Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Check it out stoners!

http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/post/320?page=1


Ewan

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Wow, it seems no one wants to wade into these murky water, eh, Ewan?! How about any of you non-U.S. citizens who don't have to worry about jail time as a potential result of initial disclosure?

I found both articles very thought-provoking. They both seemed partial to me. The second one was very definitely not integral. That perspective is included within integral; however, it is not integral itself.

This line at the end made me laugh:
The worst thing about pot smokers is their reluctance not to look at the all facts!

Grammatical error aside, he seems to think he's got all the “facts”. Funny. Here we come across a very interesting phenomenon: People who read Wilber, who might or might not be cognitively integral, yet are very cleary not there in terms of CoG. This is more the rule than the exception, in my (limited) experience.

What are your thoughts, buddy?

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Colin:
The worst thing about pot smokers is their reluctance not to look at the all facts!

Grammatical error aside, he seems to think he's got all the “facts”. Funny. Here we come across a very interesting phenomenon: People who read Wilber, who might or might not be cognitively integral, yet are very cleary not there in terms of CoG.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hi, Grey.

You wrote: Weird. I had to read that line like 5 times to find the error, and I've only smoked pot twice!

That's funny, bro. The recognition of the error falls under the category of pattern recognition for me. I didn't used to see language like I see other “patterns”, but now that's often what I see beyond the meanings themselves: grammar as a logical pattern.

Seriously though, this discussion makes me wonder about the difference between a text being “integral” and it being “integrally informed”. Can a text be one-sided like that second pot article and still be written by a person coming from a second-tier worldview? I mean, any given text doesn't have to be explicitly AQAL to be an expression of an integral worldview, does it?  Generally speaking I mean, not necessarily in reference to these pot articles specifically.

But in light of that, what would you say are the key indicators that one or both of these articles are or are not representative of an integral worldview?

Great point. I definitely hear you on this and I needed reminding: a person at second tier may write from a lower level at times. I think there are clues in a text that one at second tier might be able to pick up on, though. For me (w/o claiming second tier), it was the sentence I quoted from the first article that made me think the author isn't integral (the “facts”). I don't have time to go over the first right now; however, my impression was that the author in that case was more likely coming from a higher CoG than the 2nd author.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Colin: I didn't used to see language like I see other “patterns”….

Speaking of grammar errors… ;-)

Anyway, yeah, I'm kinda like you.  I didn't read the articles with my color-coding glasses on, so I'd have to go back and re-read them to make an “integral assessment” of them.  I think the point, though (as someone else has already mentioned), is that Ken likely posted both of them together in order to show a more integral picture of the situation than either article on its own provided.

Peace out, man!

~G

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Colin: “Anything you say can and will be used against you…”

He, I’m from Amsterdam - I’ve first-hand seen the experimentation with legal weed. Nothing wrong with it at all in my eyes, as long as there is an educational part in the coffee shops that discusses the dangers of experimentation with hard drugs - too many young people were very impressionable and only too willing ot go beyond weed.

There was a study on the BBC Worldservice a few months ago about a group of British researchers who did a study on detrimental effects on both individuals and society of addictive substances - I’m not sure of the exact rankings, but tobacco was #2, alcohol #6 and weed #12 or something like that in terms of being “dangerous”. They asked the question: how can we outlaw marihuana and allow tobacco and alcohol..?

Frans

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

I liked both the blogs too i.e. who's right? Both.

but I want to stand up for the second article. It's too easy to read “amber” when someone is speaking from -what appears to me-the real-time, in your face horror that exists in our society in relation to drugs and yes, even pot. (Was the second a US writer? I'm assuming and so, yes, in speaking of  “our society” I mean the US.)

Again, don't read “amber” into what I said. There is indeed a sickening underbelly in US society that is intrinsically related to drugs. Key word, from and Integral perspective being “related.” I t has to do with a literal sea of factors from all quadrants and all levels, I think brewing up a cultural recipe for, if not disaster, then certainly a slow moving storm of suffering - but the most consistent factor in it all that can be found is drugs. Yes, even pot.

How do we change it? I don't know. It's far, far, far beyond education alone. (Oh and yes, far, far, far beyond illegalization.) My only point is that I felt a resonance with the second article on the level that there do exist some serious problems that will make your hair stand on end, and if you get up close to it, if it touches your life directly, and certainly if you work in that field, at some point your heart is going to want to cry out, and in some direct relation to the substances involved, their use, and at the fact that anyone would casually or seriously advocate them in any way.

I was very happy with Ken's comments. I must admit that the one and only single thing that has ever concerned me about Ken's writing, is the occasional mentions of drugs - with no mention of this horrendous individual, cultural, societal and physical shadow side.

I've worked with a lot of young people in my life.

And I've watched their lives like clock-work go to shit because, in part, of their relationship with drugs, and the relationship -nay, central part- of drugs within their culture.

Also know people who devoted their education and best of energies to becoming social workers, only to quit after six months because they simple couldn't take it anymore.

How to solve the problem in America? Integral certainly gives the best chance for a frame work and some answers, but certainly at times it feels like there may never be a solution.

All of that said - I do agree with the first article.

And … erhm hrm . . excuse me what were we talking about? Oh yeah, oh no I've never inhaled.

Sure, no, that one experience I've had of constant consciousness due to the fact that I passed out but still remained fully conscious … um … that was …yeah, yeah, something else.

Tim

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Frans wrote: Colin: “Anything you say can and will be used against you…”

All kidding aside, this is an appropriate moment to state that sometimes, in my wide openness and less ego-attached ways, I forget that there are those out there that might exploit my open sharing. I guess I mostly let the fear of that go because I refuse to be limited by fear of what might happen; that said, I think it's important to have some limits. I'm just trying to flesh those out!

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

I like what Paracelsus had to say about drugs. Translating the German original:

“All things are poison. Only the dosage makes that a thing is not poison.”

Take water - an absolute necessity and boon, yes? But too much of it forced down your throat is a torturing technique.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

And to take the water analogy further: swimming can be a wonderful experience, when done with caution and consciousness. Swimming out too far, though, or swimming without paying attention to the act of swimming and all related conditions may result in death by drowning. That certainly doesn't mean we should outlaw swimming, though.

Tim, you've got a valid point. I think that much of the content in the latter article could come from an integral perspective. This author doesn't seem to be to me, though. He presented a one-sided argument. You're right, though, that seeing the effects of abuse up close and personal makes one desperate to find ways to stop the abuse. Placing all the blame on plants, though? Clearly, the war on drugs has done very little other than crowd our prisons (that's good for jobs, though, right?! (building prisons, staffing prisons, etc.)) and limit the rights of people, many of whom are good citizens in every other regard.

There are lots of shadows underlying drug abuse (versus use, which can be done without shadow driving it, IMHO) in our culture, and in most cultures. That said, if the potential for unconscious abuse, escapism and deleterious health effects were underlying the current law, alcohol, tobacco, advertising, television, junk food and other consumables should be illegal as well. It is possible to eat yourself to death; it just takes a lot longer than other routes. Personal debt is skyrocketing in the U.S. and it puts people's security at risk. I don't see the government expressing concern about that. Abuse is not the reason marijuana is illegal. Powerful lobbies hold much of that responsibility.

I support legalization of marijuana for many reasons, primarily: funneling monies from the legal sale and taxation of widely used substances (widely used now, even though illegal - number one cash crop in America from what I've read) into education and treatment might make a significant impact on lowering rates of abuse overall; individual freedom for those that don't abuse. Has anyone heard the argument that if you believe all drugs are nothing but bad, you might as well throw away many of the artifacts created by humans in altered states? Music, art, technology…altered states CAN shift the brain into thinking in ways outside of conditioned reality. And those states can be used as a route of escape, too.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

I liked both articles.  I'm not sure if either can be considered integral in that both leave important elements out.  There is certainly an argument for responsible use,  and there are far worse substances which are completely legal.

On the other hand,  cannabis is addictive - regular use alters the neuro-chemical balance of the brain.  There is a sharp increase in the incidence of suicide among heavy users who quit “cold turkey” - their brains have adjusted to artificially/externally elevated levels of serotonin by reducing internal production.  When they quit those levels plummet.

My biggest problem is that cannabis basically causes developmental retardation in the young - specifically,  emotional development.  When positive reinforcement begins to come from an object (pot) rather than people,  the result is a perpetual adolescence.  Adults (who have reached amber or higher) already have these structures in place,  so from the perspective of their own upper left,  this problem is invisible. 

So both articles left levels out of their discussion.  The first article seems to be discussing orange-green use,  while the second is discussing red-use and misuse (and offering the appropriate amber response - if only the author also recognized the responsible use by higher developmental levels).

Strange that I almost never post here anymore,  and I browse through and see a thread on pot and I just can't resist.  I gave up cannabis a few years ago (finally) after gradually reducing my consumption more and more.  It wasn't until I got down to smoking once every 6 months or so that I realized what an effect on me it had  - as I had some level of THC in my system for more than a decade.  Not only am I one of those unfortunate individuals prone to pot-induced panic attacks,  I realized that it made me emotionally unstable for several days afterwards (lots of inexplicable mood swings).

Later,
Enkidu

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hey Dude

You're going to have to produce more than opinion to support the hypothesis “pot is addictive.” My background is in pharmacology and that statement is not true if “addictive” means dependence inducing (physical dependence). Citations?

Blessings

Elliott

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

For the record, I'm exploring NOSCs (non-ordinary states of consciousness) using other technologies: chanting, drumming, meditation, ecstatic dance, brainwave entrainment.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

i read both articles and there was nothing “integral” about either of them. drugs are a way of changing conciousness, which can be good or bad depending on the situation and intent. whether it's for an ecstatic feeling or a way of numbing the emotions. everyone is different and at different stages, so there will be a wide variety of effects, certain substances will have different effects depending on the individual. to single out marijuana does a disservice to an integral discussion of the “problem”. any method of altering conciousness, if done to extremes, will have a deliterious effect, including meditation, brainwave entrainment, etc.

in the chemical arena, alcohol is the substance most people are exposed to first, and could be considered the “gateway drug”. it is so imbedded in our culture that there is a blind spot to it where it's forgotton or not even considered a drug, given lip service at best because the majority of people imbibe at some level. when it's seen and used as a social lubrication it's not that big a step to try whatever else comes along.

the real question should be why do people take these substances.. the quick answer is because it makes them feel _____, fill in the blank. it's really a matter of the ego wanting to feel itself, to pretend that it is real or at least not afraid of living.

just some thoughts….

jim

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

If we put the two articles together we might have something integral. That's probably what Ken intended, to present both sides and encourage a little discussion.

The first one sounded something like me when I was about 21 years old. For about a year, year and a half there I was a regular user. In fact it was just about every day for that year and a half. A helluva good time, though it did get progressively less fun. What's missing in the first article is just how much it messes up your brain and body. It's really insidious. I wouldn't want any kid to use it at all (<18), and beyond that I wouldn't recommend it either. It's lovely stuff, but the trouble is it stays in your system forever.

I actually wrote my senior thesis on the decriminalization of drugs. Ha. My professors thought it was okay, but they both thought I downplayed the side effects in the UL and UR too much. They were right, I'm sure (I think they both knew I had turned into a bit of a druggie.) A few random comments:

Gateway drug–yes, marijuana is a gateway drug. There's no question about that in my mind. You go from alcohol to pot, and if that goes well and you're feeling adventurous, you move on. Not that everything you move on to is necessarily bad. I don't regret my forays into mushrooms and LSD. I wouldn't smoke so much pot if I had to do it all over again. Same goes for alcohol. But you pay price for all of them. There are no free rides, and if you get tainted drugs, which happened to me a couple of times, you could really mess yourself up.

Melatonin–many people don't know that cannabis stimulates the release of melatonin like nothing else, just huge amounts of melatonin. I think this is one reason people use it (those that use it to counteract stress, that is). When I quit suddenly when I was 21, I really couldn't sleep at night. Using melatonin might help some people stop using it (there was a recent study that found that 300mcg doses of melatonin work better than the larger 1mg-5mg doses most people take). This kid says that melatonin reversed some of the side effects of marijuana that were disrupting his life and “renewed his love of weed,” which tells me that perhaps the pineal gland can get exhausted with extended use.)

Awareness–it can give you a view of the personal self a little bit. Maybe it wasn't all bad, but I don't see a part for it in any serious spiritual program. LSD, ayahuasca, mushrooms–“just say maybe,” as Lama Surya Das said in Zig Zag Zen, but marijuana? No, I say! :) Ken once said that you have to experience your mind “cleanly,” and marijuana definitely doesn't help with that.

As a medicine–it's crazy that doctors can't prescribe it here and that congressmen are telling doctors what they can and can't prescribe. Intererestingly, homeopathy has used cannabis indica and cannabis sattiva–those homeopathic “provings” provide some pretty interesting insights into them–for years because they are poisons, not because the crude substance has any beneficial effects–the body reacts to the poison (releasing melatonin and such). In homeopathy less than a molecule of the substance is given. But I can see how it could make it possible for some people to eat, sleep, etc., and it should definitely be available for them. Only trouble is you don't think as well, and I would bet it would shut you off from your higher self pretty quickly.

Decriminilization–yes, but we shouldn't excpect the same results in the U.S. as they get in Holland. A lot more Red here, other social problems. But it might take the allure out of the drug. That's what I think might be the most important benefit of decriminilization. In the U.S. they can take away your house for growing marijuana plants (I think a few states may have rolled that one back, a legacy of the Reagan era). A person can commit all sorts of crimes and keep their house, but grow a marijuana plant, and the government takes it. There are families that have lost their houses because Dad was growing a few plants (Dad also had to spend time in jail)–that is so wrong. Well, it's just Amber, isn't it? I think if it were decriminilized, users might take more responsibility for themselves. But decriminilization would have to be combined with an educational campaign to discourage use, a campaign that wouldn't deny the fun of it. Amber wouldn't like any of it–a mixed message! Decriminalization would also put some organized crime outfits out of business and benefit source countries, though that's mostly an issue with cocaine.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

David: Gateway drug–yes, marijuana is a gateway drug. There's no question about that in my mind. You go from alcohol to pot, and if that goes well and you're feeling adventurous, you move on. […]  Decriminilization–yes, but we shouldn't excpect the same results in the U.S. as they get in Holland. A lot more Red here, other social problems. But it might take the allure out of the drug.

I think pot can only really be considered a gateway drug from the point of view of its legal status. I mean, alcohol was a big deal before I was 21, so there was a huge impulse to drink it at every opportunity (not that I did necessarily… ;-). Pot is illegal but not seen as being particularly dangerous, so once you've gotten over the novelty of alcohol, pot tends to be the new frontier. Then once you've been there, done that, harder drugs might be the next adventure for some. But if you decriminalize pot, then it probably won't be any more of a gateway drug than alcohol or tobacco is.

At least that's the way I see it.

Cheers,
~G

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Colin said: “I don't have time to go over the first right now; however, my impression was that the author in that case was more likely coming from a higher CoG than the 2nd author.”

Yes, I agree, Colin.

I got the sense that a big part of the motivation of the first author was that he liked marijuana. He'll be “the first to light up” if it's decriminalized. I just didn't get a sense he appreciated the downside of the drug very well.  Seems like the typical mix of green/yellow/turqoise without going into it.

I don't think the second guy ever really inhaled. His description of what a user experiences sounds like it came out of a book. But he really gives his COG away in the final paragraph: “The state cannot afford to bring drug and alcohol education to all. The answer does not lie with the state. The answer lies with the parent.” Orange! Free right.

I may have come down too steadfastly against marijuana in my earlier post. I can't rule it out entirely as an occassional herbal supplement at some point in the future, but I have no plans to find some, and I doubt it would be ideal. I also could see my way to using it for some medical condition, but, again, there would be unpleasant side effects (cloudy thinking, diminished memory, etc.) It's interesting that the so-called drug writers I know of, Ken Kesey, Allen Ginsburg, William Burroughs, all came out against using these sorts of drugs for creative work in the end. Paul Bowles said he was stoned on hash for the final section of the Sheltering Sky, and though it's interesting, you can tell it's not on par with the earlier parts of the book. There was great songwriting on marijuana and other drugs in the 60s and 70s, but you'll notice that, like Kesey, they all burned out.

“And marajuana can be a totally amazing tool.”

Dude, that's a totally amazing overstatement.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Thank You Ewan for this bringing up these statements here. Thanks to Ken for posting them on his blog. Thank You, Elliot for making such a well stated argument. (I'm considering adding you to my hero list for your honesty and courage). I wrote this comment before I came back and read some of the latest additions. Ewan, you got more courage than Elliot and you said a lot of what I was going to say so I've altered my comment here some please excuse the choppieness.

Integral? Well, Elliot's statement is certainly in that direction (hard to be fully integral while being brief). I see the problem with the second statement as putting the blame for the mentioned wrongdoings on a substance rather than a person who makes bad choices. Addiction and abuse can influence behaviors in a negative fashion. The substance itself isn't the problem.

Elliot focuses on a whole different problem than the second statement. The problem Elliot addresses so well is societies allowing this substance to remain illegal. Many of us know one of the reasons marijuana remains illegal is because some people stay rich this way. Mascha's quote is perfect; any substance can be poison, it is a matter of the dose. Many people throughout all of history have responsibly used various substances in a way which never contributed to anyone's harm or misfortune.

The second statement is looking at the truly sad and unfortunate way some people treat each other and their children. The irresponsible use or abuse of any substance can be harmful or deadly but everyone knows this. The only thing that needs to be illegal and punished by law is the harmful acts that are committed. That is a serious problem which can be better addressed if we stop clouding the issue and confusing abuse of people with the abuse of a substance. Also we confuse abuse of the substance with the substance.

jimteu, you say the question should be why people take substances? Then you give some good reason's. Also, they want to feel … good … comfortable … accepted … AND have not found the way to do this yet without the substance or don't believe they can (and OH YES they can). Once a person can feel all these things without any assitance they don't feel as compled to use it (although they still may chose to on occassion). 
Love & Peace to All

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

It's interesting to look at recreational drug use in terms of the idea of Jing or  Essence from Chinese medicine. 

 ”Essence differs from Qi in that it is

both the basic substance of the life force and the

energetic component responsible for development.

It is the Jing that moderates growth, reproduction,

and the speed of aging. ” (from here)

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

well this thread has caught me enought to focus me on a screen, as its been a while ;-) but for now i have to get to work.

i will get me rusty fingers workin again later i hope…

i havent read the article yet, but some initial comments coming from a skim read…
(and this is simply my opinion)
i think yes, drugs are well described by the jing concept, and its allways worth bearing in mind adverse effects, of which there are many, but also, as with everything, things have to be looked at both individually in each situation/person, and in a conventional-values-free light if its to be integral.
the whole journey of life uses up life forces - we all get old an die. yes drugs can, and very often do speed up this process, but there can also be both benefits, and a staggaringly different array of effects in different people. thats where education, and also being able to know the production environment of a substance, can be the difference between a crazy adolescant journey and losing something that can take a life's hard work to regain, if at all.
the illegal question is a fascinating side-topic, and one that would be very usefully explained with AQAL if looked at in depth.

gees, i gotta get off this thing before im late fe work.

anyway, ill be reading this poroperly later.

hello to you all ;-)

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hi All,

I read both articles, I liked the first more than the second, - probably because the first induces more sympathy within me and the second comes across as more evangelical, prescriptive and hyper-judgemental in the negative.

What they both ooze plenty of though is fear.

The Psychologist with his self policing (reminded me of Foucault), ensuring a hash free household 'just incase' the police stop by for tea and cakes and ones employers ask for a random drug testing.

Fear of societies demise, and fear for the lives of young people, side tracked with obsessions into the realms of stonerdom (a cultural construct & a personal demise depending where on the ladder of development you sit).

Complicated expressions of fear which ultimately makes me thing that essentially its associated to the human (and political) fear of mystical experiences - or experiences that we can't fully understand/control. And the misunderstandings of the uses of and strengths (the potentialities) of pot.

for the record – I get high on mantra's these days (Colin, with you there!). For me going from A to Z on the Transcendental highway and bypassing all the stages inbetween was too intense and severely unrelaxing. But a dabble now and again for its shamanic qualities is something I wouldn't right off.

The effects on different people are also worthy of note. How some people get radically affected (pass me a strong joint and within the hour I am converted into an amazonia shaman transcending the 3 worlds and completely out there in the realms of out of body consciousness - a bit problematic if you are Ms Jo average with shopping and earthly chores to get on with!), whereas I can sit with people who smoke and seem totally straight, just chilling out, no apparent wild experiences happening to them at all apart from deeper appreciation of music, creative conversation, and relaxation whatnot.

Maybe there's a time and a place and a stage of development needed as a precursor to any useage worthy of the drugs potential. And although both articles touch upon none of this – they do somewhat articulate the polarities of integral meeting. Nice

Lisa

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

A new study that's sure to bum your high.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

I smoked my share of weed in high school.  I don't know how much damage smoking it did to my mind or body back then.  But I'm pretty sure that it didn't do as much damage as going to jail for smoking it would have.  Lots of things are damaging to our health.  More kids wind up in the emergency room from playing sports than from doing drugs.   Whatever it's ill effects, they are so mild and uncommon that it's taken 100 years and thousands of studies to uncover a statistically significant finding.  Weed may cause harm, or it may help prevent cancer depending on the study you read.   I just think that we shouldn't be putting people in jail for doing it.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Ah! Another toker comes out of the closet! :) I love the stuff too (though I haven't smoked it for 10 or 15 years), so I do understand. If I could get it out of my system with a snap of the fingers I'd probably be stoned every night.

Well, I just speak from experience, both as a pot smoker and as a spiritual practitioner, and I find it highly questionable that it has a place in spiritual practice. I don't think the pot smoking babas in India can be counted among the best gurus and pandits. There may be an exception, but I don't know of it if there is. We've heard Ken talk about LSD, MDMA, Ayahuasca, but not marijuana, as far as I know. I think there's a reason for that.

That said, I could be wrong, and a bong hit or two a month might actually do me some good.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Well, now, I didn't say whether I was a smoker, a joker or a midnight toker, did I?

Actually, I do have experience with the plant. I prefer alternative methods for accessing altered states (non-chemical) these days, though.

Regarding Ken not talking about it: I'm into total speculation here, but in my experience, weed is much more likely to be abused on a long term basis because the effects are more subtle than LSD, MDMA or ayahuasca. Trance states and visionary experiences can be induced with MJ, too, though. It's just not as likely. So it may be that he believes it more often used for escapism (rather than inquiry) that he doesn't mention it. It absolutely can be used for inquiry, though.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

“Well, now, I didn't say whether I was a smoker, a joker or a midnight toker, did I?”

I guessed! Or else I brought out my psychic powers. But actually, it's not too hard to tell–you just look and see who's arguing for legalization and stuff. You don't find too many non pot smokers doing that.

Yeah, you can get some insight from it. I remember it helping me get out of the rat race mentality. I would be away from it for a few weeks, maybe several weeks, then I would do a couple of bong hits and think, “Man, I've been stressed out. I didn't even realize it.” And I could see how I had been all worked up about things in a way I hadn't before. With the really good pot you can get some experiences above that as well, but in my experience it won't get you as deep as mushrooms, which won't get you as deep as LSD.
 
But they all come with a price; they all exact a toll. They drain you of energy, and the side effects of pot creep up on you in an insidious way. Some people say that these drugs can leave you with “imprinting,” and that kind of makes sense to me. Pot makes you spacey, but as Ken says, you need a clean mind if you're going march up the spiral and into the nondual. I just think there must be a way to deal with stress that doesn't have those side effects.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

David: actually, it's not too hard to tell–you just look and see who's arguing for legalization and stuff. You don't find too many non pot smokers doing that.

I'd be careful about stereotyping like that.  I don't smoke pot, but I'm all for legalization.  OK, I have tried it twice, but didn't enjoy it at all (just gave me a headache). Point is I'm not for legalization because I want to be free to smoke it; I'm for legalization because I think it's the right thing to do for that particular substance.

Cheers,
~G

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

There has been a push for legalization in Nevada now for a long time, it never passes. Each time they try a new proposal (it's a national group -they see Nevada as the most likely state in the US), a few years ago three ounces, then 1 ounce in your home, etc.

I got my own real sense of the dire need to re-think drug prohibition by looking at the home town I grew up in. In the mid 90s the crime, the violence, the gangs, etc. it was just out of control. In the neighborhood where I grew up, where my parents still lived, you'd watch the hourly transactions across the street, etc., etc. But I really got a sense of the madness when there was one night a burning car in front of my parents house - 20 feet away was our first daughter, three months old, sleeping in her crib (i.e. the room was that close to the street and this burning car).

The point being that prohibition does not work, it really doesn't as far as I am concerned and just creates more real, real problems. We had my wife's younger cousin come live with us for a while back then too. Within 24hr or less -less actually -in coming to a town where he knew nobody and had never been before, he had setup his pot connection. Right under our noses. It was that easy.

It just doesn't work as far as I am concerned. Legalization certainly is not the full answer (LR) but it is definitely worth considering how society handles these substances.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hi Colin

Have you heard the audio of Ken and Roger Walsh discussing psychodelics?  Totally fascinating stuff.

http://www.formlessmountain.com/kw_audio/KW_73.mp3

Roger is someone who has consciously used them, including marajuana, alsong side a spiritual practise.  Ken is really clear on the issue - use them carefully and they can be of great benefit - rely on them and they'll screw you up.  Makes sense to me.

Tim, totally agree on the prohibition thing - just dosn't work.  People are going to smoke the stuff whether its legal or not - but if its illegal, it just pushes it underground, and completeely cripples any LL cultural support systems that are trying to emerge.  Its pretty clear from what other countries have done with legalisation that it dosn't make usage go up, it dosn't make usage of other drugs go up.  There are dangers and risks with it of course - but its pretty obvious that an truley Integral approach shows the necessity of it.

The kind of marajuana you get in the UK now is seriously strong skunk - bad news in my opinion.  You simply can't get milder stuff - no one sells it.  That wouldn't be the case if it were legal, and we had more LL understanding of it.


Ewan

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hi, Ewan,

I really want to check out that video. Work isn't the place for it, though, so I have to save it for weekend time, which is difficult to come by as well. I just wanted to acknowledge your post; I'm trying to get to it!

Best,
Colin

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Grey said: ”David: actually, it's not too hard to tell-you just look and see who's arguing for legalization and stuff. You don't find too many non pot smokers doing that.

I'd be careful about stereotyping like that.  I don't smoke pot, but I'm all for legalization.  OK, I have tried it twice, but didn't enjoy it at all (just gave me a headache). Point is I'm not for legalization because I want to be free to smoke it; I'm for legalization because I think it's the right thing to do for that particular substance.”

Yeah, I'm for legalization too. What I really meant to say concerned people downplaying side effects.

Thanks for the link, Ewan. I'm not sure if I've heard that one; I'll check it out. Yes, there's a lot of incredibly potent weed these days. When I say I was an everday pot smoker for a year and a half or so, I wasn't smoking the really potent stuff very often. I don't know what would have happened if we had the really potent stuff on a regular basis. It wasn't that common in those days. We had a fairly steady supply of commercial Mexican that we would tell ourselves was really pretty decent, a little better than the last batch …

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Hi Elliot,

From Kent, Ohio! As a matter of fact the last bong I purchased was made by a guy from Kent, a really nice piece of art. I've hardly used it, don't know why I bought it really. I guess I didn't know at the time that I was just about to quit. I also smoked the majority of my weed right there in the great state of Ohio, a wonderful place, great people, nice scenery etc., etc.

Is pot addictive? Well, if you've been following the saga over the years you would know that many think it is addictive in one way or another. I found a few articles for you. One is a study; some others include references; some are just from seemingly reputable sources.

There's this one

                  and this one

                                      and this one

                                                         and this one

                                                                   and this one

                                                                                 and this one

                                                                                          and this one

                                                                                                     and this one.

There's a lot more out there. Those were just from a quick google search.

All the best,

David

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Right Ewan. And the truly naive and ignorant sense I get, probably coming from amber, is the idea that drug use can be made to “go away;” that it can be wiped from the earth … eventually. George H.W. Bush's famous campaign speech way back in the late 80s, he said “and it's gonna stop!” Of course, yes, we need amber to regulate red, etc. But as with alcohol prohibition in the 20s here in the US, there I simply no way to “make it stop.”

I know I'm not saying anything new here -anything that probably everybody doesn't already know -but for me there was definitely an increasing realization that there is no way to ever ultimately stop drug use. Here in the US again. Okay, s hard substances have been made, perhaps, more difficult, now people, teenagers especially, indulge in antihistamines, cough syrup … And there is, of course, a lot else going on in the other quadrants besides the LR to even cause that to be happening in the massive way it is now.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Tim, I'm totally with you on the “never going away” claim. We've made most “natural” drugs illegal, thus harder to find for some. Because the craving to escape reality (often for very legitimate reasons; look around us at the world: physical, emotional, and sexual abuse are rampant) will likely not disappear from the human experience, people will use whatever they can find to accomplish that goal. So, right…antihistamines, cough syrup, etc. It starts getting really scary when you hear of kids that are snuffing glue, paint and other really bad chemicals. My wife was working at an alternative high school this year, and a kid died from inhaling compressed air directly from a can. The propellant froze his lungs. From that perspective, pot looks pretty damn harmless. One can learn its limits and move away from escapist usage; one cannot do that as easily with these man-made chemicals that kids are using. I actually believe that more kids are dying than if marijuana were legal. I don't have the research at my fingertips to back that up, but speaking from what I've seen in the world, it's likely true.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

As Jerry Garcia used to say, we have accept it that people want to change their consciousness and legalize or at least decriminalize.

However, when something is addictive, as pot has been shown to be, it is not so easy to control it. Eventually it will be exerting a lot of control over you.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Right, David, but it is absolutely like that with alcohol as well. I've known so many alkies in my life, so many affected by what really could be called a scourge upon society, the human race - but the bottom line is it's legal, MOST people understand what's bad about it if too much (there are even issues of age when say, comparing US 21 with European younger ages, some no age at all) but it society finds other ways to handle the problem. What I mean to say is that problematic use will never go away either -but I agree with Colin, as I'm sure many do, it is probably much more sensible to make such things “not a big deal” -but when we talk of youth, there are SO many other things going on these days that drug use, yes, is just symptomatic. And same with adults, etc.

Anyway, I'm not contradicting or arguing with you David, I'm just adding to the mix here in another “quickie” post.

On thing is for sure, amber style absolutes are just silly an ineffective in these matters, and often have the exact opposite desired effect. 't aint Integral, that's for sure.

I really thought there was second tier merit in something Arthur posted a while back (no link now, sorry) where the suggestion was made that the family be afforded the power (or more power) to decide about children's substance use, etc. There are societal holon spheres in it i.e. individual to tribe to wider society, the world etc. Kind of reversing and diversifying the power structure. (this way, for example, I could introduce and moniter my children's “pot” use, say wen they were teens, teach them responsibility, etc. without facing severe criminal charges myself - or ifmy kid came home with pot we could talk about it, etc. Again, there are very integral ideas in there, considering magenta and tribal cultures do this with substances all the damn time, etc.)

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

timelody: I really thought there was second tier merit in something Arthur posted a while back (no link now, sorry) where the suggestion was made that the family be afforded the power (or more power) to decide about children's substance use, etc. There are societal holon spheres in it i.e. individual to tribe to wider society, the world etc. Kind of reversing and diversifying the power structure. (this way, for example, I could introduce and moniter my children's “pot” use, say wen they were teens, teach them responsibility, etc. without facing severe criminal charges myself - or ifmy kid came home with pot we could talk about it, etc. Again, there are very integral ideas in there, considering magenta and tribal cultures do this with substances all the damn time, etc.)

~~~~~

I believe you're referring to the Rites of Passage - Entheogens and Youth thread.  :)

cheers,
arthur

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Heh heh, see how in my laziness I manipulated responsible you to do it for me? (As Bill Cosby said, “we're stupid but not so stupid.” ) Okay, just kidding, yes, that's the link. And it was a conversation that never really got going.

I said: (not so eloquently):

___________________________________________________________________
“we nevertheless believe that within responsible limits, families should have priority over government in educating their children about drugs. ”

I believe that this is a very workable second-tier principal - because it honors the societal holarchy and … how can I put this in the best words? … it seems capable of recognizing that at the root of the societal holarchy (and so it's very infrastructure) is always first the tribe. But -again, I am trying to find the right words and thoughts here-also, there is an issue of depth verses span. i.e. government may have wider span, but the tribe has the greater depth. (And obviously, like the writers here, I am assuming this in relatively healthy tribes/families, but the greater depth is there even if not.) Is there even an issue here of, say, the government from this view being most fundamental but least significant? Or is it just that government is LR … but the family/ tribe is both LR and LL? (And so, more Integral.)

At any rate, thinking out loud.

I think this is definitely within the scope of second-tier thinking. And certainly thinking along the lines of how societal government could accomplish its tasks better by distributing its power (which could still be held within its embrace) to the more appropriate and effective places- and also thereby encouraging and empowering healthier families, and by default and association, citizens …

(There are a number of ways I think the “tribal”principal can play into better second-tier governing; support groups and so on are te early signs of that and how that could work… but I have thought of this with a number of other issues, such as abortion, sex and so on, especially with regard to issues important to address in youth.)

___________________________________________________________________

David said: 

“we nevertheless believe that within responsible limits, families should have priority over government in educating their children about drugs. ”

I partially agree with this. But there will be purple parents, red parents–of coure blue probably wouldn't go for it–orange, green , etc. I'm just not sure that parents are going to be trustworthy across the board, so there needs to be a certain standard set up, a certain baseline… .

__________________________________________________________________

My response now to David,

Yes, I was thinking that one of the things such an order could do is not just distribute more power to families but at one and the same time more responsibility to which they would be accountable, perhaps. So, -again perhaps - this frees red but at the same time prompts it to be more responsible because not just your kid is going to jail but you are responsible as well?

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

Tim said: “Yes, I was thinking that one of the things such an order could do is not just distribute more power to families but at one and the same time more responsibility to which they would be accountable, perhaps. So, -again perhaps - this frees red but at the same time prompts it to be more responsible because not just your kid is going to jail but you are responsible as well?”

Yes, I agree with this. Too much control definitely diminishes a person's sense of responsibility. I think this is why people who have experienced extreme control sometimes let themselves go when they get out of those controlling situations and why a lot of American kids go wild when they get the chance. Marijuana should be decriminilized or legalized, and people should be told, “It's your life, and your life is your responsibility. You're free to do something positive with it, and you're free to fuck it up.”

But people do benefit from proper guidance, and at the same time there should be a considerable education campaign that's honest about the drug's enjoyment-giving capabilties but also honest and up-to-date about its side effects. Most of the people argueing for legalization have a High Times-level understanding of the side effects and are also coming from a purely postmodern context, which is, if it feels good do it; whatever you want personally is spiritual and just as good as anything else. And this campaign needs to be directed at parents as much as kids. They need to know how it affects learning, motivation, growth, etc., that is, they need to be informed so they can make responsible choices. 
 
The principal questions from a violet perspective would include, is it evolutionary? Is it in line with the Higher Order, the creative impulse?  Is it going to help me build structures in consciousness and realize deeper states in consciousness and help me help others to do the same? If it's not and there's a better way to accomplish what I want to accomplish with it (relaxation, enjoyment, etc.), then forget it, drop it, there is no place for it in your life. Whether you like it or enjoy it personally is about the most irrevelant thing in the entire world. That may sound like an amber absolutism to some, but that's why we have the idea of memetic octaves in spiral dynamics: violet echoes amber and is often confused with it.

Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)

I'm really not sure whether I'm talking about indigo or violet there.