Re: Hemp

Holger Wagner (
Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:07:27 +0100

Anders Sandberg wrote:
> The goal IMHO should be drugs that are as independent of set and
> setting as possible - they should work even if you don't believe in
> them. Sure, set and setting can build a lot on this, but without a
> strong pharmacological basis you could as well eat sugar pills and use
> the placebo constructively.

Most drugs (at least those forbidden by law) DO have an intense effect,
no matter what you think about them. I think set and setting is less a
question of whether it does work or not, but whether it will be useful
or useless for you (maybe that's what you actually meant).

I'm quite sure that the less a drug is dependent upon set and setting,
the higher the risk of abuse in terms of "making the drug do something
that you should do yourself". According to a study about drug-abuse,
hallucinongenics (which are totally dependent on set and setting) have a
rather low "abuse-potential", while opiates are frequently "abused" (if
anyone's interested I can dig it out - unfortunately, I have the mail on
another computer...)


| "That's the funny thing about memories, isn't it? We are not  |
| what we remember of ourselves, we are what people say we are. |
| They project upon us their convictions  -  we are nothing but |
| blank screens."      +$+      Trevor Goodchild in "Aeon Flux" | 
  "Best do it so"  -?-   \ |
!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^%
PGP-Fingerprint: BD 78 AE 5A AD 20 91 AC  E6 77 A8 B4 12 D1 9C 39