cannabisnews.com: My High Life 










  My High Life 

Posted by CN Staff on August 17, 2002 at 09:29:48 PT
Commentary 
Source: Guardian Unlimited 

Now that the classification of cannabis has been downgraded, its use has become totally acceptable. But that's OK - it's a harmless, non-addictive drug. Not true, says Rebecca Cripps, a self-confessed pothead since the 70s. Here she describes realising that she was an addict - and what drove her to Marijuana Anonymous. Everyone is so upbeat about cannabis these days. Guess what? It's not bad for you any more! People just can't stop being nice about this most friendly of substances, despite the fact that it's still illegal.
It's now totally crass and uncool to speak out against pot. Reefer madness? Not likely, madam. You're no longer an enemy of society if you're partial to the occasional spliff. Hard drugs, crime and the craven headbutting of strangers have very little to do with puffing on a joint, you know. Pot relieves stress and brings on harmless giggling fits, it's not physically addictive and doesn't lead straight to a needle and the gutter. The general consensus is that it's time for a marijuana love-in. Which is bad news for me and all the other potheads out there struggling to give the stuff up. Now that the government is practically encouraging MPs to bring their bongs to work, there isn't a lot of sympathy for those of us who would rather not inhale. I won't be expecting much support for my abstinence during this purple-hazy phase in Britain's history. I can't count the number of times I've been faced with a look of amused incredulity and the words, "Marijuana Anonymous? You've got to be kidding!" So why go against the grain? Well, physical health comes quite near the top of my list. Pro-pot pieces in newspapers and magazines rarely mention that the majority of people in this country mix their reefer (which contains three times the tar of tobacco) with tobacco (which contains highly addictive nicotine), then smoke it without a filter and inhale for a lot longer than a cigarette. Then there's the inevitability of temporary insanity, the type of lapse that finds you boarding the Inverness express in a stoned rush when you were really aiming for Finchley - or wondering for the fifth time why the hell you went upstairs in the first place. And that's just the funny stuff. Mood swings, listlessness, paranoia, anxiety, emotional numbness, irregular sleep patterns and hyperactivity are some of the well-documented downsides of habitual use of the affectionately termed wacky baccy. I should know, I've experienced them all. I'm not saying that marijuana isn't a fantastic mood enhancer, the bringer of laughter, creative thought, absence of pain and a whole range of highly desirable states of mind. It truly is a wonderful drug, fully deserving of its worldwide adulation. But in the wrong hands, it can be a nightmare. You see, in its pure state it may not be addictive, but if your personality is (and if you happen to act out your compulsions on a bag of high-grade skunk) life just might not be the picnic you were hoping for. I vividly remember my first smoke - outside the "Legalise Marijuana" tent at an open-air concert in 1979. Topping the bill was reefer's greatest advocate, the much-lamented constantly stoned genius Bob Marley. Imagine the heady combination, aged 14, of illegal toking in public, along with the heroic Bob's vocal support of Jah's sacred "kaya" and the sight of thousands of crazy Camberwell carrots being licked into creation. It was more than enough to spark a lifelong love affair. Still, I didn't actually "learn" to get stoned until a few years later, when a friend took me aside and taught me how to inhale deep and long, then watched gleefully as my eyes shrank to the size of the buttons on Barbie's Technicolor poncho. I subsequently swooped through several reality frontiers and finally landed in a green and hilarious land of forgetfulness. It was definitely my kind of place. Paranoia was the flipside, those lost school-holiday afternoons slumped in someone's basement flat when teen self-consciousness hit its nadir and I was afraid even to say the word "yes" in case it came out sounding unusual. I became an expert nodder and smiler, so blown away by bush fever that the natural act of speaking or giving an opinion seemed impossible. Yet it wasn't until I started going out with a boyfriend who was a daily smoker that I finally eased into the habit myself. One night he asked me whether I thought our evening together would be better with a smoke and I gazed into his eyes and offered to buy a draw. That night I crossed the line into addiction. In the subsequent three years I spent with that boyfriend, we didn't pass a day without smoking ganja. Sex was better, movies were more colourful, backgammon was unbelievably fascinating and we never once had to worry about what to do to amuse ourselves of an evening. When he left me, I smoked like an out-of-control police drugs bonfire. I didn't want to feel; having a constant supply of pot meant that I didn't have to. And so it went from there. Nurofen for the emotions, Rise and Shine for the mind. I had my own benevolent psychiatrist's medicine bag. To all appearances, I was a well-balanced individual. I had friends, a full social life and a good job. What was more, I had no fear of being alone. Basically, that is because I never was alone. I had my little friend (my bag of weed or block of hash) to take me out of myself, distract me from any negative feelings and provide a wonderful night's sleep into the bargain. What more could one want from a £10 draw? I developed a strong tolerance to all kinds of marijuana and (the Oliver Reed of potheads) was proud of being able to smoke almost anyone under the table, which is where most occasional smokers soon found themselves after a couple of tokes of my blow. Occasionally, I'd run out of stash and travel miles to spend the evening with someone I didn't like, just to bum a smoke. Oh, all those hours forcing a grin at my dealer's dull jokes in the hope of a better deal! I'd stand someone up at the last minute in order to rush off to meet The Man. Or scrabble manically around on the floor looking for minute crumbs of hash. Yet I rarely questioned my habit. It didn't occur that my predilection for draw was getting in the way of my life. I may have admitted that I needed a smoke, that I couldn't survive a day without one, but the word "addict" just didn't come into it. This is not surprising and I don't blame myself - as far as I knew, marijuana wasn't addictive. Looking back, it's easy to see that when I couldn't feed my addiction due to lack of supply, I simply acted on it in different ways - compulsive eating, reading books all night and watching endless videos until that blessed dealer's phone call came. Then, a chance meeting with a recovering cannabis addict changed my entire perspective. "Are you sure you want to hear this?" he asked me, when I questioned him about why he had stopped. "Once you realise you're addicted, you'll never enjoy it as much." He was right, of course. From the minute I began to delve into the whys and wherefores, my denial went up in smoke and marijuana began to lose its appeal. I craved it just as badly, I just didn't get the same unadulterated pleasure out of it. Partly that was because I realised that it was no longer as much fun as I thought it was, as it had been back in the dizzy day, and partly because, as a daily smoker, all I was really doing was topping up. Getting the giggles or the munchies were distant memories. In fact, I had become seriously introspective and as thin as a one-paper joint, my sense of humour and appetite suppressed. The guilt I'd been sitting on for years began to surface. I finally admitted that I was spending too much time asleep. I didn't give up smoking though. I just hated myself for continuing. My first visit to MA was embarrassingly emotional. The tears rolled down as I listened to other people's stories of how marijuana had messed them up. So I wasn't a freak! Here, in front of me, were seven recovering cannabis addicts giving thanks that they weren't still fogging up their lives, missing planes, putting dealers before friends and driving 100 miles just to get their hands on a lump of prime Afghan. The recognition factor was huge. I felt like a missing octuplet, reunited with a group of siblings separated at birth. The meetings are confidential and run to the same format as AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous). Although the principles are the same, the stories you hear tend to be far less linked to blood, vomit, violence and degradation than at AA and NA. In fact, your average cannabis addict's lowest point usually turns out to be more Cheech and Chong than Trainspotting and some of the tales of woe I've heard would be side-splittingly funny if they weren't so painful. An ill-timed joint can lead to anything, from missing your dad's birthday party to being helicoptered down from a mountain top, a stoned, trembling wreck. OK, you may not find yourself getting beaten up by dealers on a regular basis, but life can still become scarily unmanageable. After my first trip to MA, I cut down on smoking and then, quite unexpectedly, stopped altogether. When I learned that my mother was dying, I knew through the fuzz in my brain that this was something I needed to be totally present for. It's funny - but it makes sense to me - that the most painful experience I've ever been through was the one I didn't want to escape from. A couple of weeks into sobriety, I began to realise that I'd spent the previous 10 - or was it 15? - years walking round like a sleepwalker. There, but not there; emotionally absent. How did I manage coherent thought, enveloped in those thick dope clouds for half of every day? It still amazes me. I wouldn't describe the withdrawals as being that mild either. Four months of sweaty, itchy insomnia, uncomfortably vivid dreams, constant cravings and anxiety seemed a pretty extreme price to pay for being good. Later, when I went back to smoking (as almost everyone apparently does, unless they follow through with a recovery programme) it really hit me just how strong a drug marijuana is. As the dense tendrils of fragrant fog curled through my brain for the first time in several months and my mindset began to alter radically, I almost had a panic attack. Within seconds I was paralysed on my sofa, once again soaring through unreality, back to being a speechless motionless teenager. Only this time I was aware of what I was doing and why. Bummer. These days I keep my smoking to weekends only - and never when I'm working. All right, occasionally I find that I'm still lying to myself, but I'm also following behind myself like a detective, pointing out every deceit with a disappointed sigh. I know what you're thinking, it's not really worth the hassle, is it? Surely I'd be better off just quitting. You obviously just don't understand how hard it is to give up marijuana, do you? And neither does anyone else outside of MA. If you were to ask me, I'd say that decriminalisation without education is a poisoned chalice. People need to understand more about the nature of addiction (and how marijuana can tap into that) before pot is given the thumbs up. Anyway, I'm planning another trip to MA next week. Honest. In the meantime, however, to reward myself for finishing this article - and also to get another perspective on what I've written - and... oh God, I'm sick of justifying myself. In short, I'm off to roll myself a three-skinned mix of tobacco and ganja, listen to One Drop and pretend I'm still at that Bob Marley concert. Except that I haven't got that stash any more, neither do I know the number of a local dealer. Oh, well. It was a nice thought. Special Report: Drugs in Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.htmlSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Published: Wednesday, August 14, 2002Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Pot Users Relax with New Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13410.shtml Britain To Let Pot Smokers Off Lightlyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13384.shtmlHash On The High Street http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13382.shtmlBritain Loosens Up on Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13367.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #16 posted by R-Earing on August 18, 2002 at 11:50:55 PT:
Really good writing for a change.
Ok,so maybe I don't support the opinions presented,but,that was a thouroughly entertaining piece of writing.I quite enjoyed it apart from it's message.Think of how nazi-like former tobbacco smokers are when you light up near them.This piece had none of that harsh zealotry.If all articles could have this same sense of balance it would be far easier to read the media clippings here at C-news without crying or raging.The writer has seen both sides and presents them in a thought provoking way.This is a far cry from the usual authoritarian blustering-it actually encourages you to think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by goneposthole on August 18, 2002 at 06:35:14 PT
Efficacy of Cannabis
Centuries of Cannabis use for medicine and pleasure trumps the current 'Wall of Deceit'.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Dan B on August 18, 2002 at 06:19:40 PT:
goneposthole
I agree that beer can be good for you in moderation, and I have no quibble with that argument. As a matter of fact, I have ten Shiner Bock beers and a couple of Mike's Hard Cranberry Lemonades in my refrigerator right now. What I object to is the disparity between reporting on beer and reporting on cannabis. Thought I'd clear that up. I thought I was pretty clear about this when I wrote my comment, as I make no mention of any idea that beer might not be good, but sorry for the confusion anyway.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by goneposthole on August 18, 2002 at 05:18:54 PT
Beer
has been called 'liquid bread' for centuries. It has always been good for you, in moderation.Ms. Cripps needs a nice long walk.Cannabis mixed with tobacco is verboten.Legalize cannabis.Jeepers Creepers
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by schmeff on August 17, 2002 at 19:45:05 PT
Logical Disconnect
I agree, Tim. I've never heard anyone suggest that the answer to child abuse is the prohibition of children. Nor would it make any sense to prohibit marriage as a means for dealing with domestic abuse.Why would anyone think that eliminating drug abuse can be accomplished by prohibiting drugs?On NPR a few days ago, drugged-Tsar Walters closed his interview with the following, which I paraphrase:Casual drug users (non-addicts) are the vector by which the disease of addiction is spread. It is these people, who may say to the potential addict, "Come on, you can handle it," that spread addiction. No disease has ever been cured without targeting the vector that spreads the disease. This is why it is imperative to target the casual drug user.While it is appalling to hear that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy believes that drug addiction is contagious, imagine if one were to apply this logic to the problem of child abuse:"Able, competent and loving parents are the vector by which the disease of child abuse is spread. It is the responsible parent that serves as a role model, who may say to the prospective child-abuser, 'Anybody can be a good parent', that leads to the disease of child abuse. Only by eliminating good parenting can we hope to cure this disease.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Tim Stone on August 17, 2002 at 17:50:58 PT
Pretty Standard Article
This article reads like a typical example of boilerplate prohibitionist testimonial. Call it the "Lost Sinner Returns to the Fold" testimonial. It was very popular before and during alcohol prohibition (and I think is still popular in A.A.). It's routinely trotted out whenever there any serious threat of substantive drug policy reform, as there presently is. The logic, such as there is, seems to be to start with the standard "pot is harmless" straw man assumption. Then you present a testimonial of someone who felt harmed by personal pot use, and who has "conquered" her problem. Conclusion: Someone was "harmed" by cannabis, therefore the idea of cannabis being "harmless" is false, therefore the cannabis laws should remain as harsh as ever. The standard rebuttal to this sort of testimonial applies for both alcohol and cannabis and is as follows: Because some few people, for whatever reason, cannot control their appetites, should the state then put chains on all people as the best solution to the possible problem? Is it an efficient and _moral_ use of state resources to criminalize all because of the problems of the few? Why do we _not_ do this with alcohol, but continue to do this with cannabis? There was a recent Tom Cruise sci-fi movie about arresting people for crimes that they hadn't committed yet, but were sure to commit in the near future. The movie, based I think on a Phillip K. Dick short story, sounds like it has a radical premise, but in fact, much of the drug war is already based on the same principle as the movie. Pretty much the entire ediface of cannabis prohibition is based on the idea that a smoker, like the hapless Ms. Cripps, _might_ develop a dependency in the future, or _might_ go on to use hard drugs, therefore all cannabis use should be forbidden. Because of what is statistically unlikely, but _might_ happen in the future. Just like the movie. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Dan B on August 17, 2002 at 13:23:12 PT:
By the way (Off Topic)
Does anyone else find it odd that there were recently news reports of two separate studies showing that drinking moderate quantities of beer may actually be good for you? (See link below) These studies come out, and everyone reports them with enthusiasm. But what happens when similar studies show positive effects of cannabis? Oh, that's not news.Why?I think it has something to do witht he fact that beer companies buy a lot of advertising.Dan B
Beer May Be Good For You
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on August 17, 2002 at 12:50:43 PT

What Really is Addiction?
I understand addiction to hard drugs like heroin that produce physical pain if you would stop abruptly after using it for a while but other addictions I'm not sure about. Everyone will have some discomfort if they quit drinking coffee or give up sugar suddenly. Even the way you see life around you during a time of giving up a substance will make life seem different and unfamiliar. I remember an expression from years ago that was " They need to get their head screwed on straight and then they'll feel better" Even giving up eating meat if you really like meat will make you feel different at first. Maybe that's too basic but that's how I see the majority of issues about addiction.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by Dan B on August 17, 2002 at 12:49:45 PT:

Cripps Has No Self Control
This article amounts to nothing more than a person who has no self-control (Rebecca Cripps) lashing out at reason. The only people for whom cannabis is "addictive" (a more accurate description would be "habit-forming," which pretty much describes everything) are those who have no ability to control their own urges.When I would have cannabis in the house, I would usually smoke it every evening until it is gone. That's why I would get just an ounce in an entire year--and always when I have plenty of free time to spare (and because I don't smoke all that much, it usually lasts me about seven weeks). I have never neglected myself or anyone else while smoking cannabis (in fact, it often makes me less introverted, more open to other people's opinions), at least not more than is typical for me. When it is gone, it is gone, and I have some happy memories that last until the next time I score an O.The problem with people like Ms. Cripps is that they expect the rest of society to pay for their own personal shortcomings. She can't handle her cannabis, so nobody else can have any either--even if they can handle their use.Guess what, Rebecca Cripps? The rest of us do not exist in deference to your personal desires. It is disgraceful and incredibly egocentric to suggest that because you can't handle your own cannabis use, the rest of the world has to suffer. You cannabis "addiction" and your need to exact oppression on others have the same root: you are incapable of fulfilling your own needs, so you expect something or someone else to fulfill your needs for you.Twelve-step programs offer the same dysfuntional way of thinking to their adherents:Step 1 - We admitted we were powerless over marijuana, that our lives had become unmanageable. Step 2 - Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understood God. What do these steps do, but tell the "addict" that one has no ability to control oneself, that one must rely on some outside force in order to have any control over one's life at all, and that one must in fact develop some alter-personality (e.g., "God"--most attach the phrase "as you understand him, which is an interesting linguistic turn by itself, suggesting that one cannot understand God as "her") who can make responsible choices because one is incapable of making proper choices for oneself. The addiction model is completely backward and skewed to make people believe that someone else needs to make personal decisions for them. It completely dismisses personal responsibility, thus setting up a permanent reliance on the system, which makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year by selling books, tapes, and other program-related merchandise. Gee, that sounds a lot like a religion.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo MD on August 17, 2002 at 12:19:21 PT:

Cannabis Addiction?
There was just an excellent, in-depth review article on the issue of whether cannabis produces withdrawal in the journal, Addiction:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12084124&dopt=AbstractHere is the abstract:Addiction 2002 Jun;97(6):621-32 
 
A review of the published literature into cannabis withdrawal symptoms in human users.Smith NT.Addictions Directorate, South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, Marina House, 63-65 Denmark Hill, London SE5 8RS, UK.Recent experimental papers have been published suggesting the appearance of withdrawal symptoms upon the cessation of cannabis use in human users and proposing the introduction of a diagnostic category for such symptoms. Research also continues to be published into the physiological effects of cannabis on animals via self-administration paradigms and the use of cannabinoid antagonists. Animal research does not provide a clear picture of a consistent withdrawal effect. The literature on withdrawal symptoms appearing in human users following the cessation of cannabis is investigated in this paper to clarify this issue further and enhance the scientific and lay debate on the status of the drug. Methodological weaknesses in the literature are highlighted. These include variable levels of drug-dose administered in laboratory conditions, lack of controlled studies and the absence of definitions of the withdrawal syndrome sought. It is suggested that the studies conducted to date do not provide a strong evidence base for the drawing of any conclusions as to the existence of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome in human users, or as to the cause of symptoms reported by those abstaining from the drug. On the basis of current research cannabis cannot be said to provide as clear a withdrawal pattern as other drugs of abuse, such as opiates. However, cannabis also highlights the need for a further defining of withdrawal, in particular the position that rebound effects occupy in this phenomenon. It is concluded that more controlled research might uncover a diagnosable withdrawal syndrome in human users and that there may be a precedent for the introduction of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome before the exact root of it is known.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by Necromancer on August 17, 2002 at 12:12:25 PT

Help them, Jah, their in hell.
I was really distressed by the 'mixing tobacco and ganja' stuff. Hasn't anybody told her, that tobacco is an higly addictive drug. I can't even inhale it, i'll start puking - it is SO bad! I guess, that's why it's legal.OK. Gotta go, gotta find my bong now...
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 17, 2002 at 11:05:37 PT

Hi Michael!
There is an attitude that is like a drug. It's legal but can be very harmful. It's the one that I'm better then you. Follow me, I'm right, your wrong and that's all there is to it. End of discussion.That's what I got out of the article.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by Michael Segesta on August 17, 2002 at 10:47:04 PT:

What's wrong with the tone of this piece.......
FoM --I think you hit the nail on the head when commenting about the tone of this article. I don't know whether the author wants to feel worse about her cannabis 'exploits' or the fact that when she told friends she was attending MA meetings, they laughed and she felt embarassed. Maybe she could handle Catnip okay?LOL Mike Segesta
(a/k/a "El_Toonces" - got sick of having to check two e-mails:))
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by schmeff on August 17, 2002 at 10:34:29 PT

Anything can be abused
If Rebecca Cripps' addictive personality hadn't encountered cannabis, she likely would have latched on to more a more dangerous and vile dependency. She perhaps would be dead by now, instead of having a brain intact so as to be able to write thoughtful articles.However, when reading the last paragraph, I couldn't help but wonder...is it the cannabis in her hand-rolled cigarette that is keeping her hooked, or the nicotine? 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 17, 2002 at 10:33:35 PT

Slatts
Thanks for sharing your rebuttal. I saw this article a few days ago but really felt it was off base that I shouldn't post it but then I thought maybe I should. Something is really wrong with her attitude. I don't get it. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by Slatts on August 17, 2002 at 10:27:52 PT:

 My High Life
This is a copy of a refutal I sent to the GuardianSir
Re: Rebecca Cripps "My high life"
Guardian Wednesday August 14, 2002Miss Cripps claims of cannabis addiction should not be allowed to go
unanswered.
It is extremely unusual for anyone to become addicted to cannabis. Even the
US National Institute of Drug Abuse admits it is less addictive than coffee.
The evidence for Miss Cripps addiction is plain to see at the end of the
article when she says, " I'm off to roll myself a three-skinned mix of
tobacco and ganja,..."
Anyone who has bothered to research the subject will tell you tobacco one of
the most addictive drugs known to man. In fact the NIDA mentioned above say
it is even more addictive than heroin.
Most cannabis smokers acknowledge that it is tobacco that causes the
cravings for a "joint" not the cannabis.
The law as it stands causes pot smokers to smoke cannabis mixed with tobacco
in "joints", which are totally disposable, because to keep a safer pipe or
"Bong" would leave evidence for the authorities to use against them.
This is why most cannabis smokers in the UK are addicted to tobacco.
Yet another reason why our laws must change.Philip Slattery

[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment