Popular Science has made its archives searchable, and this has led to finding gems such as this article, from May of 1968
This was 42 years ago, an era when the science of marijuana was incomplete, yet they oddly seemed to know more than “we” do today. It was a time before science had been turned to proving an agenda, back when it was about learning the truth about stuff.
Let’s take a look at some of Popular Science’s conclusions about marijuana…
Though medical men agree that marijuana is not physically addictive (unlike cigarettes and alcohol), many classify it as “psychologically addictive” â€” a term that Dr. Malleson considers “extremely imprecise, misleading, and unuseful… In practice it means nothing more than the statement, ‘I want.'”
Clearly before the treatment folks turned curing “I want” into a massive industry.
Most experts also agree that marijuana does not in itself lead to more potent drugs. But because it is illegal, the criminal underground may be aiding in its distribution — the same underground that distributes heroin. So in that sense, some experts call marijuana “criminogenic,” a word that is applied, explains Dr. Fort, “to certain laws which through the nature of the law generate crime as a direct consequence of that law.”
Criminogenic. Now there’s a word we don’t hear much today. That entire concept has been erased from public discourse. Interestingly, the word today seems to have a range of meanings, none as specific as Dr. Fort implied in 1968. But certainly the concept of a law that generates crime as a direct consequence of that law is sound today, and perfectly describes the drug war.
Marijuana is not a narcotic; it is neither physically addictive (no withrawal symptoms), nor does one work up to a tolerance to it so that more and more is needed for the same effect. Psychiatrist Fort says, â€œThe marijuana smoker is able to assess the degree of desired effect as he continues to smoke, so that after reaching whatever he is seekingâ€¦ he ordinarily stops any further inhalation.â€
Yep. And before someone jumps in and says that there are indeed withdrawal symptoms, I believe that the threshold necessary to be considered withdrawal symptoms was much higher in 1968 than today where “I want” becomes a withdrawal symptom.
One California medical study complete last year concluded that the â€œrowdyâ€ type prefers alcohol, the â€œnon-aggressiveâ€ prefers pot. Marijuana users â€œare not troublemakers and they try to stay away from trouble,â€ the report stated. â€œThey do not engage in delinquent behavior â€“ other than in their use of marijuana.â€
A massive 1947 study of marijuana users in India â€“ where the drug is smoked or drunk in â€œtavernsâ€ much like our local bars â€“ concluded that because marijuana tends to make a man timid rather than aggressive, its use in India led not to more crime, but less. In todayâ€™s hippie communities, in fact, where a perpetual haze of burning hemp hangs overhead, the crime rate is amazingly low.
True. Also interesting. I was not aware that India had that policy then. I learned today that the policy changed in 1985.