Just a quick thought, spawned by THIS ARTICLE.
Specifically this: President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
The thing I don't understand about the need to remove the "high" is this: A marijuana high is a nice thing, a pleasant side-effect of a beneficial drug, yet they wish to remove it. However, on the market today are any number of drugs with side effects ranging from anxiety to hair loss to erectile dysfunction⦠But that's OK? Here's a little thing which might illustrate my point.
Does that not strike anyone as a bit, er, fucked up?
I love the fact that anti-depressants, that is drugs designed to make you less depressed, cause major sexual problems. Don't believe me? Here, look at THIS.
I don't know about anyone else, but having my sex drive destroyed would be more likely to INCREASE my depression, not decrease it. But then, I suppose actually easing depression isn't the point: increasing repression and social obedience is. Sex is bad, so is euphoria, and to suggest otherwise makes you a pinko, a pervert, an addict, a paedophile, a terrorist and fuck knows what elseâ¦
But back to my point, why have we put our trust in those who tell us that a "high" is an undesirable side-effect, while a limp dick is a good one?
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Add new comment