[HN Gopher] Toxicological analyses reveal the use of cannabis in...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Toxicological analyses reveal the use of cannabis in Milan in the
       1600's
        
       Author : Hooke
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2023-10-24 20:52 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencedirect.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedirect.com)
        
       | reactordev wrote:
       | Everyone from the Greco-Roman's to ancient Chinese (oldest record
       | at 4,000BC) have used cannabis in some form. America declared war
       | on cannabis not because "it's a drug" but because it was
       | something enjoyed by migrant laborers (Mexicans) during the Great
       | Depression and outlawing it was thought to cause them to become
       | outlaws and white folk would have jobs again. Except no white
       | workers wanted to work those jobs as it didn't pay enough for
       | their standards. There's been plenty of research and history
       | around this. Every civilization in history has had some
       | connection to cannabis, whether medicinal, religious, ceremonial,
       | aromatic, or industrial use. Ropes, Spices, Trade of agricultural
       | goods, definitely included some hemp and cannabis. It's cool to
       | see them actually isolate and target it in samples.
        
         | swatcoder wrote:
         | > America declared war on cannabis not because "it's a drug"
         | but because it was something enjoyed by migrant laborers
         | (Mexicans) during the Great Depression and outlawing it was
         | thought to cause them to become outlaws and white folk would
         | have jobs again.
         | 
         | To be fair, it was both. If you look at contemporary writing
         | among lay Americans, they earnestly thought it made Mexicans
         | crazed and dangerous. It's good to look at history through
         | economic and political lenses because that's often the steering
         | wheel or gate control, but (in approximate-democracies) it's
         | also good to acknowledge what everyday sentiment was among lay
         | citizens.
         | 
         | A country can be calculating and moralizing/prude at the same
         | time, and America's biggest historical moments almost always
         | hinge on getting those two things to align. Even today.
        
           | riversflow wrote:
           | > If you look at contemporary writing among lay Americans,
           | they earnestly thought it made Mexicans crazed and dangerous.
           | 
           | Yes, but where did that idea originate from? I think the
           | insinuation here is that the reason it was thought of that
           | way was because that image was being propagated by the media.
           | See: reefer madness, which a comment below indicates was a
           | production of Hearst.
        
             | swatcoder wrote:
             | It's nearly impossible to make that kind of attribution for
             | folk knowledge, and its arguable that there's so much of an
             | interdependent feedback loop between calculating
             | aristocrats and public opinion that neither is meaningfully
             | causal or original. Tracking down the source of widespread
             | folk ideas about marijuana is like trying to figure out who
             | invented "the floor is lava".
             | 
             | If you're very very lucky, you _might_ be able to find a
             | political source that predates your earliest known popular
             | mention, but that 's still not very authoritative. And if
             | you can't trace some plausible epidemic-like spread over
             | time and geography, which you almost certainly can't, you
             | really just can't make a strong causal determination.
             | 
             | Even with Hearst (or Murdoch, or any other media titan),
             | you can easily paint them as savvy amplifiers, cranking up
             | the volume of existing rumors to the benefit of their own
             | vision.
        
         | freitzkriesler2 wrote:
         | > Except no white workers wanted to work those jobs as it
         | didn't pay enough for their standards.
         | 
         | Your knowledge of this era of history is incorrect. You are
         | correct about the cause of marijuana criminalization but wrong
         | about White laborers in farming during the early 20th century.
         | Whites alongside Hispanic were very common as laborers during
         | the great depression and up to the 60s.
         | 
         | https://www.loc.gov/collections/todd-and-sonkin-migrant-work...
        
         | permo-w wrote:
         | every time I hear about the US outlawing weed there's a
         | different explanation given with absolutely certainty of truth.
         | "it was the paper industry". "it was a way to oppress African-
         | Americans". "it was a way to take jobs from Mexicans". "it was
         | seen as being linked to crime". etc etc etc
        
           | fzeroracer wrote:
           | Those aren't different explanations, they're all part of the
           | same explanation.
           | 
           | It was initially criminalized because minority groups were
           | using it during the time of prohibition and it was a way of
           | targeting them specifically. Randolph Hearst ran a series of
           | yellow journalism hit pieces which is one of the origins of
           | reefer madness comes from. He also ran the largest newspaper
           | at the time.
           | 
           | Then once it was criminalized it was trivial to link it to
           | crime because, well, now only criminals were growing, selling
           | and using marijuana.
        
             | permo-w wrote:
             | sure, but the explanations, like here, are always given in
             | isolation, seemingly as the be all and end all, and while
             | it may well be true that they're all a little part of the
             | truth, that is interesting in itself
        
         | hcks wrote:
         | Or maybe it's just a dumb drug that stinks and makes you into a
         | schizo?
        
         | jjtheblunt wrote:
         | > Every civilization in history has had some connection to
         | cannabis
         | 
         | Hyperbole? Pacific Islander civilizations? Inuit? etc.
        
       | pierat wrote:
       | What? Are US policymakers wanting to now arrest skeleton remains
       | and demand drug-war fines for return?
        
         | pipeline_peak wrote:
         | Rent Free
        
       | ulizzle wrote:
       | Paraphrasing liberally from the study, looks like it wasn't used
       | as a medicinal herb in the past, but recreationally.
       | 
       | I'm assuming that's because opiates and alcohol use were
       | widespread, and those are stronger analgesics and anesthetics
       | than cannabis. For anxiety, tobacco was the preferred drug.
       | 
       | That does put a question on the whole modern medical cannabis
       | industry. But of course, cannabis today is much stronger, so who
       | knows? I don't think I could survive an amputation on modern
       | cannabis alone, however. Or even ignore lancing a blister.
        
         | jamesakirk wrote:
         | > I don't think I could survive an amputation on modern
         | cannabis alone, however.
         | 
         | It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
         | 
         | My dad was a cancer patient with severe chronic pain. Cannabis
         | did not eliminate the need for opiates for chronic pain, but
         | reduced the amount of opiates he needed by about half. Using
         | cannabis actually allowed him to be MORE lucid.
        
           | ulizzle wrote:
           | I had a motorcycle accident a few years back that left me
           | hooked on opiates for a while, so I have some first-hand
           | experience there. You can cut your use about 50% pretty
           | nicely a couple of times at first, but the lower you go the
           | more that hurts, and I couldn't mask it with cannabis. At
           | that point, you're going to have to get some medical help or
           | go through pure hell.
           | 
           | I think in your father's case, it was cutting the opiates by
           | half, but cannabis does help smooth anxiety and helps with
           | nausea, it's just not as strong as getting some xanax, for
           | instance, which would explain why medicinally cannabis wasn't
           | and isn't used (like at hospitals).
           | 
           | The more meds you take, the more it can give you side
           | effects, so it does make sense for people to switch to
           | cannabis to help out
        
             | asveikau wrote:
             | Off topic but that sounds like a stressful ordeal you went
             | through, and I'm sorry to hear it. Hope things are well
             | now.
        
       | parhamn wrote:
       | Im a bit surprised this is a speculative matter. If 2 in 7
       | samples had it, it surely would've been in some of the many
       | pieces of art we have from the period and if it was in the art it
       | wouldn't be so speculative. Are there paintings of people smoking
       | pot in 17th century Italy? If not why not.
        
         | ulizzle wrote:
         | That's a good point, and I think it is because it wasn't as
         | powerful as other drugs. Cannabis today is far stronger than
         | even 20 years ago if you go by old hippie lore.
         | 
         | We do know people ate magic mushrooms and used psychedelics all
         | the time, and that alcohol and tobacco were used widely as soon
         | as discovered.
         | 
         | Maybe that's a truly modern thing. The 420 art.
        
           | Baeocystin wrote:
           | In SE Asia in the 70's and early 80's, I remember folks using
           | weed as part of a larger medicinal-plant system, more than a
           | thing by itself. My Mom used to get an oily balm to rub on
           | her joints for arthritis pain that had it as one of many
           | ingredients. I don't remember a lot of smoking or using it
           | specifically to get high, though. FWIW.
        
         | swatcoder wrote:
         | Preserved art always represents very specific, very narrow
         | slices of life.
         | 
         | Ignoring aesthetic choices by artists themselves, it starts
         | with who can afford to collect and preserve the work, and what
         | their tastes are, and then gets filtered through moral and
         | political fashions decade after decade.
         | 
         | It's a boon to find work that escaped those factors and somehow
         | got preserved anyway, like the graffiti in Pompeii, but it's
         | the exception by a mile.
         | 
         | You can't expect to get the complete picture of a past culture
         | just through it's surviving art.
        
         | coffeecantcode wrote:
         | Interestingly enough, as researched by Mike Jay in his newest
         | book Psychonauts, cannabis consumption in the 19th century and
         | before rarely took the form of cultivating and smoking the
         | flower of the cannabis plant like we have seen in the last
         | century and was more so focused around creating the tar-like
         | hashish which was sometimes smoked but often times cooked into
         | food and consumed in that way.
         | 
         | It was also, as it has been through most of history, a drug
         | that had a reputation tied to social class which in turn could
         | have led to fewer artistic renditions of its everyday use
         | surviving to this day.
         | 
         | Not taking away from the fact that there does seem to be a lack
         | of blatant art focusing on the consumption of cannabis from
         | this region in this time frame, just an interesting note.
        
           | nerdponx wrote:
           | I don't know how it was in general, but for example in _The
           | Count of Monte Cristo_ I think the Count and his guests
           | primarily consumed hashish in food, rather than by smoking.
           | It 's portrayed as exotic and foreign and borderline magical.
           | So it's possible that there were people using it in Europe
           | for centuries, but not a lot of them, and maybe not enough of
           | them for it to appear in whatever secular contemporary art is
           | preserved from the 17th century.
        
           | benbreen wrote:
           | Yes, this is right on (and great book rec - Mike Jay is a
           | friend and a brilliant writer on drug history).
           | 
           | The concept of smoking cannabis is not _quite_ so
           | surprisingly new as that of smoking opium (which apparently
           | emerged in Southeast Asia as recently as ~300 years ago).
           | However although there is archaeological evidence of cannabis
           | smoking in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa stretching back
           | quite a long time, there is virtually no evidence that it
           | reached Europe before the 19th century.
           | 
           | I wrote an article about this for Lapham's Quarterly
           | (https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/our-strange-
           | addi...) that gets into one intriguing piece of inconclusive
           | evidence from earlier:
           | 
           | >In 1689 the natural philosopher Robert Hooke gave a
           | firsthand report on the effects of Indian cannabis to the
           | Royal Society of London: "The patient understands not, nor
           | remembers anything that he sees, hears, or does in that
           | ecstasy, but becomes, as it were, a mere natural, being
           | unable to speak a word of sense; yet is he very merry, and
           | laughs, and sings, and speaks words without any coherence."
           | Hooke described cannabis as being "chewed or swallowed" but
           | specified the dose only ambiguously, as "about as much as may
           | fill a common tobacco-pipe." It is still not clear to what
           | extent cannabis smoking, as opposed to edible or drinkable
           | preparations, was practiced in Hooke's time outside of the
           | cannabis-smoking regions of South Asia and Africa.
           | 
           | I made a pretty thorough search of the textual mentions of
           | cannabis in the 16th and 17th centuries and couldn't find any
           | evidence that Europeans were aware you could smoke it. In
           | other words, it's entirely possible that someone who sat for
           | a portrait in the Renaissance had consumed cannabis _orally_
           | -- in the form of either hashish or mixed in an  "electuary"
           | with things like nutmeg and sugar -- but I would be very,
           | very surprised to see any visual evidence of it being smoked,
           | because the textual records don't support it.
        
       | Georgelemental wrote:
       | Remember: modern cannabis is many times more potent than the pot
       | of 50 years ago. Not the same drugs
        
         | riffic wrote:
         | lol that trope is about 50 years old as well and it just means
         | you need less to get high (self-titration).
         | 
         | https://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/weed-limit-pot-prohibiti...
         | 
         | > Bowers' claims of higher THC content in what is available now
         | compared to the good old days is a refrain that prohibitionists
         | have used for decades, according to Paul Armentano, deputy
         | director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
         | Laws.
         | 
         | ..
         | 
         | > Likewise in the 1960s and '70s, public officials claimed
         | "Woodstock weed" was so uniquely powerful that smoking it would
         | permanently damage brain cells and mere possession needed to be
         | heavily criminalized to protect public health.
         | 
         | https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/08/15/armentano-marijuana-...
         | 
         | > Looking back, it is apparent that each of these previous
         | generations' claims was nothing more than hyperbole.
         | Nonetheless, these sensational claims had a lasting influence
         | on marijuana policy. The latest recycling of the "It's not your
         | parents' pot" claim is a little different.
        
       | npunt wrote:
       | My mind immediately went to 'was this one of the creative inputs
       | of the renaissance?' Found this article [1] which tries to make
       | the case and contains something to ponder:
       | 
       | > After all, in 1484 Pope Innocent VIII had banned the practice
       | of smoking cannabis as sacrament during mass -- so ask yourself,
       | how bad did the practice have to get before the Pope himself had
       | to step in and stop it?
       | 
       | Also TIL cannabis in italy was apparently quite a thing. The
       | wikipedia entry [2] discusses among other things hemp's
       | industrial importance during the time, as well as cannabis' use
       | in food:
       | 
       | > Furthermore, hemp seeds have been used for food for several
       | centuries, especially by the poorer social classes, since they
       | were inexpensive, rich in nutrients, and available even during
       | droughts. In fact, several centuries-old Italian recipes use
       | cannabis sativa as the main ingredient, and these recipes
       | include...
       | 
       | [1]: https://lithub.com/why-does-da-vincis-jesus-look-so-stoned/
       | 
       | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Italy
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-10-26 23:02 UTC)