textfiles/magazines/TFJ/fj22.txt

The Free Journal/ASCII Edition
Volume II, Issue 2
Copyright 1992 The Free Journal (Individual articles copyright by author)
Editor-in-Chief: Sameer Parekh
Associate Editor: Aron J. Silverton
(fj@infopls.chi.il.us)

	This is the Free Journal.  Submissions are welcome.  Some
characters have the high bit set.  Distribute at will; cite authors.
(Or editors if no author is given.)
	This is not meant to be an electronic newsletter. This is
meant to be an example of on-paper underground newspapers to educate
the masses about freedom and similar issues.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are just a figment of your
imagination.  (Nor do they belong to LHS.) They don't really exist.
Nor do you.  This entire universe is just a figment of your
imagination.  Keep this in mind as you read.

---
Marijuana, Brain Damage, and Intelligence
---
Brain Damage
	The following is part of Marijuana Myths,Êa pamphlet by
Paul Hager put out by the Hoosier Cannabis Relegalization Coalition.

1. Marijuana causes brain damage
	The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is
the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s.
This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists
sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of
Sciences.  Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and
Health in 1982.  Heath's work was sharply criticized for its
insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control
experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain
structure as "damaged".  Actual studies of human populations of
marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage.  For example,
two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy
users of marijuana.  That same year, the American Medical Association
(AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana
damaged the brain.

1) Marijuana and Health, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of
Sciences, 1982.  Note: the Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual
Behavior of the "Marijuana and Health" study had its part of the final
report suppressed when it reviewed the evidence and recommended that
possession of small amounts of marijuana should no longer be a crime
(TIME magazine, July 19, 1982).  The two JAMA studies are: Co, B.T.,
Goodwin, D.W., Gado, M., Mikhael, M., and Hill, S.Y.: "Absence of
cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis users", JAMA, 237:1229-1230,
1977; and, Kuehnle, J., Mendelson, J.H., Davis, K.R., and New, P.F.J.:
"Computed tomographic examination of heavy marijuana smokers", JAMA,
237:1231-1232, 1977.
---
Intelligence
---
	I sent out the following survey, and I received 46 replies.

	I am looking for people who used to or still use marijuana
regularly.  (Not just your, "I tried it once" thing.)  If you fit this
criterion, please respond to this survey--my default will be all names
anonymous, but if you would like your name cited, please tell me.

---
SURVEY
---

1) Do you use marijuana currently, or did you used to use?

2) Do you consider yourself a heavy, moderate, or light user of
marijuana?

3) What is your preferred means of consumption?  (Joint, bong, eating,
etc.)

4) How much marijuana, on the average, do you consume daily?

5) What is your opinion of your intelligence? (YOUR OWN OPINION)

6) What is society's opinion of your intelligence? (Here you list your
education, degrees, job ranks, standardized test scores, grades in
school, etc.)

7) Why do you use marijuana?

8) Do you use any other drugs to affect your mind? (Legal or illegal.)
Please specify.

Any Comments?

        Thanks for answering this survey!
---
Analysis
---
	Note: This survey was done informally.  No formal conclusions
should be made from this survey.  All results are merely anecdotal.

	Thirty-seven regular marijuana users were surveyed, in
addition to nine ex-users.  I asked them their average daily dosage of
marijuana, their self-opinion of their intelligence, their
ÒsuccessÓ in the intellectual field, and what other
mind-altering drugs they use.
	I found that the mean daily dosage in grammes (Some estimates
were made, such as 1 joint = .7075 grammes.) was 0.865 g/day, with a
standard deviation of 1.188.  (Approximately 1.22 joints/day)
	Nearly all of the respondents (87%) thought of their
intelligence as something above average.  No one considered themselves
below average.  Twenty-two people provided GPAs, and the mean was
3.695, ranging from 2.900 to 3.980 at institutions such as Stanford
and M.I.T. where the highest possible GPA is 4.0 (Unlike
Libertyville's 5.0 maximum). The standard deviation was .276.  Of the
19 replies with SAT scores, the mean was 1359 with a standard
deviation of 121.15.  The scores ranged from 980 to 1570.
	Of the 8 moderate users within two standard deviations from
the mean of consumption the mean consumption was .850 g/day with a
standard deviation of .248.  The mean GPA was 3.30 with a standard
deviation of .245.
	Of the 32 light users below two standard deviations from the
mean, the mean consumption was .179 g/day with a standard deviation of
.153.  The mean GPA was 3.407 with a standard deviation of .386.
	Of the 6 heavy users above two standard deviations the mean
consumption was 3.805 g/day with a standard deviation of .654.  The
mean GPA was 3.450 with a standard deviation of .636.
	From these data, it could be inferred that among the people
surveyed marijuana had no effect on ability to do well in school.  The
light and heavy users had only an insignificant increase in GPA above
the moderate users.
	Of the respondents, 65% have used LSD, 30% have used
psilocybin, 50% have used alcohol, 13% have used caffeine, 11% have
used nicotine, 4.3% have used opium, 4.3% have used speed, 2.2% have
used amanita muscaria, 2.2% have used dativa, 2.2% have used
diprenhydramine hydrochloride, 10.8% have used xtc, 4.3% have used
amphetamines, 4.3% have used nootropics, 4.3% have used nitrous oxide,
2.2% have used valium, 2.2% have used kava, 2.2% have used MDA, and
2.2% have used cocaine.
	Here are some comments from the replies which I have found to
be a good cross-section of the people.  (If you want a completely
accurate view you will have to look at the entire sample, which is
available from Sameer Parekh.)

Comments
	ÒI think regular marijuana use is detrimental to schoolwork
(from personal experience), but I don't believe it's made much
difference in my professional life (if this is hypocritical, so be
it!).Ó
	ÒMy grades have improved tremendously since that time when
I was the really gifted kid who didn't work up to potential.  I have
learned that there are many rewards for postponing self-gratification
until after the work is done, and I think that marijuana has helped me
learn that.Ó
	ÒThe only negatives that it has produced in my life are the
fear of governmental retribution for my personal action, and lack of
understanding of people who feel my action is Ôbad.ÕÓ
	ÒGood luck, but I must agree with other reservations about
the validity of your findings. Without a control and large
representative sampling, your findings will remain anecdotal.Ó
	The complete results are available in tabular form and in raw
data form from Sameer Parekh.
---
Dr. Shulgin Opposed
---
	On January 21, 1992 I read an article in "The Free Journal"
called "Psychedelics."  It consisted of excerpts from an article
written by Dr. Alexander T. Shulgin, who seems to tout the use of
certain drugs as "consciousness-enhancing" agents.  As a
pharmacologist and a chemist, Dr. Shulgin acknowledges that, with any
drug, comes a risk, but he seems to leave out any mention of risk
involving the group of drugs he chooses to "champion."  This seems to
contradict his own motto, "Be informed, then choose," since he
neglects to fully inform us.  But, not so with the case FOR the use of
psychedelics.  He sugar-coats the facts, calling psychedelics
"physically non-addictive" but, it is much easier and equally
devastating to become psychologically addicted to a drug.  In my
opinion, Dr. Shulgin seems to be on that road, if he isn't already
addicted psychologically.  Dr. Shulgin goes on to explain how
psychedelic drugs could be used to gain greater self-awareness and to
gain insights into our own psychic nature.  I have nothing against
self-awareness, but Dr. Shulgin offers very little evidence of rewards
of his own "inner-journey."  What doors has he opened?  What secrets
of human nature has he discovered?  He offers the very vague "I have
touched the core of my own soul," but doesn't bother to expand or go
into any detail.  He also describes about how, for thousands of years,
men have used drugs for purposes of "self-discovery," but men have
also been fighting wars, killing and robbing from each other for
thousands of years; the longevity of a practice doesn't justify it.
One of Dr. Shulgin's most interesting points is his "experience" with
God.  He claims to have experienced briefly the existence of God.  In
my opinion we are all experiencing the existence of God, He can be
seen everywhere, in the nature and the people He created, people have
only to open their eyes to it.  Besides, I wonder about the legitimacy
of a "God" who exposes himself briefly to a person while in the
chaotic and hallucinogenic euphoria of drug use, only to disappear
back to the ethereal world once the user sobers up.  Dr. Shulgin
leaves us with another disturbing matter when he states "Someday I may
understand how these simple catalysts do what they do."  To me, it
seems obvious that Dr. Shulgin has left the realm of legitimate
scientific research.  He seemingly chooses not to try to answer the
questions of what these drugs actually do to the human mind and body,
instead, opting to use some more and get high.  Not answering the
how's and why's, while still advocating use, is very dangerous; it
leaves many important questions unanswered: especially concerning its
safety.  And despite Dr. Shulgin's coloring of the government or
"establishment" as the bad guy, no responsible government can legalize
such substances until the "how's" and "why's" are known.  Because
legalization is a good as endorsement: "The government says it's legal
to do so so it must not be bad for me." (e. g. the tobacco and alcohol
industries) 
			-- Chris Ryan
	Editor's Note: Unfortunately, I have been unable to bring to
you the whole of Dr. Shulgin's Introduction to his book
Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved: A Chemical Love Story.  The
entire article addresses a few of Mr. Ryan's points.  In addition, the
book itself contains the information about the dangers of these
psychedelics.  (Some accurate information is also available from
Sameer Parekh.)  He also provides more detail into his psychedelic
experiences, explaining just how he touched the core of his own soul.
The introduction is just that, an introduction.
	Although Dr. Shulgin does not know exactly why these drugs do
what they do, he has done extensive research into the area.  He has
written and collaborated on over one hundred papers regarding the
effects of these drugs which have been published in medical journals.
	Government legalization does not mean endorsement.  After
Holland accepted a policy of tolerance and non-prosection of marijuana
use, marijuana consumption went down and there was a 33% drop in the
number of heroin addicts.	--SP 
---
What is the Usenet?
---
	The Usenet is hard to describe.  I think it can best be
described as a large group of people working together to form a
community of discussion and debate.
	Approximately 1.5 million people are connected to the Usenet.
These people are connected to this network by many means.  Some people
are connected to the Usenet at their college, and others are connected
at work.  Still other people are connected to the Usenet through
public-access facilities.
	The Usenet is a very empowering asset.  There are
approximately two thousand groups of discusion, ranging from the TV
show "The Simpsons" to discussions of computers to discussions of
racism in the mass media.  Reading the Usenet can teach someone a
great deal about human nature and people in other nations (Many
nations from the United States to Korea are connected.) in addition to
the two thousand topics of discussion.
	The Usenet also can also help find a job, learn about colleges
from the people who go there, and find used goods for sale at
incredible prices.  It is a very empowering facility.  It can build
relationships between people at great physical distances from each
other and great friendships can emerge.
	The Usenet is rapidly growing.  Currently twenty megabytes of
information passes through the Usenet daily.  (One megabyte is
approximately 250 pages.)  This number doubles yearly.  By the year
2000, 2.68 terabytes will have passed through the Usenet.  (One
terabyte is approximately one million megabytes, or 260 million
pages.)
	Access to the Usenet is the Chicago area is available from a
number of sources.  One can use a computer and modem to dial up to
these sources.  One such source is ddsw1.  Ddsw1 carries the full
Usenet feed and provides full UNIX (a computer operating system which
is used mainly by high-powered computers at corporations and colleges)
access for a mere seventy-five dollars a year.  (Less than GEnie,
Compuserve, and Prodigy) Ddsw1 also provides, at no cost, access to a
limited portion of the Usenet, but no UNIX access.
	Another source is Infoplus.  Infoplus carries a very limited
feed of the Usenet and does not run on a UNIX, but also does not
charge a fee for use of the limited feed.  Infoplus can be reached at
(708)-537-0247, and ddsw1 can be reached at (312)-248-0900 with a
modem.
	A connection to the Usenet is a valuable asset.  Everyone who
wishes to keep up with the new frontier of the new millennium must be
connected.
			--Sameer Parekh