the pot hole the one voice we have ignored in the cannabis debate an apology the independent lance schaubert blog marijuana

The Pot Hole

In the past few years, I’ve seen politicians found campaigns upon the legalization of Mary Jane, encountered books titled everything from Puff or Pass? to Pot, Inc., and heard some of the most logically unsound arguments for any position on any topic ever applied to why we should legalize NOW!

People have loaded up on the moral arguments and the political arguments and everything else, but so far nearly everyone is ignoring one of the most important voices – at least here in America. If you read the Jesus the Drunkard piece, you know this author’s stance on moral systems founded upon the demonization or canonization of any physical substance. I’m disinterested in diving down into that water hole again.

But this voice we’re ignoring is that of experience, specifically the magnitude of experience collected on the cultural level, the kind of massive sample size that could let us know whether our path to legalization is stupid or sagacious. It’s a pot hole in the road ahead, the one pot hole we shouldn’t ignore.

In 1997, The Independent in Britain published an article written by “Rosie Boycott” entitled Why We Believe it is Time to Decriminalize Cannabis. The piece was filled with what you might expect from a newspaper of record – mostly subjective argumentation bolstered by the occasional coherent thought and, more importantly, a list of signatures that grew by exponential jumps as the days passed. In time, The Independent had mustered sixteen-thousand people who marched on Hyde Park. Pot was legalized. Highs were had. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Skip a few boring chapters. A decade has passed. It’s Sunday, September 2007. The Independent publishes an article entitled Canabis: An Apology. In terms of the grand narrative of that country’s history, ten years is pretty short turnaround time, gang.

The article said things like:

“A decade after this newspaper’s stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London’s Hyde Park – and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C – an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.”

And ::

“The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin – with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week’s Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue.”

Oh and how about ::

“Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is,” said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University’s Centre for Drug Misuse Research. “We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties.”

“Burnt.”

 

My friends who used to deal drugs call minds in the above condition “burnt.”

READ NEXT:  You Are More Creative Than Me

If there’s a common theme in human history, I think that phrase “society has seriously underestimated” could apply to the consequences of any one of our many rash decisions. These days, I’ve grown to value the opinions held by dead authors over those of the living, and for good reason. The living have yet to be tested by death and the slow erosion of time. In this, the blogosphere, the equivalent of heeding ancient wisdom might look like re-reading a seven-year-old article penned by a major newspaper who has repented and apologized for their interference in some forgotten political event.

That is, after all, the spirit of TIL on Reddit.

Granted, to our embarrassment Americans have traditionally imported intelligence from Britain. I recognize that in spite of our petty attempts at a ruthless nationalism (Webster’s, the yardstick, driving on the right side of the road) we still mirror Britain’s political and philosophical track after having run it through something like a twenty to one-hundred-year buffer. However, it seems foolish to simply repeat their same mistakes without any consideration for amendment, course correction, or downright repentance. Especially when we already know the consequences.

Most of the arguments I read on this subject by most of the religious and philosophical institutions out there bore me. They probably bore you too, mainly for how often they reflect the life and choices of the one making the argument.

However the apology of The Independent, when heeded for its place and weight in the overall historical narrative concerning pot use among English speakers, has the potential to turn you stone cold sober.

Read both articles and note the stark change in tone from pleasure to pain.


In other news, John Oliver killed it recently with his piece on Mandatory Minimums (content warning, of course) ::

 

cover image by Brett Levin

 

monogram transparent

 

 


Be sure to share and comment. And subscribe.

Comment early, comment often, keep it civil:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. mr9schwander

    this is fascinating.

    1. lanceschaubert

      I owe Dr. Gary Zustiak for the find, though it was a few years back.

Quick note from Lance about this post: when you choose to comment (or share this post with your friends) you help other readers just like you.

How?

Well, see, your comments & sharing whisper a few things to those who come after you:

The first is that this site is a safe place to speak up & stay curious. That it's civil. That discussion is encouraged. That there's no such thing as a stupid question (being a student of Socrates, I really and truly believe this). That talking to one another and growing together is more important than anything we could possibly publish. That the point is growing in virtue and growing together and growing wise. That discovery is invention, deference is originality, that we all can rise together. The only folks I'm going to take comments down from are obvious jerks who argue in bad faith, don't stay curious, or actively make personal attacks. And, frankly, I'd rather we talk here than on some social media farm — I will never show ads and the only thing I'm selling anywhere on the site or my mailing list is just the stuff I make.

You're also helping folks realize that anything you & they build together is far more important than anything you come to me to read. I take the things I write about seriously, but I don't take myself seriously: I play the fool, I hate cults of personality, and I also don't really like being the center of attention (believe it or not). I would much rather folks connect because of an introduction I've made or because they commented with one another back and forth and then build something beautiful together. My favorite contributions have been lifelong business and love partnerships from two people who have forgotten I introduced them. Some of my closest friends NOW I literally met on another blog's comment section fifteen years ago. I would love for that to happen here — let two of you meet and let me fade into the background.

Last, you help me revise. I'm wrong. Often. I'm not embarrassed to admit it or worried about being cancelled or publicly shamed. I make a fool out of myself (that's sort of the point). So as I get feedback, I can say, "I was wrong about that" and set a model for curious, consistent learning, and growing in wisdom. I'm blind to what I don't know and as grows the island of my knowledge so grows the shoreline of my ignorance. It's the recovery of innocence on the far end of experience: a child is in a permanent state of wonder. So are the wise: they aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know. That's new: please teach me." That's my goal, comments help. And I read all reviews: my skin's tough, but that's not license to be needlessly cruel. We teach one another our habits and there's a way to civilly demolish an idea without demolishing another person: just because I personally can take the world's meanest 1-star review doesn't mean we should teach one another how to be crueler on the internet.

For three magical reasons — your brave curiosity, your community, & my ignorance:

Please comment & share with friends how you prefer to share:

Follow The Showbear Family Circus on WordPress.com

Thanks for reading the Showbear Family Circus.
  1. "I think you can write about yourself without the vain, self-focused naval gazing. Good storytelling is a gift from writers…

  2. "His fans didn’t just write fiction about it. One calculated the tensile strength of the material it was made of.…

  3. My mother was the volatile Italian and my dad was the calming influence when things went awry. Dad was our…

  4. Lancelot, thank you, for that congrats, but I fear that continues my jinxed lament - that the late Andy Warhol…

Copyright © 2010— 2023 Lancelot Schaubert.
All Rights Reserved.
If we catch you using any of the substance of this site to train any form of artificial intelligence, we will prosecute
to the fullest extent permitted by any law.

Human children and adults always welcome
to learn bountifully and in joy.