natural path is learning how to relax your adult and your masculine functioning. Simple exercise. Go out and find a field. Run around and around randomly and then throw yourself on the ground. Then try to just feel and observe without thinking or planning or directing. I know this might be difficult for an INTJ, since you guys pride yourself on competence, but that's the self-aware, no-chemical way to do it.

[BRUTE]

@Ego:

it seems Ego sees drugs or mind altering substances as a tool that can only numb some form of pain, and concludes that it would be better for humans to deal with the underlying issues directly instead of numbing the pain.

that's not how brute sees drugs. sure, many people do this, mostly with alcohol. brute does not enjoy the mind-numbing. but to call psychotropics like LSD, DMT, etc. mind-numbing is absurd.

brute also doesn't subscribe to any hippie-magic about LSD. brute did not gain any magical powers or get in touch with the universe. but brute did gain insights. mind-altering substances can give humans a perspective that is hard to get otherwise. and don't tell brute Ego got the DMT experience from FI or something other that was "not a shortcut" additionally, not using shortcuts when they're available seems very inefficient, all else being equal. why would Ego choose the detour unless it's more scenic? that sounds like protestant work ethic, not generally something brute is fond of.

for brute, who doesn't live on the bottom of the maslow pyramid, "interesting" is usually one of the most important characteristics when choosing what to do with his life. brute likes his job to be interesting, because he won't starve or freeze if he has to go without a job. the whole point of ERE seems to be to free an individual human from having to decide based on anything but what's interesting to them.

so would brute advocate an unemployed person in his 30s who lives in his parents' basement take lots of heroin to numb reality? maybe not. but does brute advocate mind-altering substances to humans who're interested in exploration, new perspectives, and safe entertainment? absolutely.

books and movies and other experiences can expand one's horizon. so can drugs.

slight aside on reality:

if one doesn't live in reality much (and what human really does? see also: philosophy), it would be a waste of time to get a better grasp of reality. so in the case of a human who lives in delusions, getting a better grasp of those delusions seems like a much better return on investment than reality could ever give.

[Spartan_Warrior]

A typical misunderstanding of those who haven't used cannabis--or perhaps even worse, have used it only once or twice--is what being high is actually like. Importantly, the effects vary for everyone, but generally it really is not that psychoactive nor is it anywhere near as strong a depressant as alcohol (cannabis often is set aside as its own category or classed as a mild psychedelic). Most people adapt to any psychoactive effects (colors, paranoia, etc) fairly rapidly after the first few uses and tolerance increases to the narcotic effects at a fairly linear rate, at which point the effects become more or less a mild mood enhancement with a slight sedative effect (depending on strain).

In terms of potency and "separation from reality", I would class this effect as much closer to that of caffeine than to alcohol, and light years from that of DMT or LSD.

Which brings me to my next point. Why do people feel the need to "get high" on coffee? Is everyone who drinks coffee trying to take a shortcut to enlightenment or ease some gnawing existential pain?

Or do they simply enjoy the experience? Do they feel it enhances their lives more than it detracts? Do they bond with friends over it? Do they enjoy the flavor and taste? I can't see how because coffee tastes terrible, but you see where I'm going with this.

Whereas, on the other hand, I don't think anyone expects coffee or tea to have some mystical health benefit to offset its negative health effects. Certainly no one expects it to serve as a shortcut to enlightenment. But this lack doesn't cause anyone (or much of anyone, I can't speak for Ego ) to question (or arrest) coffee users. Why hold the two plants to such different standards?

Oh, right. Coffee wasn't a convenient excuse to search and detain Mexican immigrants and black jazz singers in the 1930s (to present).

[Riggerjack]

I live where it's legal. WA didn't do it as well as Colorado, but legal is better than not.

I don't get high much, but here is my recommendation.

The active ingredients are oil based, so use it in oil based cooking. That is why you see it in cookies and brownies, but not Jell-O. I think it is best in pasta sauce.

Edibles are slower than smoking, so factor that in. The slow feedback can lead to a much stronger high than desired. Know how much you want, and eat that much, no more.

[BRUTE]

Oh, right. Coffee wasn't a convenient excuse to search and detain Mexican immigrants and black jazz singers in the 1930s (to present).

is Spartan_Warrior suggesting that the whole War on Drugs was started by powerhungry puritan moralists, looking for excuses to lock up emancipating minorities? say it isn't so!

[Dragline]

It's all about "Reefer Madness!" A movie worth watching simply as anthropological history. Just in case you were pining for the good old days.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0

Full movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esfKfTBGadg

[Ego]

Why do people feel the need to "get high" on coffee? Is everyone who drinks coffee trying to take a shortcut to enlightenment or ease some gnawing existential pain?

Yep, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. Get curious about why we do what we do. So much of what we do is simple habit. Automatic. Unthinking. How much of that is the result of very subtle training?

Here in California people allow doctors to diagnose their normal human reactions as illnesses so that they can get special dispensations for marijuana. This may seem like a harmless game to circumvent bureaucracy. It is actually a very subtle and pernicious form of social control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization

It used to be argued that marijuana was a gateway drug to harder illegal drugs. Now big pharma sees it as a gateway drug to prescription meds. Got a problem? Eat a brownie, smoke a bong, and someday soon take our pills.

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054- ... 5/abstract

Previous alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use were each associated with current abuse of prescription opioids in 18–25-year-old men, but only marijuana use was associated with subsequent abuse of prescription opioids in young women.

[Slevin]

@Ego I agree here on the form of social control. It has also been argued that this is just part of creating a more controllable citizenry (numb the feelings away until you are just a perfect little worker bee who obeys without question). How else can you create a generation of citizens who will sit and listen and obey policy decisions that lead to the destruction of the environment, disturbing amounts of government violence on undesirables, and a growing economic inequality among citizens? The side-effect of this drugging is the creation of some number of docile undesirables, which is apparently acceptable as they cause very few problems.

The effects of legalization here in Colorado have been interesting for sure (really for almost the past 5-10 years). I have only seen the effects on college kids, and I saw it used generally in one of two ways. The first was a coping mechanism to de-stress from the incredible amount of schoolwork pushed onto the kids. Many of the hard science majors (engineering, chemistry, physics, math) used it in this way without tremendous secondary effects. The second way seemed to be a crutch for the all of life including ambition, social groups, personal care, etc. It is really disturbing to see these kids just generally turn into unkempt, uncaring couch potatoes.

[EdithKeeler]

I used to smoke a little weed from time to time. I also have a lot of anxiety issues, but I'm not sure that was why I was smoking weed.

But at some point, getting high just got.... boring. I dunno. Never had much interest in returning to it.

DBF partakes, and pretty often. He, too, has anxiety issues, and I think it helps him with those. It probably makes him drink less alcohol, which is a good thing. But he 1) spends a lot of time and effort acquiring it, which I find irritating (not in a state where it's legal) and 2) I think it slows him down creatively. Outside observation says it doesn't help his creativity anyway, which he would like it to do. 3) It also makes him less interested in sex, which I DO NOT LIKE.

[7Wannabe5]

****************************************************888

[7Wannabe5]

*******************************************************************

[steveo73]

In terms of potency and "separation from reality", I would class this effect as much closer to that of caffeine than to alcohol, and light years from that of DMT or LSD.

I feel basically this way about marijuana. It's not a strong drug. I think it's stronger than caffeine and you can get high but it's nothing like alcohol.

Or do they simply enjoy the experience?

Yep.

Whereas, on the other hand, I don't think anyone expects coffee or tea to have some mystical health benefit to offset its negative health effects.

I think coffee and tea are extremely healthy for you. I'd like to think that marijuana isn't going to kill me ala smoking cigarettes. I don't think I'd be comfortable with the trade off of smoking a little pot if the end result was cancer.

[steveo73]

I live where it's legal. WA didn't do it as well as Colorado, but legal is better than not.

I don't get high much, but here is my recommendation.

The active ingredients are oil based, so use it in oil based cooking. That is why you see it in cookies and brownies, but not Jell-O. I think it is best in pasta sauce.

Edibles are slower than smoking, so factor that in. The slow feedback can lead to a much stronger high than desired. Know how much you want, and eat that much, no more.

Thanks for this info. I've never been able to access this. I was though thinking of eating a little and vaporizing a little once I reach FI or maybe a little before that.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I think coffee and tea are extremely healthy for you. I'd like to think that marijuana isn't going to kill me ala smoking cigarettes. I don't think I'd be comfortable with the trade off of smoking a little pot if the end result was cancer.

I don't dispute that there are positive benefits to coffee or tea, but there are also side effects. Caffeine is a mind and body-altering drug that, when used too much, can cause serious adverse effects. In fact, it's possible to overdose and DIE from caffeine. http://www.caffeineinformer.com/harmful ... f-caffeine

Never heard of an overdose of cannabis. However, the end result of any smoke inhalation will definitely be some amount of lung damage which could over time translate to cancer. The smoke in cannabis contains a similar range of carcinogens to burning tobacco or other burning plant matter. THC and other cannabinoids themselves are thought to be anti-carcinogenic, but again, most of the science here is IMO questionable (I didn't look at this study closely, but it looks like they did find effects in actual human tumors): http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279571.php

Also, I have just as much anecdotal evidence for the "aging hippies" being among the most healthy, vibrant, and presumably virile of the Baby Boomers. Some friends and I were at a charity event last weekend and the classic rock cover band (mid fifties) was getting lit outside. They kicked ass on stage and their fit and stylish wives didn't seem too unhappy with their partnerships.

Personally, from the research I've seen (and haven't seen), I wouldn't be any more afraid of estrogenic effects from cannabis than from eating too many lentils and beans. Which is to say, not very.

In contrast, alcohol use actually is shown to decrease serum testosterone and cause impotence, both acute and chronic.

As with all things in life, moderation is probably key. Personally, in my non-medical opinion, again, a bit of edible cannabis is about on par with a strong cup of coffee in the long run. YMMV.

[Slevin]

Thanks for this info. I've never been able to access this. I was though thinking of eating a little and vaporizing a little once I reach FI or maybe a little before that.

There have been several studies recently questioning the healthiness of vaping. IIRC the preliminary results showed it may have more detrimental effects than just smoking itself.

[7Wannabe5]

*********************************************************8