I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much about weed abuse. Though we've come across the problem of alcoholism in those days too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission
"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ...
In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ...
In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ...
Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."
It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.).
More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.
But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.
Is it really the case? I know it comes up in every discussion about cannabis but I'm wondering if it is really the case. Cannabis (and most psychoactive drugs with the exception of alcohol) are banned in most countries in the world and it has nothing to do with harassing minorities.
And yes, cannabis was banned because of who was using it - as well as how USEFUL it was in disrupting other industries (such as paper) - not because of its effects. There are countless documentaries which discuss this - a simple Youtube search will yield results.
The same administration that pushed hard to get Cannabis classified as schedule 1 in the UN convention on drugs, as claimed by Canadian archive documents.
For those that banned it later, it's usually because they signed one of the global drug control treaties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
Both have been heavily pushed by US (indeed, it effectively organized the first one), and in both cases US was the one that targeted cannabis specifically. In the Single Convention, US was the one that demanded it to be placed on the most restrictive Schedule available.
Here's a good read about all this: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-rise-and-decline-of-c...
Not really-really.
https://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/the-real-his...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...
I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?
Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound.
I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)
In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.
It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths
But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.