Drugs, for the purpose of the present discussion, are chemical substances which when ingested produce subjective effects that a human finds highly enjoyable or beneficial, depending on the drug, the dose, the personality and neurological stability of the user, the setting, the user's history of drug use, and his psychological state at the time of ingestion.  We will be principally concerned with "drugs of abuse" that have "street value," that is, people take them for pleasure.

It is well known that moderate use of alcohol is relatively harmless but that excessive use can cause multiple problems from automobile accidents to loss of job and alienation of friends and family.  Probably just about all of the drugs in the list can be used safely in moderation but can cause serious problems if used to excess.  The issue of drugs and their legality poses fascinating questions about individual freedom and responsibility.  Should a human being be allowed to determine what goes into his body?

We realize that visitors to the Truth Tree may be curious about various substances and their effect on the human body.  There is no good purpose served in trying to keep information hidden.  The free availability of accurate information allows people to make responsible choices.

Fantastic dangers have been contrived about an easily grown, medicinally beneficial and non-toxic herb, marijuana.  Its continued illegality since the 1930s is at best baffling.  Perhaps if marijuana had enjoyed popularity among the wealthy, who make the laws, rather than the lower classes, it would be legal today, much like alcohol and tobacco.  For the present time, the rulers of this country are determined to continue enforcing laws against the cultivation and use of various natural plants that have grown on Earth for thousands of years.  To this end, in order to win the "hearts and minds" of their minions, they have waged a calculated campaign of disinformation against natural substances.  We specifically oppose the practice of lying, whether it is by the government, corporations, or religious institutions.  Lying may succeed in achieving a specific end in the short-term, but its apparent effectiveness is deceptive. Once detected, a lie results in disillusionment on the part of the victims, in this case, we the public.

At the Truth Tree, we believe people can make responsible choices if they have valid information available.  We have a positive view of human nature.  We believe that human beings can become strong and powerful in themselves, and that education and knowledge is the means to power.  All that you must supply is the will to power, to seek out and process the information and use it for your own best interests and that of the world (the two are interconnected).  We offer a fair amount of information here, and links to other sites, in order to counter the calculated campaign of disinformation being disseminated by the U.S. government about drugs.

Drugs are dangerous, and so are the knives in your kitchen.  In no wise is the use of any drug advocated; but the body's owner is, and should be, the best judge of what it imbibes.  If you intend to use any drug, you had better learn the proper methods and exercise caution.  Sadly, the government's attempts at drug education end with abstinence, and no-one is ever taught the true nature of the substances in question.  Even if you don't intend to use drugs for pleasure (presumably abstaining from sugar and coffee like certain monkish orders of old), you are better off learning about them, because drugs always will be a significant part of the human experience.  Psychoactive and physiologically active drugs permeate the foods consumed by human beings, and it is just not realistic to think that you are uninfluenced by them.  Thinking one is "drug-free" is however a common misconception that is the result of "drug ignorance" in our society.

Moderation in drugs, as in all else, is key.  Many widely-used and perfectly legal substances, thought safe by most people, are deadly if consumed at a high concentration.  Such deadly substances would include salt, water, and carbon dioxide - safe and even necesary in moderation, but deadly in overdose.  The government has chosen to overlook these horrible substances for the time being.  Maybe in the future, salt, water and air will become illegal, and only distributed by the government on an as-needed basis in monitored amounts and at a high cost.  Illegal water dealers will be hounded from one end of the Earth to the other.  Oceans, lakes and rivers must be poisoned to prevent anyone from obtaining any for free.  (This part is already happening, actually.)

Recently, the media has been abuzz with reports that a glass of wine or a mug of beer every day is actually good for health.  Nicotine, found in tobacco, has been proven to enhance concentration and mental performance.  The medicinal benefits of marijuana have also made the news, and now in many states voters are wrangling with the issue of whether those with terminal illnesses should be allowed to use marijuana or not.  Such a question is ridiculous because there is no reason for marijuana to be illegal in the first place, and denying it to the terminally ill merely represents the most egregious injustice.  Opium has been much maligned as well, when it is the single best cure for pain known to man, and has spawned numerous medicines that have enriched pharmaceutical companies to the tune of many, many billions of dollars.  The point of all this is that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" where substances are concerned.  There are uses to which substances can be put, some better than others; there are benefits and dangers inherent to substances.  These attributes should be studied rationally, without hysteria and without exaggeration,

The public schools are awash in anti-drug hysteria, and "zero-tolerance" policies have harmed many young people who have used an illegal drug.  Keeping children from drugs is not a good justification for lying to them.  There is a considerable risk that children will detect the lies at some point and the source's credibility will then be damaged.  Sending in dogs to sniff lockers, strip-searching students, expelling any student caught with a little bit of marijuana, making the school resemble a prison, and trashing civil liberties, all while genuine education goes into the toliet, sends a message to young people about the judgement and wisdom of their parents, school officials, and the government.

Often one hears a social conservative complain that society has somehow changed for the worse, that America has fallen into moral decay.  This complaint has been made by conservatives for thousands of years, in all societies, including the Chinese, Arabic, Greek, and Roman civilizations, and is frequently made by those who have forgotten just how morally decadent the past really was.  In the case of America, the past can only be glorified if we, somehow, overlook the slavery, genocide, superstition, poverty, discrimination, injustice and oppression of the past; how on earth can that be done?

Frequently expressed in conservative journals is the notion that the 1960s foisted drugs upon the world.  The 1960s was indeed a time much deplored by conservatives, since that is when young people questioned the Viet Nam war, and women and blacks fought for their civil rights.  But this particular point is one we can readily decide: let's review some history and see whether the 1960s introduced the world to drugs after all.

Conservatives forget, but of course alcohol is a drug, both more potent and dangerous than marijuana, and has been wildly popular for thousands of years.  And, lest a conservative now claim that alcohol was the only drug in use one hundred years ago, in the idyllic past, keep the following in mind.  De Quincey's biography, Confessions of an English Opium Eater shows that he purchased laudanum without a prescription, legally, in London in 1804, for less than a shilling. Laudanum is a tincture of opium in alcohol.  The stuff was not difficult to get in America either, nor any other place.  A painting by Gide entitled "The Pleasures of Constantinople" depicts an ancient Turk smoking opium.  Then there was ether, inhaled to render its user high; nitrous oxide (laughing gas), used today and in the past by dentists (Queen Victoria endorsed its use); and absinthe.  After its discovery in the New World, cocaine, like opium, became widely dispensed at pharmacies in solutions of alcohol.  Queen Victoria was also quite fond of marijuana as a pain-reliever.  In the Americas for thousands of years indigenous peoples have chewed coca leaves for its euphoric qualities, have drunk hot cocoa and coffee for the caffeine kick, and have eaten hallucinogenic mushrooms.

The argument that the 1960s rained drugs down upon the Earth has been demolished by now, but we will continue in our historical review just for fun.  Nitrous oxide, in use since the 19th century, offers a pleasant trip of relaxation and simple intoxication. It is not by itself the best pain-killer, which is why dentists use novocaine in conjunction with nitrous oxide. But intoxication makes any dental procedure less tedious. Additionally, at higher doses, time passes quickly, and one's memory of events taking place is spotty.  (There have been rare cases of dentists having sex with patients passed out on nitrous oxide, as suggested on a Seinfeld episode.  The Truth Tree does not endorse dentists who have sex with patients passed out on nitrous oxide.)  Once the gas stops, sobriety returns quickly, but relaxation may remain throughout the day. The user may feel drowsy for hours afterward and enjoy a long nap.

As with any gas, the proper dosage of oxygen must be injected into the mix. Otherwise, the user will suffocate.  Dental assistants are very careful to maintain a liberal dosage of oxygen, and to monitor the patient closely to make sure he is not suffering from hypoxia.  Drugs are not without risks.  Can human beings be trusted with risks?  Should government and corporate America step in and (try to) prevent humans from taking certain risks?

Absinthe, a bitter green drink derived from wormwood, enjoyed a vogue amongst bohemian artists and poets at the turn of the 20th century. Picasso, an enthusiastic user, painted the picture to the right, which displays a bottle of the stuff. Another of his paintings, "Girl in a Cafe" (1901) depicts a strung-out girl using the stuff. A site dedicated to this drug, which is still sold in bottles in Eastern Europe (wherein the principal ingredient appears to be alcohol rather than wormwood), is Le Fee Verte, a kind of absinthe art gallery.  The intoxicating property in wormwood, thujone, is toxic and causes convulsions and death in high dosages.  Wormwood is inadvisable for consumption except to rid the body of worm infestation, which is the origin of its name.  Marijuana is by far the safer alternative for those who wish to get high.

Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.

Marijuana has been used for thousands of years, chiefly for fashioning rope, paper and cloth, but its intoxicating properties have long been cherished as well.  Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana on his plantation and smoked it.  The first American flags were woven from hemp (marijuana) and American farmers were instructed to grow more of the by-then illegal crop in order to support the war effort during WW2.  In colonial Virginia, not growing marijuana was a crime, because the plant was used to make an essential product, rope.

The Truth Tree believes that marijuana should be legal and sold at grocery stores the same as beer or wine. From personal experience we can testify that the herb poses no special danger (unless one is schizophrenic, according to some research--though using any psychoactive chemical might be hazardous in that circumstance).  The government's continued persecution of marijuana users and growers is absurd, and morally and intellectually indefensible.  The "drug war" makes a mockery of our system of government by reducing the government to a "nanny" that punishes its citizens for what they use in the privacy of their own homes.

It is the further position of The Truth Tree that no drug should be taken intravenously (or anally, which is equivalent) except for medical reasons.  Intravenous injections pose special risks and are not to be countenanced for the purpose of recreation.  Also, humans have not evolved lungs that can safely process smoke.  Most of the purported scientific arguments against marijuana involve smoking, not ingestion. As for tobacco, moderate use in which smoke is drawn into the mouth but not inhaled is somewhat less likely to cause cancer and emphysema than when the smoke is inhaled into the lungs.

Marijuana users should cultivate their cooking skills so that on the few occasions when they partake of that age-old seductress they can do so by eating cookies or other food seasoned with marijuana.  Search the web, or the web sites listed below, for recipes.  The only requirement to activate the THC content in marijuana is heat. Baking marijuana will serve just as well, and be less harmful (and detectable) than smoking.  The ingestion of marijuana does not cause it to persist in the body any longer than smoking.  Thus, smoking can boast of no advantage against drug testing. Using alcohol to obtain the THC from marijuana is not especially recommended since a superior method exists which does not require the addictive depressant, alcohol.   Many users create "marijuana butter" which is simply butter and marijuana heated together, then cooled.  THC, being fat soluble, rapidly combines with the fat found in butter. Of course you do get some saturated fat this way, but all the more inducement for you to exercise and burn it off.  Since you're not smoking, you will be able to exercise all the more...   Marijuana butter can be used on toast or to make cookies, and so on.  Instructions on how to make this very simple preparation may be found by clicking here!

Click here to visit CRRH, a noble group working for the repeal for marijuana prohibition, or here to watch a dancing marijuana leaf! (146k in length.)

Every recreational drug has its adherents. Drug users often describe the effects they get from their favorite drug or drugs in glowing terms. In some cases drugs, as for example LSD or psilocybin, or peyote, or mescaline are supposed to produce "enlightenment."  Harry Stack Sullivan once said that he thought Western Civilization would not have been able to develop as it has, since the discovery of America, without tobacco.  (Recently there has been some evidence that tobacco was used in ancient Egypt.)  J. R. R. Tolkien, in his famous trilogy The Lord of the Rings extolled the virtues of "pipe weed."  Nowadays, tobacco fans have fallen on hard times, as pointed out in this picture.  Hippies in the 60's used to say that the "uptight middle classers" would benefit from marijuana use.  Sigmund Freud went through a period of enthusiasm for cocaine.  The favorable attitudes toward alcohol use in many modern novels in which the characters use alcohol to deal with the stresses of the situations they find themselves in provide another example of drug advocacy.

      

But there are the drug conservatives who want to police drug use and forbid and control. "The war on drugs" is currently a big item in political campaigns. The drug conservatives have used various methods to discourage drug use. In one of these, the brain on drugs is compared to eggs frying in an over-heated skillet. (Remember the TV anti-drug ad? "This is your brain on drugs!") They emphasize the addictive nature of drugs such as heroin (showing movies of heroin addicts climbing the walls of their cells during withdrawal). They often make claims that the use of certain drugs causes permanent damage to the nervous system or other systems of the body.  They have made movies such as the famous "Reefer Madness" which purport to show the extremely serious effects of using marijuana. In the state of South Carolina at the present time, for example, state employees are subjected to random drug tests. If they are found to have THC (one of the "cannabinoids" in marijuana) in their urine they are offered the option of resigning or being fired. Disinformation about mild drugs such as marijuana is very commonplace in the United States. If you are interested in the facts rather than the lies that the system indoctrinates you with, we recommend reading 10 Things Every Parent, Teenager & Teacher Should Know About Marijuana.

The Truth Tree's position on drugs is that neither the drug advocates nor the drug conservatives are entirely right about drugs. But what are the positive effects of drugs? Drugs probably do not produce "enlightenment," although an LSD trip may give a person a bit of insight into how his own thought processes work. This is probably only true for people who already have thought deeply about how their minds work, but there is no definitive information on this subject. It would be difficult to develop any evidence that "western civilization" would have developed very much differently without tobacco, although that does remain a possibility. Tobacco does seem to facilitate the performance of monotonous or otherwise disagreeable tasks. It may not help mad dogs much but it probably does help Englishmen to go out in the noonday sun!   (I am referring here to an old Indian proverb:  "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun.")  A famous and quite ancient drug advocate (Tacitus) said that no great poetry was ever written by water drinkers.  (He presumably meant "teetotalers.")  It would be hard to discount completely the effects of some drugs on creative work. There have been attempts to show that marijuana increases creativity, but close inspection of some of the measures of creativity used in these studies shows that the researchers were measuring messiness or disorganization. Their excuse was that creative people have been found to be messier and more disorganized than ordinary people, but it does not follow that drug induced messiness is the same thing as creativity!  There have been a few notable examples of great poetry being written under the influence of drugs. Perhaps the most famous of these is Coleridge's Xanadu which was written under the influence of opium. Beethoven drank beer while composing. But William James wrote,

         Higgamous hoggamous
                   Women are monogamous;
         Hoggamous Higgamous
                   Men are polygamous!

under the influence of nitrous oxide (mentioned above). This could hardly be considered great poetry! There may be some beneficial effects of these drugs on certain kinds of performance. Perhaps the best candidate is sociability. Pubs and neighborhood bars would not have nearly the sociable atmosphere they do have if it weren't for alcohol. Native Americans used tobacco in the famous "peace pipe" to induce a feeling of complacency. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of drugs is the subjective pleasure they induce.

One of the central issues involving recreational drugs is whether and to what extent they should be regulated, criminialized, taxed, or otherwise controlled by government.  The United States government does attempt to control automobile driving, tobacco sales to minors, alcohol sales to minors, gun ownership, and of course drugs.  How much of this control is desirable?  How much is necessary?  Kids still smoke and drink.  Unlicensed drivers still drive.  There is a black market for guns and drugs.  This is not to say that these governmental efforts are completely unsuccessful.  Probably they do have an effect in the desired direction.  To take one example, it is often heard that "prohibition didn't work."  That is not strictly true.  There was indeed less alcohol consumption in the United States during prohibition.  The question is whether the lessening of alcohol consumption was worth the many negative effects that the legislation also had.

2 , o o o , o o o   in U.S. prisons
(Source: Mother Jones, 2001)

Tom Bennett made some salient points about the U.S. "War on Drugs" in a message posted August 13th, 2001:

We need only to observe how some European countries view drug abuse--as a medical issue, not a legal one. The War on Drugs has created numerous difficulties--especially the law that mandates very long prison sentences with no chance of parole for what amounts to simple possession by a user who does not deal drugs, only consumes them.

What has happened is this:

Due to mandatory sentencing guidelines, nonviolent drug users sit behind bars for years, punished for a victimless crime, when they should have been offered drug abuse counseling.

Due to prison overcrowding, some inmates must be let out to make room for new inmates. But because of mandatory sentencing of drug offenders, instead of a non-violent drug offender being released, a violent thug is set free--and these types are likely to turn right back to crime when they are free.

This war has invaded our personal privacy. Innocent people are now stopped at drug check points set up on highways and subjected to a full search of their vehicle on the off-chance that they might have a few joints or pills. Workers are forced to urinate in a cup for their employer and watched while doing it, then fired with no recourse if the test shows positive for a substance less harmful than alcohol.

The drug problem has not really been affected by all of this nonsense. The fact is: People have always used drugs and they always will. As long as there is demand, someone is waiting in the wings to supply product. Simple economics. While some in our government recognize that this War is not working, they're too scared to risk losing re-election by taking a stand in what they really believe and perhaps effect change.

Where there is a high demand for a product or service, making that business illegal serves to enrich criminals and create violence. Those involved cannot use the courts to enforce contracts or appeal to the police for protection. Out of necessity, they handle it themselves. These were the lessons of the failed attempt to substantially reduce the use of alcohol by prohibiting its manufacture and distribution for sale.

Alcohol's prohibition probably did bring down consumption somewhat, but not nearly enough to justify the mayhem of criminality it spawned. The regulation and taxation of the product, for all of the problems still associated with it, as with tobacco, has produced more satisfactory overall results for the society. The health and welfare issues are much better addressed through education and treatment.

Finally, the states have acted to take over much of gambling. Yet the lessons remain imperfectly learned. The country has proceeded to commit the same old mistakes with drugs and prostitution. With a little legislative magic, "criminals" can be turned into honest entrepreneurs. End prohibition now.

Albert Einstein is famous for using "thought experiments."  For instance, in his book Relativity he considers a hypothetical elevator located in interstellar space and discusses what an observer riding in the elevator would see and experience under different accelerations and with projectiles arriving from outside under different conditions.  I would like to propose "The Scott Experiment."  In one version of this experiment we develop (probably by genetic engineering) a very hardy plant that produces all the major drug groups and then seed the entire United States (perhaps from the air) so that literally everyone in the country would have these plants growing in his neighborhood.  This plant could, perhaps, have marijuana leaves, poppy flowers, cocaine in the bark, and LSD in the roots.  Another version of the experiment is to require everyone to have a special mailbox with compartments for all the major drugs.  The postman would automatically deliver all the major drugs free of charge and would keep the compartments supplied with fresh drugs at all times.  Both these versions have the same purpose: to create a condition in which everyone in the country regardless of age or income level would have immediate access to all the major drugs of abuse.  What would happen?  My guess is that surprisingly little would happen.  I am quite sure that my drug use would not change significantly, but then I am 70 years old!  Would teenagers become serious drug abusers in significant numbers?  I doubt it.  If I am right about the outcome of "The Scott Experiment" all drug laws should be repealed.  One way to look at it is to realize that in a sense this experiment has already been done.  All these drugs are available, although not immediately available.  The coca plant doesn't grow everywhere!   I would like to ask advocates of "the war against drugs" how they account for the fact that prior to the current century there were scarcely any drug laws at all and yet great progress was made on all fronts.  It is also important to consider the cost of our current policies against drugs.  The monetary cost is, of course, an important consideration.  But there are other costs.  The current structure of our laws against drugs creates a black market and a whole criminal class which would be forced out of business if the drug laws were repealed.  Trouble with guns is very often related to the drug black market.

From another point of view, one may note that the drug policy one advocates is based on his theory of the human being.  What is a human?  Is he a being who takes responsibility for himself, his family, and his community both for the present and the future?  Or is he a dog who must be kept behind a fence and only allowed to go out on a leash?  Or is the theory that only some humans are like dogs?  If so, how does one decide which ones are like dogs and which ones are truly responsible?  The position taken here is that the decision should be based on behavior.  It would seem good policy to assume that a person is a responsible human being until he has proven himself to be otherwise.  When irresponsibility is discovered it should then be treated appropriately.  Appropriate treatment will depend on the state of the art at that time.  Imprisonment may be the appropriate treatment for irresponsible behavior at the present time and in our present state of ignorance about such things.  However, the imprisonment should be in response to the irresponsible behavior and not the drug use.  A person who uses drugs and behaves responsibly should be let alone.

Here are a few recommendations for the proper use of drugs.  First, all drugs impose an additional load on the various systems of the body.  No person suffering from an illness or old age should use drugs to the extent that they may have been able profitably to do when they were young or in good health.  Additionally, the use of drugs by prepubertal children should probably be kept at very low levels if not avoided entirely.  Even coffee, tea, and cocoa may produce harmful (although temporary) effects in the very young.  All drug use by children should be closely supervised by a responsible adult.  A small glass of wine on New Year's Day for a well balanced, well behaved 8-year-old is not necessarily a bad thing.  After puberty (and this means first ejaculation of semen in boys and first menstrual period in girls) supervision is still highly desirable except in the case of unusually well endowed and well behaved young people.  The length of this supervision will vary greatly with the young person.  Tobacco should never be used to the point of addiction.  A good cigar or a pipe three or four times a year to enhance an especially rich contemplative experience or the renewal of old friendships can provide genuine and valuable enhancement.  And speaking of addiction, no drug whatsoever should be allowed to become an addiction in either the pharmacological sense or the sense of psychological dependency.  People who "have to" have their coffee in the morning would benefit from training themselves out of this dependency.  What if you find yourself somewhere where there is no coffee?  Marijuana should never be used by anyone who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic.  And there are others who should probably never use marijuana because they have found that they have psychotic-like symptoms.  These can range from bizarre perceptions such as stars coming down to light on the hood of the car to fits of paranoia to uncontrollable laughing or crying.  The benefits of marijuana are seriously impaired if it is used on a regular daily basis.  A few times a year ought to be sufficient.  Beer drinkers often learn, to their great advantage, to wait until "It's Miller Time!" to take alcohol.  Marijuana users should use marijuana much less frequently than drinkers use beer or other alcoholic beverages.  Very occasionally (a few times per year)  it may be used to advantage to enhance esthetic appreciation of art, literature, theatre, dance, or music.  It is also an excellent enhancement for eating and sexual activities.  Remember that when you dope your brain you are pushing it out of its normal chemical balance.  It will attempt to recover.  During that recovery period you may experience the emotional opposite of the effect of the drug.  A good example of this is amphetamines.  Amphetamines can be used effectively to assist in the accomplishment of a task requiring one to overcome fatigue, especially in situations where there is a deadline!  However, rest after amphetamine use is essential to allow the brain to recover from the peculiar alteration produced by amphetamines.  Regular use of amphetamines often produces paranoia.  Where marijuana is concerned, one can notice that under the influence of the drug virtually everyting one sees is interesting.  Ordinary things take on extraordinary qualities.  Small wonder, then, that after use of the drug, even things that are ordinarily interesting are "boring".  Hence the "a-motivational syndrome."  Cocaine is a very useful drug for enhancing a special experience.  Special care must be used, however, to avoid any regular use.  Like amphetamines, the brain needs to rest after a cocaine experience.  How about the opiates?  They are wonderful when you are in pain.  They are as addictive as tobacco, however, and should be used sparingly.  LSD and other "hallucinogens" are the most unpredictable.  They should never be used by anyone who has received a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  The number of LSD "trips" should perhaps be limited to a half dozen or less in a lifetime.  It is also advisable for new users to trip with experienced users or responsible companions who do not take the drug.  Perhaps the safest use of the hallucinogens is in shamanistic practice where experienced people are available in case of need.