In praise of marijuana

1. The state of being stoned is the closest humanity comes to living in a state of poetry: the way poetry intensifies language, marijuana intensifies existence. But it does it in a sneaky way, because it makes existence stretch out into some timeless region -- where too much time stretches into an invitation to be wasted, where every second is a longeur, actions lapse in the middle, the flow slurs into joy, being alive is a thing to laugh along with, life is a mode of relaxation. To be stoned is to look at the world with a grin. To be is to groove.

And favorite activities take on a higher glimmer. Listening to music for example. The auditory sense can listen to music and isolate a sound, say the boom of a bass guitar, and follow it by itself inside the harmonies of the other instruments. If the music soars, consciousness soars along with it.

Poetry itself rings in the mind, bouncing from one end of the skull to the other, like nothing else. Read Wallace Stevens while stoned, and it feels like you're touching some outer region where your mind has never been before.

Getting stoned can be very pragmatic, too. If I want to edit something I'm not sure about, I can get stoned and look at it wholly fresh, and immediately see the mistakes. It also gives you ideas. Getting stoned allows the mind to flow freely and come up qwith connections it didn't come up wioth before.

Finally, having sex while you're stoned has got to be the greatest pleasure the human body is capable of.

2. At Dinner With Carl Sagan the Only Drug Was Wine, But That Is Not News.

(Marijuananews note: The story about the late Carl Sagan’s use of marijuana has received extensive news coverage, but much of it missed a key point.

In the spring of 1995, Allen St. Pierre, now the Executive Director of the NORML Foundation, and I had dinner at a small French restaurant in Georgetown with Sagan and his wife and collaborator, Ann Druyan, who had joined the NORML board a few months before.

Sagan, a man of the left, spent a good part of the evening questioning me about my Libertarian political philosophy. It was all in good fun, and both Allen and I recall it as one of the most intellectually stimulating evenings we have ever enjoyed.

Of course, we also hoped that Carl would decide to join Ann on the NORML board, but just a few months later he would be stricken by a rare blood disorder that would claim his life the following year.)

Now that Sagan has been dead for a few years it has been revealed that he not only liked marijuana, but also found it intellectually useful. As they say in Hollywood, "Now it can be told??"

Of course, it is not surprising that in 1971 Sagan had to use a pseudonym, but 24 years later he still was hesitant about joining NORML’s board. Think of the fact that the world’s most famous scientist, wealthy and with academic tenure, was afraid to come out of the closet.

See "The marijuana revolution will never succeed as long as the vast majority of pot smokers refuse to go public. Allen St. Pierre executive director of NORML likens the effort to our forefathers fighting for independence by sending King George letters from 'anonymous in Philadelphia.'" Great Column!

We had wine with that dinner, but no one would find it exceptional that one of the greatest minds of our time would enjoy a few glasses of drug that causes organic brain damage. On the other hand, the thought that he could use marijuana intellectually had to wait until he was gone.

The essay described below ends with a declaration that is not likely to be widely quoted: "[T]he illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.")

3. August 22, 1999: From The San Francisco Examiner -- by Keay Davidson
(Marijuananews note: Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson is a writer for the San Francisco Examiner. Sagan: A Life is due out in October.)

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS ... OF '60S FLASHBACKS

For young people of the '60s and '70s, marijuana use was a rite of passage.

To the very youngest, smoking the illegal drug was the boldest way to rebel against parental and governmental authority. But many young adults used "weed" too.

The term "groves of academe" took on a new meaning in universities, where the spiky-leaved plants grew vigorously and covertly under ultraviolet lamps in dormitory closets. Carl Sagan had been a regular marijuana user from the early '60s on. He believed the drug enhanced his creativity and insights. His closest friend of three decades, Harvard psychiatry professor Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a leading advocate of the decriminalization of marijuana, recalls an incident in the '80s when one of his California admirers mailed him, unsolicited, some unusually high-quality pot.

Grinspoon shared the joints with Sagan and his last wife, Ann Druyan. Afterward Sagan said, "Lester, I know you've only got one left, but could I have it? I've got serious work to do tomorrow and I could really use it."

Grinspoon's 1971 book "Marihuana Reconsidered" included a long essay by an unidentified "Mr. X," who described his happy experiences with the drug. The essay identified Mr. X as "a professor at one of the top-ranking American universities" but disguised his identity by saying he was "in his early forties."

In my interview with Grinspoon, he revealed that Mr. X was Sagan (who turned 37 the year the book was published by Harvard University Press).To Grinspoon, Sagan's use of the drug is dramatic disproof of the popular wisdom that pot diminishes motivation: "He was certainly highly motivated to work, to contribute."

See “American Journal Of Epidemiology Report That Long-Term Use Of Marijuana Does Not Lead To A Decline In Mental Function Got Minimal Coverage, Perhaps Because Scores Actually Fell More Among Non-Users Than Among Heavy Users!”

Mr. X's essay is of interest not merely because it reveals Sagan's use of an illegal drug but also because it offers a glimpse of feelings he rarely shared.


4. The following account was written in 1969 for publication in Marihuana Reconsidered (1971). Sagan was in his mid-thirties at that time. He continued to use cannabis for the rest of his life.

It all began about ten years ago. I had reached a considerably more relaxed period in my life - a time when I had come to feel that there was more to living than science, a time of awakening of my social consciousness and amiability, a time when I was open to new experiences. I had become friendly with a group of people who occasionally smoked cannabis, irregularly, but with evident pleasure. Initially I was unwilling to partake, but the apparent euphoria that cannabis produced and the fact that there was no physiological addiction to the plant eventually persuaded me to try.

My initial experiences were entirely disappointing; there was no effect at all, and I began to entertain a variety of hypotheses about cannabis being a placebo which worked by expectation and hyperventilation rather than by chemistry. After about five or six unsuccessful attempts, however, it happened. I was lying on my back in a friend's living room idly examining the pattern of shadows on the ceiling cast by a potted plant (not cannabis!). I suddenly realized that I was examining an intricately detailed miniature Volkswagen, distinctly outlined by the shadows. I was very skeptical at this perception, and tried to find inconsistencies between Volkswagens and what I viewed on the ceiling. But it was all there, down to hubcaps, license plate, chrome, and even the small handle used for opening the trunk. When I closed my eyes, I was stunned to find that there was a movie going on the inside of my eyelids. Flash . . . a simple country scene with red farmhouse, a blue sky, white clouds, yellow path meandering over green hills to the horizon. . . Flash . . . same scene, orange house, brown sky, red clouds, yellow path, violet fields . . . Flash . . . Flash . . . Flash. The flashes came about once a heartbeat. Each flash brought the same simple scene into view, but each time with a different set of colors . . . exquisitely deep hues, and astonishingly harmonious in their juxtaposition.

Since then I have smoked occasionally and enjoyed it thoroughly. It amplifies torpid sensibilities and produces what to me are even more interesting effects, as I will explain shortly.

I can remember another early visual experience with cannabis, in which I viewed a candle flame and discovered in the heart of the flame, standing with magnificent indifference, the black-hatted and -cloaked Spanish gentleman who appears on the label of the Sandeman sherry bottle. Looking at fires when high, by the way, especially through one of those prism kaleidoscopes which image their surroundings, is an extraordinarily moving and beautiful experience.

I want to explain that at no time did I think these things 'really' were out there. I knew there was no Volkswagen on the ceiling and there was no Sandeman salamander man in the flame. I don't feel any contradiction in these experiences. There's a part of me making, creating the perceptions which in everyday life would be bizarre; there's another part of me which is a kind of observer. About half of the pleasure comes from the observer-part appreciating the work of the creator-part. I smile, or sometimes even laugh out loud at the pictures on the insides of my eyelids. In this sense, I suppose cannabis is psychotomimetic, but I find none of the panic or terror that accompanies some psychoses. Possibly this is because I know it's my own trip, and that I can come down rapidly any time I want to.

While my early perceptions were all visual, and curiously lacking in images of human beings, both of these items have changed over the intervening years. I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high. I test whether I'm high by closing my eyes and looking for the flashes. They come long before there are any alterations in my visual or other perceptions. I would guess this is a signal-to-noise problem, the visual noise level being very low with my eyes closed. Another interesting information-theoretical aspects is the prevalence - at least in my flashed images - of cartoons: just the outlines of figures, caricatures, not photographs. I think this is simply a matter of information compression; it would be impossible to grasp the total content of an image with the information content of an ordinary photograph, say 108 bits, in the fraction of a second which a flash occupies. And the flash experience is designed, if I may use that word, for instant appreciation. The artist and viewer are one. This is not to say that the images are not marvelously detailed and complex. I recently had an image in which two people were talking, and the words they were saying would form and disappear in yellow above their heads, at about a sentence per heartbeat. In this way it was possible to follow the conversation. At the same time an occasional word would appear in red letters among the yellows above their heads, perfectly in context with the conversation; but if one remembered these red words, they would enunciate a quite different set of statements, penetratingly critical of the conversation. The entire image set which I've outlined here, with I would say at least 100 yellow words and something like 10 red words, occurred in something under a minute.

The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I'm down. This is one of many human frontiers which cannabis has helped me traverse. There also have been some art-related insights - I don't know whether they are true or false, but they were fun to formulate. For example, I have spent some time high looking at the work of the Belgian surrealist Yves Tanguey. Some years later, I emerged from a long swim in the Caribbean and sank exhausted onto a beach formed from the erosion of a nearby coral reef. In idly examining the arcuate pastel-colored coral fragments which made up the beach, I saw before me a vast Tanguey painting. Perhaps Tanguey visited such a beach in his childhood.

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me. Again, the learning experience when high has at least to some extent carried over when I'm down. The enjoyment of food is amplified; tastes and aromas emerge that for some reason we ordinarily seem to be too busy to notice. I am able to give my full attention to the sensation. A potato will have a texture, a body, and taste like that of other potatoes, but much more so. Cannabis also enhances the enjoyment of sex - on the one hand it gives an exquisite sensitivity, but on the other hand it postpones orgasm: in part by distracting me with the profusion of image passing before my eyes. The actual duration of orgasm seems to lengthen greatly, but this may be the usual experience of time expansion which comes with cannabis smoking.

I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I've had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds. A sense of what the world is really like can be maddening; cannabis has brought me some feelings for what it is like to be crazy, and how we use that word 'crazy' to avoid thinking about things that are too painful for us. In the Soviet Union political dissidents are routinely placed in insane asylums. The same kind of thing, a little more subtle perhaps, occurs here: 'did you hear what Lenny Bruce said yesterday? He must be crazy.' When high on cannabis I discovered that there's somebody inside in those people we call mad.

When I'm high I can penetrate into the past, recall childhood memories, friends, relatives, playthings, streets, smells, sounds, and tastes from a vanished era. I can reconstruct the actual occurrences in childhood events only half understood at the time. Many but not all my cannabis trips have somewhere in them a symbolism significant to me which I won't attempt to describe here, a kind of mandala embossed on the high. Free-associating to this mandala, both visually and as plays on words, has produced a very rich array of insights.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one. It is easy to understand why someone might think it's a waste of effort going to all that trouble to set the thought down, a kind of intrusion of the Protestant Ethic. But since I live almost all my life down I've made the effort - successfully, I think. Incidentally, I find that reasonably good insights can be remembered the next day, but only if some effort has been made to set them down another way. If I write the insight down or tell it to someone, then I can remember it with no assistance the following morning; but if I merely say to myself that I must make an effort to remember, I never do.

I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can't go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.

But let me try to at least give the flavor of such an insight and its accompaniments. One night, high on cannabis, I was delving into my childhood, a little self-analysis, and making what seemed to me to be very good progress. I then paused and thought how extraordinary it was that Sigmund Freud, with no assistance from drugs, had been able to achieve his own remarkable self-analysis. But then it hit me like a thunderclap that this was wrong, that Freud had spent the decade before his self-analysis as an experimenter with and a proselytizer for cocaine; and it seemed to me very apparent that the genuine psychological insights that Freud brought to the world were at least in part derived from his drug experience. I have no idea whether this is in fact true, or whether the historians of Freud would agree with this interpretation, or even if such an idea has been published in the past, but it is an interesting hypothesis and one which passes first scrutiny in the world of the downs.

I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I'm high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say 'Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!' I try to show that my mind is working clearly; I recall the name of a high school acquaintance I have not thought of in thirty years; I describe the color, typography, and format of a book in another room and these memories do pass critical scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expression, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it's as if two people are reading each other's minds.

Cannabis enables non-musicians to know a little about what it is like to be a musician, and nonartists to grasp the joys of art. But I am neither an artist nor a musician. What about my own scientific work? While I find a curious disinclination to think of my professional concerns when high - the attractive intellectual adventures always seem to be in every other area - I have made a conscious effort to think of a few particularly difficult current problems in my field when high. It works, at least to a degree. I find I can bring to bear, for example, a range of relevant experimental facts which appear to be mutually inconsistent. So far, so good. At least the recall works. Then in trying to conceive of a way of reconciling the disparate facts, I was able to come up with a very bizarre possibility, one that I'm sure I would never have thought of down. I've written a paper which mentions this idea in passing. I think it's very unlikely to be true, but it has consequences which are experimentally testable, which is the hallmark of an acceptable theory.

I have mentioned that in the cannabis experience there is a part of your mind that remains a dispassionate observer, who is able to take you down in a hurry if need be. I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I've negotiated it with no difficult at all, though I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights. I find that after the drive I'm not high at all. There are no flashes on the insides of my eyelids. If you're high and your child is calling, you can respond about as capably as you usually do. I don't advocate driving when high on cannabis, but I can tell you from personal experience that it certainly can be done. My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover. Through the years I find that slightly smaller amounts of cannabis suffice to produce the same degree of high, and in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater.

There is a very nice self-titering aspect to cannabis. Each puff is a very small dose; the time lag between inhaling a puff and sensing its effect is small; and there is no desire for more after the high is there. I think the ratio, R, of the time to sense the dose taken to the time required to take an excessive dose is an important quantity. R is very large for LSD (which I've never taken) and reasonably short for cannabis. Small values of R should be one measure of the safety of psychedelic drugs. When cannabis is legalized, I hope to see this ratio as one of he parameters printed on the pack. I hope that time isn't too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.


5. Study Brings Breath of Fresh Air to Pot Smokers -- by Suzanne Leigh
From Dr Koop Health News

Long-term use of marijuana does not lead to a decline in mental function, according to the findings of a contentious new report. In what may be the first large-scale published study investigating the link between marijuana and cognition, researchers led by Dr. Constantine Lyketsos of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore tracked the results of mental functioning tests completed by 1,318 adults.

Participants were between ages 18 and 64 and were divided into groups according to age, self-reported drug use and alcohol and smoking habits, as well as level of education.

All participants took the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a test to evaluate basic memory, orientation and short-term recall. The average MMSE score for people with at least nine years of schooling is 29 out of a maximum of 30 points. Participants receive one point for correct answers to questions such as the current date and day of the week.

Eleven-and-a-half years later, participants took the MMSE a second time and results were compared with the initial test.

In an article published in the current issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, the authors concluded that cognitive decline was not associated with marijuana use. Among women who didn’t use marijuana, for example, MMSE scores fell by an average of 1.46 points. For light users the decline was 1.04 and for heavy users it was 1.15. For men who did not use the drug, MMSE scores fell by an average of 1.00, versus 1.03 for light users and 0.84 for heavy users.

(Marijuananews note: It would seem that scores actually fell more among non-users than among heavy users.)

Rather than being associated with marijuana use, cognitive decline is related to aging, said the authors. Starting in people younger than 30, this decline increases exponentially with each decade. But, a higher level of education could reduce the degree of cognitive decline, they noted.

However, there is already debate that the results of the Lyketsos study may be flawed by the use of the MMSE as a measurement of cognitive function.

The MMSE "is not a good measure of anything other than for broad-screen purposes," said clinical neuropsychologist Jeffrey Schaeffer of the University of California in Los Angeles.

Eighteen years ago, Schaeffer published a study in the journal Science about the effects of marijuana among 10 heavy or prolonged users. He concluded that participants showed no evidence of impairment of cognitive function after performing a battery of tests to gauge long-term and short-term memory, general intellectual functioning and language skills.

"We used a variety of tests to evaluate mental functioning but they fell short because they didn’t tap the [brain’s] frontal systems that deal with mental flexibility, divided attention and dual processing the areas that according to recent literature have been associated with more subtle impairments [due to] a variety of neurotoxicants including cannabis," Schaeffer said. However, despite the limitations of these tests they were significantly more sophisticated than the MMSE, he added.

More recently, a 1996 study by Massachusetts researchers Dr. Harrison Pope and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that heavy marijuana use was not associated with lower SAT and intelligence-test scores. But when the researchers evaluated the 129 participants’ memory, verbal and sorting abilities using more sensitive tests they found the scores of heavy users were lower than light users’.

(Marijuananews note: Actually, that is not what the study showed, but rather what they said that it showed in order to follow the NIDA funding line. See the Marijuananews notes on the link “Johns Hopkins Study Shows Long-Term Use Of Marijuana
Does Not Lead To A Decline In Mental Function. But Writing About It In Prohibitionist Media Does.”)

The authors concluded that heavy marijuana use may produce alterations in the brain’s structure or function that outlast the direct effects of the drug.


6. THE STRAIGHT DOPE

Long-term marijuana use does not seem to adversely affect mental function, according to a study of 1,318 Baltimore residents. Twelve years after they were first given a standard test of mental ability, volunteers’ average scores had declined only slightly. Those who admitted to having smoked marijuana, even heavily, were no more likely to show signs of impaired mental function than people who had never tried the drug, researchers report in the May 1 "American Journal of Epidemiology".