Bud Buddys

[Trebor]

Swm was at a gig last night and was speaking with a mate of his when the guitarist/vocalist handed him a joint, Siwm just looks at him, looks at the joint (which at this point he thought to be a rolly) and took it, as soon as he felt the roach his eyes lit up and he thanked the man furiously. This was his first smoke in ages and it was amazing. This reminded Swim of two other times he was given grass by random strangers.

In the same pub while Swim was hitting on a girl, he was handed a joint, which, again, he thought was rolloy and almost placed it in the ash tray before he felt the roach.

Third was at a gig when a guy handed him a lump of pollen, which as it turns out, really blew Swim's mind.


SO, anyway, I thought about these occasions and came to a conclusion. Why cannabis is illegal!

Becuase we live in a consumer capatilist society, we are told to buy our own things, and that to borrow is to be poor. In his novel "Brave New World" Huxley wrote "Ending is better then mending." Why repair something when you can buy a new one? So, back to the issues. Cannabis users tend to be (in my experience) psuedo-bohemians who have enough money to just get buy. Yet they share. They help one another in the true sense of community. The oldest know cannabis users "the dream weavers" as Terrence McKenna calls them in "Food of the Gods", (expect a review soon) were, in my opinion, the original, pure communists, that is they shared, each took care of the other and there was no ego. Cannabis, I believe, was responsible. So, in todays society which has become a game where the goal is to die with the most things, cannabis seems to be the key to this other world, a retreat in time to our Archaic lifestyles.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very interesting theory.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Interesting point, although I don't believe that cannabis is a causal factor for a certain saving/sharing habits, or even the other way around. What I think is that certain influences, perhaps a combination of environmental influences (exposure to alternative lifestyles, acceptance of non-normative behavior, etc.), and certain genetic influences perhaps (predisposition to risk-taking behavior, reduction of stress in response to use of certain substances) can combine to form a personality type which may have a higher chance of becoming involved in an alternative lifestyle in general or creating a non-normative existence for themselves. Aspects of this lifestyle would include many types of non-normative behavior, of which cannabis use and increased sharing or saving would be two aspects.

The observation of this phenomenon is quite astute, though, Trebor, and your story made me think about the propensity to purchase something new vs. fix something old. Would you see a high incidence of mending old things and re-using/recycling among cannabis users vs. non cannabis users? This would make for an interesting study or poll.

[Trebor]

You make an interesting point with the idea of it being the effects of cannabis. But how do you explain the idea of it being a product of risk-taking behaviour? Is it that you may not get the item returned?


I've raised your question on a cannabis chat room and have this to report, of the two pepople in there, one bought new products and one repaired. I'm now even more intriued to find out who buys.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Ah, the genetics of risk taking behavior! Well, a person more predisposed to take risks (in general) would be more likely to smoke cannabis (risk and drug use are generally linked according to genetic researchers), but I expanded on the definition of "risk" a bit and figured leading a lifestyle somewhat out of the ordinary a risk as well, since one risks ostracism, scorn, rejection from others, and even physical harm (just think of someone who looks different in high school getting their ass kicked for their appearance), so with those consequences in mind, I figured either of those behaviors could be a risk.

Let us know how the chat room responses turn out! Of course, we'd need a control group of non-cannabis users as well, to ask the same question to.

[Trebor]

Oh, I see what you measn know, that there is a social risk in pot smoking. Yes, we would, could you do that please?

[Forthesevenlakes]

Unfortunately, my jurisdiction to change threads does not extend to the cannabis forum. The other thing is that to have a proper poll we'd need 2 questions, one about pot smoking, the other about saving/sparing things vs. buying new ones. The forum software I think would be unable to do a 2 question poll. Perhaps this thread could be turned into a discussion of this though? Or perhaps you could post a poll in the cannabis forum if possible.

[Trebor]

It is not possible as I am but a lowly silver memebr, but you, being the great Mod Forthesevenlakes could.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Poll posted, and the threads linked to one another.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well done Old Boy...

[geezaman]

SWIM is aiming this at people who have a better understanding of ideal communist society's, "the dream weavers" or bohemian society than himself, hoping they may have answers regarding such society's reactions or views on some questions SWIM has thought of.

Originally Posted by Trebor

.
Cannabis users tend to be (in my experience) pseudo-bohemians who have enough money to just get buy. Yet they share. They help one another in the true sense of community... ...that is they shared, each took care of the other and there was no ego.

SWIM remembers when he and others used to go to one of his friends houses and get high with his friends parents, something refereed to as "the junkie ideal" came up and would be discussed at great length in a very philosophical manner. The basic emphasis of it was that if you've got something and someone you meet hasn't, you share it. This ideal, and way of life was considered by all to be the best way and considered it would produce if everyone or most people lived by it a very pleasant society.

But SWIM wonders if this can successfully be applied to drugs. Mainly because drugs are not a necessity to life. They are a pleasure that at some stage an individual must invest money. Money they have because of they're own hard work, in most cases, or because they have restricted they're own lifestyle and pleasures elsewhere. To be able to buy cannabis surely at least one of the Bohemians mentioned must have had more than enough to get by.

More importantly can this be applied to a society where people who do have significantly more money than that that is needed to get by? especially when each individuals idea of getting by is different, basically enough to sustain life but how many people who use drugs are in this situation?

In SWIMs experience it is those with the least that are most freely giving, and who are strongly bound by morals of what is fair and right, and so would not take advantage.

If an individual considers they have in excess of they're own needs in money drugs or food, then the excess SWIM understands should be by such ideals freely given, but with drugs is there ever really an excess? If an individual has a quantity of drugs that will allow him to get to a certain place, but he is very efficient an only uses enough to get there and he freely shares his drugs with another, who needs more to get there, should this sharing amount to the total quantity being split in 2 or relative so both may achieve the same effect. Also If 2 individuals start of with the same quantities of drugs but one uses theirs in a way in which he still has drugs when the other does not, should those he still has be shared by this ideal?

SWIM understands this ideal to mean that at any point if someone has nothing, then sharing should occur. Whether this sharing should be 50/50 or less than that, just enough to satisfy SWIM does not know. He does not himself live by this theology.

In any society where this ideal exists there are surely non conformists, who simply allow others to provide for their needs and desires. How are they dealt with? or are they simply sustained? Is it hoped that they will eventually feel guilty and pull their weight, or pull more than they're weight to be an equal contributer?
SWIM sometimes does share freely, or take on extra work to make up for others lack of work, he does not wish to make them feel guilty but hopes that at a future date this kindness will effect them, to be kind or helpful to another, similar to the film "pay it on".

At the moment in his life this is effecting SWIM in the mundane fashion of washing up, of the five people SWIM lives with all contribute equally to this activity, except one, who in 5 months has not contributed at all. Should her workload be carried?, Should this individual be ejected? Is she taking advantage of SWIM and the others, or are they allowing them selfs to be taken advantage of by doing it for her? If the service were to be suddenly withdrawn, and at a later date SWIM or one of the others found them self in a situation, where they had nothing, would she help them? or not on the grounds they completely withdrew their help to her?

Finally what if rather than something being freely given, out of the blue so to speak, it were requested? would this change whether the individual would give or not?

If anyone is able to enlighten SWIM on answers or suggestions to any of these questions it would be most appreciated.