The British studied this very question in India (where such use was pervasive) back in 19th century. Here's what they found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission

"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ...

In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ...

In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ...

Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."

These findings kinda still holds true upon general observation.

Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it.

It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.).

More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.

> Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it.

Is it really the case? I know it comes up in every discussion about cannabis but I'm wondering if it is really the case. Cannabis (and most psychoactive drugs with the exception of alcohol) are banned in most countries in the world and it has nothing to do with harassing minorities.

The few countries that banned it early on, usually did so because of its vague association with opium, which was seen (rightly so!) as a serious problem.

For those that banned it later, it's usually because they signed one of the global drug control treaties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

Both have been heavily pushed by US (indeed, it effectively organized the first one), and in both cases US was the one that targeted cannabis specifically. In the Single Convention, US was the one that demanded it to be placed on the most restrictive Schedule available.

Here's a good read about all this: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-rise-and-decline-of-c...

Didn't the US start targeting cannabis in the 1930's so the Alcohol Prohibition workers could keep their jobs by doing something else?

It actually started targeting it domestically on state level in 1920s, because of association with low-wage Mexican immigrants. Late 30s is when it went into high gear, with high-profile federal investigations and reports (including Anslinger's famous "marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes"), and bans on state level pretty much country wide.

There is a claim by a former member of the Nixon administration that drug laws where used to target blacks and hippies to disrupt anti-war protests etc.

The same administration that pushed hard to get Cannabis classified as schedule 1 in the UN convention on drugs, as claimed by Canadian archive documents.

Cannabis was banned throughout the world, because American corporations wanted it banned, and after the US put it on the Schedule I list, efforts were made far and wide for the rest of the world to follow suit.

And yes, cannabis was banned because of who was using it - as well as how USEFUL it was in disrupting other industries (such as paper) - not because of its effects. There are countless documentaries which discuss this - a simple Youtube search will yield results.

Agreed that the US govt (read companies) put pressure on the govts. of other countries to get it banned.

I share your skepticism, generally. But I think other countries face sanctions if their local laws disagree with our drug laws, no? This would explain a lot of the agreement.

Under Napoleon in France, marijuana was banned because it reduced the soldiers' initiative to fight. Alcohol use was tolerated.

>Under Napoleon in France, marijuana was banned because it reduced the soldiers' initiative to fight.

Not really-really.

https://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/the-real-his...

Because Harry Jacob Anslinger wouldn't have anything to do once alcohol was legalized, so he started a campaign against marijuana[1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...

Yeah, used for rituals etc. I think most of the world too. It's also used in medicines. Ayurveda has always used it. And of course, modern medicine uses its contents.

But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.

I can't speak to most countries, but the United States did so largely due to concerted efforts to tar it as a drug of "negroes" and "Mexicans" and to attach to it mostly-untrue stories. "Reefer Madness" is an awful movie, but it's an awful movie that exists to push a policy position.

Understood. Here's a little overview of what happened in India: https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illega...

> I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal

I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?

> Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?

Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound.

I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)

Who is having an agenda here?

I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.

The negative health affects are definitely there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU

But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.

I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.

Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.

Too much water will kill you eventually. Funnily enough, we know how much water it takes to kill you, but we haven't discovered that limit on cannabis yet... but there surely is one.

In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.

The research is at its very basic level now. There are many different types with different affects. Studies that generalize all strains are inheritly flawed.

It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths

Well, at my high school, the "stoners" were also drinking, sniffing glue, eating nutmeg, smoking banana peels, etc. In adult life, the few people I've met who only smoke weed have been pretty level-headed. There's some selection bias because I try to avoid people who appear to be of the glue-sniffing variety. Maybe they're just big reefer junkies after all.

I wouldn't call adults who casually smoke weed stoners though. We're talking about people who are long-term or chain smokers. High school pot smokers do not yet show the long-term signs of marijuana use typically.

Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes. Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.