« Thinking Out Loud | Main | A Pleasant Surprise and some Interesting Possibilities »
November 21, 2010
More Questions
The last entry ended with a rhetorical question: how did our species, the only one capable of both literacy and empirical science, manage to make such a mess of the modern world? Important collateral questions, which in any rational context, should at least be addressed before an attempt is made to fix such problems: is a fix even possible? And is there enough time?It’s now obvious that my (admittedly limited) study of the clinical pharmacology of marijuana strongly supports the notion that in its natural state, cannabis possesses unique, potent, and generally safe medical properties. It’s also probable those properties could be enhanced considerably in a setting in which pot use were both legal and socially acceptable. The opposite is also clear; until those conditions are met, anyone using cannabis for any reason will risk arbitrary and capricious punishment from police entities at all levels for the simple reason that policing drug use has become a major source of Law Enforcement's institutional influence and financial security.
Because mode of ingestion turns out to be an area of considerable federal inconsistency, it's one that also demonstrates our drug policy's reliance on enforced ignorance and thus also worth considering for that reason alone.
Cannabis wasn’t native to Europe; it was introduced from the Far East in the Nineteenth Century, perhaps much earlier, probably in both its inhaled and edible forms. Just when, and by whom, are not precisely known. Martin Booth, in his exhaustive history does not attempt to pin the dates down exactly, but infers that the inhaled form was usually seen as less desirable, even in Muslim countries; thus when Anslinger attacked inhalation with "reefer madness" propaganda, he was simply following an established pattern. What was new with Anslinger was the idea that "marijuana' somehow represented a foreign threat to American teens.
What's clear is that modern users still recognize major differences in effect based on whether pot is inhaled or eaten, but are not at all clear why that's so. What's also clear is that the existence of those differences should have become clear to NIDA and the DEA long ago because both, like Anslinger, claim expertise on all facets of drug use.
The difference is that we now have, in place of NIDA's repetitive studies of "kids," information provided by applicants of all ages, coherent evidence based on their years of experience. The more such evidence accumulates, the shabbier and more contrived federal doctrine should appear.
Doctor Tom
Posted by tjeffo at November 21, 2010 07:37 PM