[HN Gopher] The transformation of tobacco and cannabis into earl...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The transformation of tobacco and cannabis into early modern global
       obsessions
        
       Author : benbreen
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2021-03-15 21:42 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.laphamsquarterly.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.laphamsquarterly.org)
        
       | feralimal wrote:
       | "A dance of "glorious and strange beauty" took place in a wintry
       | garden in the south of England on January 6, 1614."
       | 
       | So specific!! And that's just the first line!
       | 
       | Is it just me, or are they just telling stories about the 16th
       | century? Historians themselves will say history is an
       | interpretative act. 'History' is for us in the present - it only
       | lightly relates to what may or may not have occurred in the past,
       | even if it presented as a fait accompli. I don't think it is
       | possible to get this detail about what went on back then.
       | 
       | I see this sort of article as 'myth making'. Its not to do with
       | reality - no sources are provided for us to check. Its just
       | presented as a ready narrative, and we are meant to accept it.
       | 
       | So, what if that is the myth what are meant to take from it? I
       | think we are meant 'edu-tained'. We can laugh at the fools back
       | then who were literally blowing smoke up each others arses, in
       | reclined splendour. We can enjoy a cannabis narrative - this
       | talks to how we legalise it nowadays. These sorts of myths
       | support the idea of how we are progressed, superior, etc.
        
         | Synaesthesia wrote:
         | There's nothing about how we have progressed or become superior
         | in this article. We've just acquired smoking as a habit.
         | 
         | I'm pretty sure everything here is historically accurate. I'm
         | aware of some of the anecdotes mentioned in the piece.
        
         | benbreen wrote:
         | Author here - was it really glorious and strange and beautiful?
         | All subjective judgements, so who can truly say. But I can tell
         | you that those judgements are at least drawn from an actual
         | primary source, published in 1614: the stage directions for the
         | performance itself. The link:
         | https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC...
         | 
         | Incidentally, that source is linked in the article more than
         | once, along with others.
        
           | Woberto wrote:
           | Perhaps similar to the OP, I'm accustomed to more explicit
           | citations, so throughout the article it's really unclear to
           | me what source applies to which quote. Is that standard
           | practice in your domain?
        
             | benbreen wrote:
             | I much prefer footnotes myself, where you can see directly
             | what is being cited. Unfortunately there's a wide range of
             | practices for online writing, but the norm I've found is
             | usually just hyperlinks to digitized sources.
             | 
             | The Appendix, the online history journal I helped create
             | back in the day, tried to experiment with a more detailed
             | way of doing in-line citations, via small icons that you
             | can click to see images, citations of primary source texts,
             | even music or films on occasion. You can see it in action
             | here:
             | 
             | http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/made-in-taiwan-an-
             | eigh...
        
           | feralimal wrote:
           | Thanks for the link.
           | 
           | You also say "January 6, 1614". Very specific again! Where
           | did you get that from? There are no dates that I can see,
           | nevermind the 6th of January.
           | 
           | Did you read the cover page? Not where it confirms that the
           | book is a reproduction of another book held at Chatworth
           | House. Ie not an original.
           | 
           | I mean the bit where it says: "By the Gentlemen of Graies-
           | Inne, at the Court of White-hall, in the Banquercing House,
           | vpon Twelfe night, 1613."
           | 
           | Here's a link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske
           | _of_Flowers/qC...
           | 
           | This says to me that the book although published (perhaps) in
           | 1614 relates to a time in 1613.
           | 
           | Whenever I look into this stuff, I get more uncomfortable.
        
             | benbreen wrote:
             | Correct. There were two recorded performances, one in
             | December, 1613, the second in January, 1614. I went ahead
             | and described the second because it's better documented. I
             | got the exact date from a journal article by a garden
             | historian. [0] These are the kind of things that footnotes
             | are helpful for - if I were writing this up as an academic
             | paper, I'd get into the weeds with these details, but
             | unfortunately it just doesn't work when you're writing it
             | as a straight-ahead narrative without footnotes. That's
             | especially true because it was basically just an
             | introductory anecdote, not the focus of the piece.
             | 
             | I agree though, digging deep into historical sources, I
             | think, _should_ make us all uncomfortable. As you said,
             | historians should never claim to have direct access to
             | historical truth. It 's all mediated and all potentially
             | corrupted by the bias of observers/recorders. That's just a
             | fact of doing history, and it's why we're not humanists,
             | not scientists. It's also why I find it so endlessly
             | interesting.
             | 
             | [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472393?seq=2#metadata_in
             | fo_ta...
        
               | feralimal wrote:
               | That's a refreshingly honest reply! Thanks!
               | 
               | This is why I said that history is an interpretative act.
               | I don't have an issue with the making the best of a past
               | that is hard (impossible?) to discern. And that while our
               | subject matter might be the past, we ourselves are in the
               | present and express our understanding from our own biases
               | and understandings - we talk ourselves into the past, in
               | a way.
               | 
               | What I object to is the indisputable tone - this
               | happened, these are the reasons, etc. It gives the reader
               | the impression of knowledge, but this is an illusion,
               | possibly a dangerous one. It conveys none of the
               | reasoning, jumps and ambiguity that, I think, are the
               | main part of these sorts of investigation.
               | 
               | Personally I would rather have the ambiguity, referring
               | to source material, and try to develop a theory given the
               | evidence - evidence-driven theories. I don't mind if
               | there is no overarching narrative to explain it all. But
               | it seems to me that professional historians feel
               | empowered to present exactly that sort of a narrative,
               | sometimes whether or not it is really supported by the
               | evidence.
        
       | h2odragon wrote:
       | > Tobacco is indeed native to the Americas, and early modern
       | Europeans, Africans, and Asians did encounter tobacco smoking as
       | a new practice without precedent in ancient texts or preexisting
       | social conventions. But, as archaeologists and anthropologists
       | have been documenting for decades, tobacco was not the only drug
       | that the peoples of the Old World smoked--even before the voyages
       | of Columbus.
       | 
       | that was harder to say when "Tobacco is Evil" propaganda
       | dominated any discussion of smoking. Some of the old school
       | mixtures are _rough_ I 'd rather smoke sawdust.
        
         | eurasiantiger wrote:
         | And it would make you just as content as a smokable, because
         | like tobacco smoke, sawdust smoke contains MAO inhibitors.
        
           | mod wrote:
           | Hey, can you elaborate on this? Sincere request.
           | 
           | Cheers!
        
             | tartoran wrote:
             | Nicotine is a nootropic but had no idea it about this
             | https://www.biopsychiatry.com/nicotine-mao.htm
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | It's not nicotine. https://gwern.net/Nicotine
        
               | TheAdamAndChe wrote:
               | I made a relevant comment about this a while back[1].
               | Thinking it was a nootropic got me addicted for years and
               | brought no benefits. I still get the urge to smoke and
               | it's been years now.
               | 
               | Just don't smoke, there are better nootropics.
               | 
               | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26181713
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Nicotine is not the main cause of tobacco addiction: it
               | is attributable to MAO inhibitors created pyrolytically
               | during the roasting and burning of plant material.
               | 
               | The same goes for coffee and coffee substitutes with
               | respect to caffeine.
        
               | TheAdamAndChe wrote:
               | This is wrong. Nicotine alone is less addictive than the
               | nicotine-MAOI combination, but it is still extremely
               | addictive. I started with vaping.
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | Anecdotal experiences are not evidence of anything else
               | than someone having experienced something in a certain
               | way.
               | 
               | It is completely feasible that you simply are more
               | susceptible to the effects of plain nicotine, e.g. due to
               | differences in nAChR genes, or maybe you already had a
               | MAOI source in your daily diet, e.g. medications,
               | cannabis smoke, coffee, soy sauce, beer, wine, sake,
               | roasted/grilled foods...
        
               | TheAdamAndChe wrote:
               | The same could have been said of tobacco in the 50's.
               | Turns out it was bad for you.
               | 
               | You're spreading misinformation and could get other
               | people addicted. You're making assumptions on my diet
               | just to dismiss the well-known fact that nicotine is
               | addictive[1]. Most sites that say otherwise are either
               | social media sites like reddit where echo chambers form,
               | or they're obviously pro-ecig and extremely biased.
               | 
               | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
        
               | eurasiantiger wrote:
               | In all honesty, it seems your personal experience is
               | clouding your objective judgment.
               | 
               | There are plenty of academic studies regarding the matter
               | of MAOIs in tobacco smoke, and their addictiveness.
               | 
               | Also, most studies on smoking do not make a difference
               | between smoking and pure nicotine. It would be great if
               | you could check the sources of the Wikipedia article to
               | see if this is the case there.
        
               | TheAdamAndChe wrote:
               | My judgement isn't clouded, but I've been directly harmed
               | by such misinformation before. I want other people
               | reading to know that nicotine isn't some wonder nootropic
               | that brings no side effects or addiction, because it's
               | just not the case.
        
               | tartoran wrote:
               | I was a smoker for 20 years, I know about the addictive
               | properties but I think I did get some benefits but the
               | damage is not worth it.
        
           | thinkingemote wrote:
           | Could this be why people feel calm and comfortable smelling
           | woodsmoke on a campfire?
        
             | eloisius wrote:
             | It might also explain why I loved being in a wood shop so
             | much as a kid. Something about the warm, sweet smell of
             | wood smoke when the friction from a saw caused it to heat
             | up was so relaxing.
        
               | text70 wrote:
               | Several woody aromatic compounds also have partial
               | molecular similarity with neurotransmitters. Could it
               | have been activating neural pathways directly in your
               | brain through your olfactory?
        
             | coldtea wrote:
             | Part of it. It's also because they're camping as opposed to
             | some hellish office.
        
             | eurasiantiger wrote:
             | Definitely. Since the same compounds are formed in meat
             | during cooking, so there is a curious evolutionary
             | correlation: did the first humans harnessing fire and
             | cooking meat do so for the psychoactive effects?
             | 
             | The implications also touch demographics, since humans have
             | great variance in the activity of their MAO-A and MAO-B
             | genes. People who get easily addicted to smoke flavoured
             | food, coffee and/or tobacco may simply have inherited a
             | high-activity MAO gene that they are trying to compensate
             | for.
        
           | mlang23 wrote:
           | Interesting. I must have missed that smoked tobacco is a
           | MAOI. But it is significant, i.e., noticeable?
        
             | eurasiantiger wrote:
             | Definitely. PET studies have yielded something like 1/5 to
             | 1/4 of brain MAO enzymes being inhibited in smokers.
        
             | temp0826 wrote:
             | It does to me. Vaping nicotine always felt like more of a
             | stimulant- whereas cigarettes were more relaxing.
        
           | fnordian_slip wrote:
           | Seconding the request for more information, a quick Google
           | search didn't yield any results for sawdust being a MAOI.
           | 
           | But this is so far out of my area of expertise that my search
           | was probably worthless anyway, because I may not have been
           | able to properly assess any sources anyway.
        
             | eurasiantiger wrote:
             | It's not sawdust per se, rather the smoke from it -- more
             | exactly, the pyrolysis products of certain amino acids:
             | heating L-tryptophan, for example, produces various Harmala
             | alkaloids.
             | 
             | The effects are also dependent on the type of wood, as some
             | woods do naturally contain tannins which act as MAO
             | inhibitors.
             | 
             | Harmala alkaloids, of course, are naturally present in
             | Penganum harmala, one of the two traditional ingredients of
             | Ayahuasca. The inherent psychoactivity of this family of
             | compounds cannot be overstated.
        
       | naravara wrote:
       | It's interesting how early European accounts of Native American
       | tobacco smoking don't seem to bear much similarity to my
       | experiences of tobacco use. In this it describes the Taino
       | becoming "almost drunk" off it. But the only time tobacco made me
       | exhibit anything like that was when I accidentally inhaled way
       | too much of a cigar and became physically ill and delirious. The
       | experience was an extremely unpleasant one involving vomiting,
       | tremors, having difficulty standing up, and slurring speech. But
       | there was none of the "fun" parts of inebriation. I wasn't
       | disinhibited or "loosened up," I just felt like my heart was
       | pounding out of my chest and that I might die. I simply could not
       | imagine anyone putting themselves through that on purpose as
       | recreation.
       | 
       | I also never experienced hallucinations, which is another thing
       | early accounts said Native Americans experienced with tobacco
       | use. I can only imagine they were taking extremely large doses
       | frequently enough that they had been pretty desensitized to it. I
       | can't imagine what cancer rates must have been like!
        
         | BrianOnHN wrote:
         | > accidentally inhaled way too much of a cigar
         | 
         | While that's possible, I think your resulting illness was more
         | likely a result of swallowing your spit, a common mistake.
        
         | DebtDeflation wrote:
         | Wild tobacco (Nicotiana rustica) contains around 9% nicotine
         | whereas domesticated tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) only contains
         | around 2%. It also contains a number of other alkaloids not
         | present in the domesticated version.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotiana_rustica
         | 
         | Search YouTube for Thuoc lao which is rustica smoked out of a
         | bamboo water pipe and you'll find plenty of videos of people
         | falling over unconscious seconds after taking a single hit.
        
           | naravara wrote:
           | Interesting. I'm surprised it's not grown commercially then,
           | especially for the more intentional nicotine delivery systems
           | like gum and patches.
           | 
           | Falling over unconscious after a hit also seems like a
           | strange thing to do recreationally, but whatever floats their
           | boat I guess.
        
             | DebtDeflation wrote:
             | It is. You can buy Rustica in bulk. I smoke pipes as well
             | as cigars and Rustica is starting to become more popular in
             | the pipe world - Mac Baren just released an HH Rustica
             | series.
             | 
             | The whole falling over unconscious thing seems to be more
             | from people taking a massive bong hit of it and holding it
             | in forever, near as I can tell from Youtube. Not how I
             | enjoy my tobacco.
        
               | naravara wrote:
               | Cool. I'm a novice piper myself but I suppose it's
               | probably too nicotinic for me. I have some Orlick golden
               | sliced and even that gets me uncomfortably light headed.
        
               | DebtDeflation wrote:
               | Highly recommend Latakia. Smells like a campfire before
               | you even light it, but is delicious. And it's one of
               | those things that soon will no longer exist in this world
               | (the Syrian version is already gone) so experience it
               | while you can.
        
       | schoen wrote:
       | Hey, I have your book _Age of Intoxication_!
       | 
       | When I was in Lisbon I'd visited the Museu da Farmacia (mostly
       | because my grandfather was a pharmacist), but after reading your
       | book I realized that (despite also having spent a little time
       | there) I'd overlooked multiple things going on in the park across
       | the street.
        
       | 4gotunameagain wrote:
       | > The story of smoking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
       | is capacious enough to include the distillation apparatus of the
       | alchemist, the water pipe of the cannabis smoker, and even
       | medicinal _smoke enemas_.
       | 
       | I had no idea this was a thing, that's disturbing lol
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoke_enema
        
         | xyzelement wrote:
         | Hence the phrase "blow it out your ass" :)
        
         | maccard wrote:
         | Yikes:
         | 
         | > Tobacco resuscitation kits consisting of a pair of bellows
         | and a tube were provided by the Royal Humane Society of London
         | and placed at various points along the Thames.[4] European
         | physicians furthermore employed these enemas for a range of
         | ailments
         | 
         | Tobacco enemas using a public kit on the banks of the filthiest
         | river imaginable before hygiene was considered a priority in
         | medical circles..
        
           | EGreg wrote:
           | Filthiest river, you say?
           | 
           | https://benjaminleslie.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/river-of-
           | shi...
        
           | xxpor wrote:
           | I have to presume this is the source of the phrase to blow
           | smoke up one's ass?
        
             | runawaybottle wrote:
             | Make sure you smoke AND drink for maximum fun:
             | 
             | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_enema
        
               | viewtransform wrote:
               | with coffee to perk you up
               | https://www.healthline.com/health/coffee-enema
        
             | candu wrote:
             | Actually, yes - you can find this and many other excellent
             | historical medicine tidbits in Quackery [1] (and then be
             | really, really grateful that both science and medicine have
             | advanced significantly since we thought it was a good idea
             | to, er, blow said smoke up said ass).
             | 
             | [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33572516-quackery
        
           | pablovidal85 wrote:
           | Did this practice result in accidental fecal transplants?
        
           | pjc50 wrote:
           | An ancestor of the public defibrilator! Just without the, you
           | know, actually proven to work aspect.
        
             | peteradio wrote:
             | I'd be pretty perky if someone poked a bellows in me bum.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-03-18 23:01 UTC)