Despite the general public's perception of cannabis being associated mainly with down-and-out delinquents and Snoop Dogg, there is a lot more to this drug than meets the (red) eye. The history of the drug takes us right back to BC. Cannabis pre-dates Jesus. The first recorded references to cannabis were in the Chinese emperor Shen Nung's scriptures in 2737 BC. Although the intoxicating properties of the drug are mentioned, he focuses on the drug's medicinal qualities. It was the Muslims in India who first valued cannabis as a recreational, euphoric drug, almost certainly due to the Koran stating that alcohol consumption is disallowed and unholy. It seems the Muslims sought intoxication elsewhere and found their thrills in cannabis, which they introduced as Hashish. It wasn't until the 1920s that cannabis became a major recreational drug in the USA. This is said to have emerged as a result of the prohibition of alcohol. People needed something else. Initially, however, it was mainly found to be used among showbiz people and jazz musicians. A similar status remains today, in that drugs are largely associated with celebrities, which is perhaps responsible for the glamourisation of drugs in general. Best selling thriller author, Lee Child, recently publicly confessed to the Daily Mail that he has been 'smoking weed for forty-four years, five days a week' and goes on to state that he is the 'poster boy to prove it doesn't do you much harm.' He claims that he works best when he is high and hungry and says that smoking weed should 'be made compulsory.' There is an obvious pattern to be seen among the correlation between the arts and narcotic intoxication. Drugs evoke creative inspiration and evidence of this can be found in the works of almost every successful artist whether they be a musician, author or painter. Take, for example, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, Oscar Wilde, Salvador Dali...The proof is in the pudding. The authorities classed cannabis as a mind-altering addictive substance in the 1930s, despite the fact that users had not caused disturbance or threat. The law deemed it a 'gateway drug' that could lead users to more serious narcotic addictions. In the 1970s most of the USA's supply of the drug came from Mexico, hence the name 'Marijuana', and in 1975 the Mexican government agreed to eradicate the crop using toxic pesticides. This lead to Columbia becoming the main supplier of cannabis to the New World. Despite Regan and Bush attempting a mildly successful 'Zero Tolerance' crack down on cannabis, by the 1990s the drug had resurfaced in a big way and become a mainstream recreational substance, particularly among teenagers. As in the 1920s, it was endorsed by musicians. The trend in grunge brought with it a hugely increased trend in cannabis smoking. The cannabis demographic went hand in hand with hip-hop and grunge music as well as skateboarding, all of which were largely dominated by the youth of the USA. This attached a certain stigma to cannabis which remains to this day. The fate of these musicians usually turned out to be pretty unseemly, and the authorities, as well as the general public have a tendency to blame this on drug abuse. Being deemed a 'gateway drug', cannabis is held responsible for almost every narcotic-based misfortune. However, there are many people who completely disagree with cannabis being a 'gateway drug', who want it legalised. Many people believe that the decriminalisation of cannabis would result in a more liberal approach, leading to a decline in Cannabis-related crime. Evidence of this can be seen in the Netherlands where cannabis is not illegal. Users can smoke casually in a laid back environment and because it is not as strictly regulated by the law, it becomes more 'normal' and less 'exotic'. Many young people in places where the drug is illegal want to use it because it is a means to rebellion; breaking the law: an attractive concept. The problem is that the stuff that is smoked today is not the same as what was smoked twenty years ago. Potency has more than doubled, with the average THC content now being over 10% and sometimes up to 25%. This creates cause for concern with regards to the effects that cannabis can have on the brain- the young brain in particular. There are studies being carried out frequently, but there seems to be little consistency in their findings. There is definite correlation between cannabis use and short-term consequences but little evidence to show that any long-term harm is done. There are approximately 250,000,000 cannabis users worldwide and in terms of popularity among mind-affecting drugs it is only preceded by caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, which is interesting as caffeine and nicotine are stimulants, which cannabis is unlikely to be described as. The immediate effects of cannabis are not dramatic enough to be of any serious concern to the user. Dry mouth, red eyes and increased appetite, i.e. 'the munchies', and of course short-term memory loss, which in some cases probably isn't a bad thing. The paranoia and anxiety could be a little more disconcerting, however, it doesn't cause disruption in a way that misuse of alcohol does. Cannabis use causes no social threat. Users do not become violent. If anything, they become docile with impaired motor skills, which certainly doesn't put the user in a position to start a fight, or even retaliate. We tend to stereotype the cannabis smoker. They'll usually be either a hippy or a teenage boy with a computer game addiction far more time consuming and intense than his dope habit. The reality of it is that an estimated 4% of the adult world population use cannabis. All sorts of different types of people. Amsterdam's acceptance of the drug seems to work well socially and politically. There is so much focus on eradicating cannabis use, when cannabis isn't necessarily the problem. Many weed smokers use it as a form of relaxation and are not remotely interested in advancing on to harder narcotics. People find problems where they look for them, and because moderate use of cannabis doesn't prove to be seriously problematic in any way, it poses no threat to society. It would appear that making cannabis more widely available and accessible with reduced consequence where it is decriminalised works, systematically. Of course the health risks still apply, and excessive use among those under the age of sixteen is proven to pose long-term damage to the brain. With legalisation of the drug increasing, most recently in Uruguay, authorities are faced with the fact that it perhaps isn't such a bad thing. If more and more countries or states are altering the legislation of cannabis, there has to be some benefit. In Uruguay at least, the main aim was to eliminate the trafficking of the drug. Trafficking is where the problems lie and crime develops through gangs. When an individual is allowed to grow their own cannabis (up to six plants in Uruguay), the crime associated with trafficking is eradicated. The debates about cannabis will no doubt continue for years to come. There are two strongly opposing sides that will never see eye to eye on the matter. Whether it were to be globally legalised, or eradicated altogether, the issue of the 'gateway drug' would still remain; it would simply shift. Some other drug, perhaps a harder one, would replace cannabis and earn this title. So which is the better 'gateway drug', cannabis or cocaine?
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
baratheonpilled
ellievsbear
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
areudirty
stormborns