Cannabis And The Revolution In Our Thinking

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/marijuana/sides-text?fb_action_ids=10153403846693469&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.VVb9n7_3kcc.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B695938493848216%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22.VVb9n7_3kcc.like%22%5D

How is the art world supposed to respond?

Canvas made from the product. Perhaps extracts made for paint vehicles. Perhaps brushes made from the trunk fibers.

The wave that you speak of that seems to have hit the world has been ongoing in these areas for many years, though I'm unaware of specific products. Google brings up lots of things When I used to but product for my stores 15 years they would be available for purchase. When I was a teen products were being made.

I would think that the Art World has been involved in this revolutionary process from the very beginning... though probably weighted on the side of the drug and it's stimulus.

this thread may be against the rules falling under the illegal something rule. because its drugs.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Medical Marijuana is a different product than what's used recreationally. It's bio-engineered for its medical properties and not for its ability to get you high. I'm sure that there is a lot of crossover, though, as a lot of people use that golden doctor's note as an excuse to obtain weed. Many states, including my own Maryland, have decriminalized or downright legalized possession and recreational use of marijuana.

Why do this make me think of this lady who had a husband who drank lots of tea. At a gathering, he disappeared with his cup from time to time in to a different room and I wondered where he went. Then I got close to him and his breath smelled like booze. So I straight up asked him "what is in your tea", and he admitted of spiking his tea with Jim Beam, but did not want us to know. Speaking of drugs!

Some are illegal and then some are not. It's a crazy world out there.

"I don't do drugs. I am drugs." - Salvador Dali

If you want your art to be taken serious then don't give drugs all the credit for your creativity.

Stock ticker for GW Pharmaceuticals, makers of Sativex - Cannabis based drug.

Sativex is the first natural cannabis plant derivative to gain full market approval in any country

GW Pharmaceuticals PLC closed down just (U.S.)$0.08 Friday to (U.S.)$112.25. Over the last five days, shares have gained 2.12% and 65.85% year to date. Shares have outperformed the S&P 500 by 47.85% during the last year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/stocks/summary/?q=GWPH-Q

Big Market, you bet!!! LOL

Cheers, Barbara

I will be glad when it is completely legal, taxed to the hilt etc....

We are wasting a lot taxpayer dollars on this edit

But it is a carcinogen. People claiming otherwise are complete idiots. That has nothing to do with legalizing it.

It should be FDA regulated quite obviously. People arguing against the govt being involved are complete idiots.

And please feel free to use as much as you want when not driving, pay the taxes, and stay at home.

I will live my life drug free. I hope you dont hate me. I am not lonely enough to have to stick a joint in my mouth
to get along with people who are not worth it.

People on drugs get very very lonely. That is the nature of how drugs effect the human mind. So pot smokers as far
as I go you are on your own.


Dave

Sorry Abbie, edited

David

Rule 5 ..................Swearing, even in Abbreviation or phonetically, in an attempt to bypass this swear rule, is not allowed..................

I thought it was only carcinogenic when smoked... worse than tobacco cigarettes, Is it carcinogenic when other delivery methods are used?

There's whole gourmet food industry developing here in Colorado with cannabis as a food additive... and my teenage son came back from a trip to France/Spain and told me you can get cannabis ice cream at ice cream shops in Spain.

If cannabis is carcinogenic when used as a food ingredient, I could see the U.S. FDA (Food & Drug Administration) getting involved... or maybe not, since they're a federal agency... and under federal law we're still not supposed to be able to buy cannabis breakfast cereal at the grocery store.

His american school trip teachers didn't allow the group to partake in the cannabis ice cream, given parents of american school-age children might have issues with that, but...anyway...

Cheryl,

that is a good question. I do not know, but there are some what 178 or 148 chemicals in the plant.

So probably.

Dave

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco - at least 50 of them

Abbie,

i understand I am not allowed the word I used, but
I have used two other words. Am I allowed

Shinola?

or crap?

Not actually joking. What am I allowed of those two?

Dave

There is no evidence, empirical, apocryphal, or otherwise that cannabis is carcinogenic. I've been involved with drug policy reform since the '70s, including preparing a statement that was excerpted during (then) Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke's testimony before congress.

At that time, it was estimated that there were 30+ million regular pot smokers. By now, the number of people who have been regular users during their lives is much larger. There is NO history of people who smoked only marijuana having any higher incidence of cancer than the general public. Cancer has always been used to dissuade pot smoking, as has emphysema, which I believe is a more likely risk. Considering the numbers of people who have smoked weed, if it truly caused cancer, you'd see people heading to physicians, hospitals and cancer clinics in droves. That simply hasn't happened.

Dave:
For most chemicals, carcinogenic & other poisonous side effects are usually all about dosage. There are probably a lot of different chemicals in spinach, too.

Cannabis & spinach salad, the healthy? alternative to cannabis aromatherapy treatments.

pretty sure shinola is shoe polish.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

For anyone interested in the science of this medicine, here is a good article written by Ethan B Russo

Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/

Who is Ethan Russo - https://www.linkedin.com/pub/ethan-russo-md/a/b19/468
He happens to be a friend of mine.

Cheers, Barbara
btw - Cannabis mitigates the risks of Tobacco smoke and no it does not cause cancer... please read the science.

You're correct, Mike:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html


"Shinola" is also a company name now, and used as a nod to the original term, according to the linked article.

The art world has always been ahead of the wave. Peter Tosh recited all the diseases it cured in the song "Legalize it". Now many can rejoice. I have witnessed the profound relief from pain a person with Multiple Sclerosis can get from smoking weed and this was before the medical versions. Tosh was proved right and raised awareness that helped bring change.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4509456
Cannabis and breast cancer.

Lots of useful information in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Weed-People-Future-Marijuana-America/dp/1618931407

I'm sure anyone who reads it will learn something new about the future of cannabis in America. Publish April 15, 2015. Very current information.

Hear hear Murray. Well said.

If the FDA were so worried about carcinogens many of the daily food items people consume would be off the table.
It's all a game. Big Pharma, Big Agra. As soon as they can cash in it'll be legal to "MANufacture" for them, at an exuberant profit but of course it's "for our own good!" LOL. The MATRIX!.

What every man, child and mother should know.

Milk and Prostate Cancer (The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine)

http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics/milk-consumption-and-prostate-cancer

Like red food coloring.

1-Why would I want to discuss the effects of marijuana on art with people who never smoked it?

Maybe you might, Lawrence, because those that don’t smoke could serve as the control group :))

Some of my favorite mad scientist stories weren’t about insane people. They were usually written in first person and told the story of a scientist or hobbyist who inadvertently or intentionally became part of an experiment.You could say what made these people “mad” was that they worked in isolation of their peers, inseparable from their subject, unable to make accurate observations as their perspective changed. So, as annoying as discussions like these can be for participants on either side, they can be beneficial and not nonsense. :))

Michael, there are studies already regarding plastic and how it introduces chemicals that mimic estrogen. “Feminizing” introduces a whole host of health problems, and the same could be expected with a more "feminized society".

Remember that from the ignorant we can learn how to bring awareness and from the aware we can learn.
I’m hoping you aren’t including this statement because you think those who oppose your view would be ignorant. If so, a particular viewpoint doesn’t endow the holder with a special awareness or another person with enlightenment or intelligence any more than an opposing opinion would deprive people of these qualities. It is simply evidence of perspective.

Unfortunately, the current internet trend appears to cultivate a culture that tends to “hammer the nail that doesn’t stand with the others”. Debate is how our civilization operates, and to suggest we tow the line because our opinion holds less value to or that we would be in a minority in this community smacks of a “only the strong shall speak” format. A mob at best and a dictatorship at worst.

p.s.Micheal, I did not mention opium and it's effect on China as something the Soviets probably observed, not as something involving the U.S. government.

p.s.s. Anyone else opposed to making this discussion private?

Vanessa...
I understand what you have said here and in no way think it shouldn't have been said/brought-up by you or anyone. The word "nonsense" was not a description of the fact your all encompassing statement was made...it was because experience brings thoughts on a more equal playing field. And even with two identical experiences...personalities etc. come into play.

My comment..."Why would I want to discuss the effects of marijuana on art with people who never smoked it?" was because you have no idea what the high from weed is like...and even if you did...it would then come down to...what you yourself are like while high as opposed to what others are like...for ex; I already know, most likely, what Murray is like when high and I've never met him. ;) And it is that awareness that you can't tap into, no matter how many "mad scientist" you observe. ;))

You're a smart woman...when I take my time to read posts here, I don't skip over yours ;) So I hope you can understand that me feeling you haven't the ability to fully understand weed or every artist...a statement like this;... "Has anyone looked at the artwork produced by individuals who regularly consume cannabis? Not too far removed from that produced by individuals suffering the latter stages of aphasia inducing dementia." ...is nonsense, to my mind. ;)) ( especially with that opening sentence, lol, love it)

And I agree...discussing this topic with those who have never smoked, is not "nonsense" and of course can be beneficial.

Having never-smokers tell past/present smokers what some of the cons are is one thing (as long as they are factual)...but having non-smokers tell past/present smokers what it's like to be high or what all artist (high on weed) artworks looks like...is nonsense. I hope you see why I said that. ;)

Thanks for the interesting discussion guys and Vanessa, I didn't mean to be offensive or controling by saying

"Remember that from the ignorant we can learn how to bring awareness and from the aware we can learn."

It is a slightly blunt statment, I admit. What I really mean is that people who make ignorant statements on both sides of the discussion, can be useful becuase they show where we have big misconceptions. From these misconceptions we can help bring better information to help form a better understanding of the situation. I think we agree as you have stated above "not nonsense. :))"

From the aware: we can only learn if they share there understanding. Of course there are people who are aware in different ways and also people who think they are aware when they may not be. We can learn from all of them, I hope.

I don't claim to be aware but rather curious. I love looking at society and how it influences art. I love the idea of change and progress. Call me an idealist. Unfortunately the world is not ideal, and what some percieve to be a good thing may turn into a disaster.

Vanessa: I don't think its ideal to compare the feminizing effects of marijuana with the effects of estrogen like chemicals in plastic. I just don't know enough to argue more. So its a good argument you make and it definitely killed that line of thought for me. I'm probably on my own with that idea anyway. :) We will have to wait and see as the true colours of medical marijuana show, unless someone can help me out with some awareness :).

Vanessa Bates is right. when it comes to a control group.

interesting article introduced in another thread by Bob Galka
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/genetically-modified-yeast-will-make-possible-home-brew-opiates/

if gmo yeast can produce the active ingrediant in any plant than why push pot?

Drew...I already posted Bob's yeast article above, in the b-skip. ;)

dang Lawrence,guess we both had beer on the mind....

be careful!...you know what they say about the brain on beer! ;))

yes, thatz why I dropped that little bomb.....hehe....
maybe Bob will miss me throughing his name around.....

the old paradigm

Jeferson Airplane:

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall

And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call

And call Alice, when she was just small

When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head

Laurence,

I didn't want to answer since this is difficult to address convincingly in text. I never meant to tell you what your own experiences meant to you. That process is strictly internal and therefore is pretty much outside of anyone's ability. So no, I'm not discussing the feeling of a high nor do I think it is anything I need to experienced when observing behavior (or in this case the product). Maybe what made this discussion so heated was mixing aesthetics in the process.

And thanks for the complement, but perhaps the most productive thing that could be done would be for me to acknowledge morality cannot be ultimately legislated, unfortunately. I can only watch as we see more of the same from this product that we have from so many already readily available. Especially something that has to be titrated.

My viewpoints on this subject were shaped in Hawaii and this article (editorial) pretty much sums it up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html.

Why bring this up topic up? Because I want to make clear to the people still miffed that just because someone disagrees with a view or habit doesn't mean I condemn that person for holding those views. I can try to talk you out of it especially if I think you might injure yourself, but that's it. There are very nice people who don't see the world the way I do, but they aren't their belief systems. People might be shaped by their beliefs, but they are themselves independent of any theory.

For most chemicals, carcinogenic & other poisonous side effects are usually all about dosage

Cheryl,

That is what the drug companies test for a singular dosage/effect.

The reality we are finding out is quite different. We use so many chemicals, it turns out that mixing chemicals
causes far more disease, cancer etc.......so singling out dosage is barely one factor. Not a real picture at all.

Dave

Vanessa morality is legislated endlessly. Thou shalt not kill. But people do immoral things all day long.

I am definitely for legalizing pot. Completely. Wasting money on these people is worse than trying to save them
from themselves. We can not save anyone from themselves.

Dave

I have several bales of Hemp. I use it to mix with plaster as it is the one thing that makes plaster molds unbreakable.

..."people who had used cannabis more than 50 times a year were 60 times more likely to try other illicit drugs than young people who had never tried cannabis."


https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/cannabis/gateway-theory

Just legalize it across the board. All one has to do is listen to all of the side affects of any of the prescription drugs that big pharm pushes as cures for any given ailment and they would understand that Mary Jane is by no means even close to being bad for the people that choose to use it. Also you can't just stop taking certain prescription drugs without your doctor knowing because of how your body will react to not having it once your on them. Lastly I would not take any prescription drug that is going to make me suicidle or increase suicidle thoughts. For me I don't take prescription drugs.

Hi Vanessa...I understand ;)
But re: your link...I'll just quickly c/p a comment from that page ;) btw...What is the "name" of the 20 yr study...the article doesn't seem to mention it?

"The study the story is talking about is legit, but this is not. It's drawing conclusions that are in complete opposition to those actually in the paper, by cherry picking statements and using them out of context. Professor Wayne Hall has already publicly said that his findings have been skewed by prohibitionist media bias and that these are not the conclusions he reached in the study. Look it up, and read the study yourself. It simply adds to our current understanding that cannabis is one of the least harmful substances known to man. It's amazing that the media can take a study such as this and try to use it as prohibitionist propaganda. Cannabis is going to be legalized (at least medically) within the decade whether they like it or not, and unfortunately for them they're on the wrong side of history, and will be remembered as such."Jay1983




David...who is going to "save" you from thinking pot smokers...or as you put it..."these people"...need to be saved? ;)

i built a series around 420...does that count?


and just sent a client off with this one matted and framed this afternoon....

."people who had used cannabis more than 50 times a year were 60 times more likely to try other illicit drugs than young people who had never tried cannabis."

No one is advocating children be allowed to use it, but there's one thing a drug dealer will never do. He/she will never ask for an ID.

And there have been a couple years when I smoked more then 50 times and I had/have ZERO desire to try anything else.

In this area we have a huge heroin issue going on right now. Lots of young kids, late teens to early twenties, are winding up on heroin or meth and wind up dead due to an OD or suicide. And guess what they started with? If you said pot, you're dead wrong. Oxycodone. You know that really harmful drug that is okay to prescribe to anyone, including teens.

I don't care what people want to do to themselves. Drink, smoke cigs, smoke weed, shoot up, as long as they don't interfere with my rights to be alive. Which means if you're going to be impaired, don't drive, I don't care if what you're using is legal or not.

How many kids started with alcohol, yet it's legal? I know alcohol was my drug of choice when I was a teen, and I would have jumped on any drug I could get a hold of after that, luckily I got my head screwed on straight before the opportunity came up. I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs, (not even prescription) but I really don't care if anybody else does as long as they don't endanger someone else. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. Why didn't we learn our lesson from Prohibition? The "war" on drugs is a total failure and huge money pit.

I don't know, Lawrence but I'll see if I can find it since that article was an editorial.

Don't you think it odd that people would say something like "Cannabis is going to be legalized (at least medically) within the decade whether they like it or not, and unfortunately for them they're on the wrong side of history, and will be remembered as such."? Could you imagine if people predicted anything else in the future this way? If it were a horse race, I would know it was fixed.

I see we have promotion, too. Hmm.

In my personal experience I've met three kinds of people who use weed.

1. For medical use. If you watch the vid I posted you'll understand why they use it (not all medical pot is smoked). All I can say if my child, like the one highlighted, or anyone I love was suffering from 300 seizures a week, I'd do everything possible to help them. Under normal circumstances many of the folks highlighted may never have even touched it, but for medical reasons.

2. For recreational use. This is how someone unwinds. Some have a glass a wine, some a beer, some a smoke. All of the people I know personally in this category started with alcohol, so if you wish to name the real gateway drug, it's the one that's legal. Whether daily users or weekly users, these folks can take it or leave it. A small percentage went on to try harder drugs but it wasn't the norm.

3. For escape use. These are the people who are in psychological or emotional pain and this is their escape. They started with alcohol and kept reaching for the next "big high." They were just doing whatever they could to reach an oblivion. To block out their pain. Of those people the only ones I know that are still alive are the ones who caught themselves and stopped. They are either using nothing, or just weed at this point. It wasn't the drugs that killed them, they killed themselves. Too scared to live, too afraid to die. So they chose the route that's like playing Russian roulette. However, none of those people who died, were using just weed.


In all of the information I've seen, there has never been anyone who died from just marijuana.

Vanessa...
My query was also sort of sarcastic...meaning...the author "should have" named/cited/or linked the study! It's not like critiquing a movie which everyone knows how to find for themselves in order to have their own critique. ;)

And it depends on the horses in the race ;) And in this particular horse race...horses like you are becoming fewer and fewer as we get older and older. So, imo, it's not "odd" that he said that...whether he's wrong or right is another matter, but "odd", no. ;)



Roseann....
and #4...The "addictive" and "follower" type of personalities....which abuse many types of things regardless whether they are chemically mind altering or not. They can get a high off of many things. Some of those type of personalities are against weed but not their own "drug of choice" (which may be coffee/food/drink, sex, what ever).

entertainment brought to you by Dave Bridburg

Ser Lawrence! You really would look spiffy in a gold cloak. ;-)

Number four is valid. I've met a few people like that. They just like to play Russian roulette - period. I prefer being alive. :-)

Roseann...ya think?
well, I do have a gold sports jacket. ;))