Pot Smoker?
July 11, 2007 04:20

Pot Smoker? (blog from kenwilber.com)

Both of the following essays, laying out different perspectives on marijuana use, came in on almost the same day, and we thought we’d post them both and let you decide. Of course, there is some merit in both of them, it’s just very interesting to read them together. For the record, I myself am not a weed afficiando, and am actually known as kinda not a drug guy in general (including psychedelics)—except tons of antibiotics, Rx, etc. But responsible use is clearly the order of the day. I also happen to believe that, given the actual effects of the laws themselves—creating illegal and black markets, etc.—one can make a very good case for legalization of many now illegal substances.

Anyway, here you go….. Ken


i think this is a good test of what it means to be an integral critic: two opposing perspectives on marijuana, the first claiming to be integral. uh huh. the only integral perspective i could find was in the introduction by ken. the two perspectives that follow can best be summed up, imo, as the liberal one and the conservative one. i think ken is being overly kind in attributing merit to both of them, but, then, i'm not known for making alot of friends and influencing people. i already took the first author to task in the thread he started for the article of his that appeared in the first volume of aqal journal. funny thing: he never answered me.

of course, in the typical election we can't simply dismiss the liberal and conservative points of view, at least, if we intend to actually vote. and green, being at a higher altitude than orange and, especially, amber, usually gets my vote. but increasingly i'm becoming concerned by green's red underbelly. do you see what i mean?

ralph

---

it's facinating how jack daniels cannot .. and mary jane can .. do the yoga tree

 

 

Hi Ralph,

I definitely agree. I hold what I consider to be an integral approach to marijuana (which, for me, implies non-consumption).  And my integral friends chide me for being "amber."  Of course, I chide them for being green-claiming-to-be-turquoise, with a red underbelly to boot!  You can see how this could be endless fun.  I do think there's a fair amount of "do whatever you want" masquerading as integral and, at least as I understand it, integral doesn't mean that at all....

rollie

---

~Rollie @ ISC

i think we have to be careful about dividing these kinds of thing into only TWO groups .. those who DO and those who DON'T

should those who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner on the weekend be in the same group as those who drink daily and excessively ?

 

 

Red will do anything, without regard.

With full regard, integral can do anything.

To assert otherwise demeans integral.

hi rollie and fairyfaye,

first, rollie, i greatly appreciate your openness to my post, which could easily be viewed as an attack, especially by those who feel that i might be attacking them. this makes it very difficult to talk about some of the things that matter to us most: in this case, for example, integral claims.

i haven't smoked pot in a long, long time, but i did for almost a year while living in bogota', where it was legal, but peace corps volunteers weren't supposed to, but most of us did anyway. it actually helped me to open up somewhat, not so much spiritually as emotionally. on the other hand, i refrained pretty much from smoking the first two years i was there, because too many of my colleagues were going around stoned all the time and someone, i felt, needed to be sober.

so i feel it can be of benefit when used appropriately, but can very easily be abused, and while it might help in getting started on a spiritual path, i'm with you (sorry, faye) that it's best to avoid once one has set out on such a path.

however, even before the pre/post fallacy there was socrates, who had no problem with whatever the occasion demanded. if it was a festive occasion and wine was called for he would drink with the best of them without any apparent effect. he had transcended inebriation and sobriety--at least that's the story.

a toast to both you northerners,

ralph

---

hey don!

that's great!

don:

Red will do anything, without regard.

i was thinking, well, doesn't red have a high regard for number 1? but then i realized they're, in effect, not even aware that there could be a number 2.

---

I am sympathetic to Elliot Engersoll’s resentment at the fact that it is illegal to smoke pot. Not because I smoke myself (I don’t, but I did) but because I recognize that for some people a little pot can do a lot of good, in the same way that an occasional drink or two can do a lot of good for some people. People are put together differently. Different boats for different folks.

 

But it seems to me his essay falls into the same non-integral trap that he rails against. He starts out in a fun and playful enough way, providing some interesting anecdotes about marijuana and it’s place in history. Then he begins his attack with the sentence “Exploring marijuana from an integral perspective can be fun and educational.”  And promptly loses his own integral perspective by failing to see the partial truths in the arguments he is attempting to refute.  

 

Any pretence he might have had toward recognizing and honoring the partial truths of the opposite side – and hence to being integral – is lost when he regresses into name calling – i.e. they are liars and conspirators. Honestly, smoking cannabis DOES irritate the lining in the lung (there is nothing partial about that truth.) Anyone who has inhaled knows that. It IS more likely that a teenager who smokes a lot of pot will eventually try heroin. Anyone who has been near the heroin sub culture (in the US suburbs) knows that. This might not be the complete truth, but it isn’t a lie, as Elliot asserts. Those are two things he mentioned. We could add the facts Tom Hahn cites in his essay here as other truths that opponents of legalized marijuana validly hold.

 

I am basically with Elliot. I would prefer to live in a society that didn’t criminalize marijuana and certain other drugs. But I think his essay is counter productive because it fails to honor the validity claims of the opposite position, and address them from the level at which they are held. Frankly, I don’t know why Elliot doesn’t take care of himself and go find a safe place and get stoned, it sounds like it would do him some good.

“A Reality Check of Children and Drugs” by Tom Hahn is a good reminder that drugs are not good for anyone when not done responsibly, and children (including teenagers) are especially vulnerable to the potentially damaging effects of marijuana and other drugs (including alcohol, which strangely seems to escape his criticism.)

 

But I don’t know how he comes to the conclusion that the state can’t afford education (while it can afford the much more expensive jails.) He says the parents should be responsible for teaching their children about the dangerous aspects of drugs, and of course any good parent would! But the emotional impact of his narrative is provided in the horror stories of young children being abused, with drugs as a central factor, by their parents or other adult figures in their lives. (Without those horror stories, there isn’t much more to get upset about than the timeless saga of teenagers doing stupid things and getting into trouble.) Who is going to educate these kids – or their parents for that matter? How will the cycle be broken without outside intervention. And we know that the prison system is self-perpetuating, so putting drug users in jail is certainly no answer.

as far as the quality of the two articles go .. both of them could have been much better written

 

This i the post on this subject I left over at zaadz.

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 more or less 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

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

tim, i followed your link to the thread at iizaadz and found this intriguing message:


Re: Doobie Doobie Doo (Integral Pot)
Enkidu said Today, 11:34 AM: [friday the 13th]

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

---

I am surprised I did not see this thread earlier...  I think that drug policy is one issue that is fraught with first tier black and white (only one correct perspective) thinking.  In another thread I summarized some of the first tier views of drugs as follows:

 

Magenta / Purple:

Pro: The drugs themselves are magical tools.  They are powerful spirit allies that can communicate secret knowledge or allow one to communicate with the ancestors.

Con: Drugs are taboo, evil, or sorcerous things that must be forbidden for the good and safety of the tribe and/or because the ancestors have decreed it.

 

Red / Red:

Pro: Drugs feel good and I can and will do whatever the fuck I feel like.  I’ll stick a metal spike in my vein if I damn well please and nobody can tell me any different!

Con: Drugs make you weak and easy to prey on.   Drugs are for panzies.  If that dumb ass wants to get fucked up, then I’ll be more than happy to relieve them of their money.

 

Amber / Blue:

Pro: Our particular drug is part of our established traditions and so is permissible to use.

Con: That (evil) drug is not a part of our traditions and threatens the order and stability of our society.  Drug use compromises ones ability to adhere to the Moral Code and refrain from engaging in selfish (sinful) behaviors.  Drugs may well be a tool of the Evil One(s).

 

Orange / Orange:

Pro: Drugs are simply another commodity for delivery to the consumer market.  Prohibition of drugs may actually lead to externalities that are more harmful than the direct effects of the substances themselves.  Rational adults should be able to make decisions regarding their own bodies within the privacy of their own homes.  Statistics show almost all persons will use some sort of substance in their lifetime, so a ‘drug free’ nation is not a practical possibility.

Con: Drugs compromise worker productivity through work related accidents and lost workdays.   The negative effects of drugs inflate overall healthcare costs due to ER visits, treatment admissions, and complicating other co-existing conditions.  Accordingly, drugs can lead to massive costs to business and society as a whole.  They can also cause people to behave in irrational and unpredictable ways.  Statistics show that the majority of all perpetrators and/or victims of homicide are positive for alcohol and/or other drugs at the time of the crime.

 

Green / Green:

Pro: You do your thing I do mine.  I like to use drugs.  Since there is no absolute moral stance, there is nothing inherently immoral about using drugs.  In fact, if anything, if people would only take certain drugs then they would see the ways in which greed, insensitivity, and hate lead to the hurt and marginalization of others and Gaia.  The right drugs can show people the new paradigm of interconnectivity and cure the ills of the world.  It isn’t a coincidence that a spike in drug use preceded the liberation movements.  Drug use can put you in touch with your deepest aspects of Self.  Present drug laws are inhumane, racist, unfair, and disproportionately impact poor persons and persons of color.

Con: Buying drugs from the illicit market supports oppressive groups that engage in violence while plying their trade.  The drug market is just the ultimate example of human greed contributing to the suffering of others in the name of the almighty dollar.  The illicit manufacture of some drugs is hazardous and damaging to the environment.  Drug use can also blot out one’s true feelings and body wisdom which need to be experienced and embraced.

 

There can definitely be pro/con at any particular level of this issue.  Often one's pro/con position seems to be more a function of one's life history and experience than of anything approaching a considered decision on the matter.  The problem with first tier, especially regarding drug use, is that beyond the lack of consideration there is also the narrow framing of the issue as well.  Nuance appears to be lacking to say the least. 

 

The data in this area is often suspect as the interpretive 'spin' can really fly.  Take for instance the 'gateway' theory of marijuana: retrospectively a very large % of heroine users used marijuana first leading many first tier con folks to conclude since A precedes B, A caused B.  Of course I would venture that a huge % of heroine users used caffeine before 'moving up' to heroine, but so far as I am aware caffeine is not considered a 'gateway' to heroine.  On the pro side of first tier many point out that marijuana is ridiculously safe regarding acute physical overdose and then conclude that it has no negative effects on the mind/body whatsoever. 

 

The view from first tier is really quite fractious.  The challenge to second tier is to find an integrated approach that does not absolutize or ignore any particular quadrant, level, line, state, or type.

 

Mark

mark, it's never too late. i'm far from being an expert, but it looks like you've given alot of thought to this. in looking at the pro's and con's of each of the 1st tier levels, you've in effect given us a 2nd tier perspective, something i thought was missing from the original two, kenwilber.com blogs, and especially annoying with regard to the first, since he's one of the founding members of i-i, i believe.

i agree: there are no pat answers. as i gathered from his IN conversation with kw, lsd was the 'gateway' for alex grey's spiritual awakening, which he later captured in his art. but it looks like this is what he was seriously looking for and working for for some time, and he had good help in his teacher and in allison.

---

Mark,

As noted, you laid the perspectives out quite clearly and accurately, at least to the best of my knowledge. I am curious what you would consider a "second-tier" perspective on the issue? This question brings to mind something I read in an excerpt from integral politics-- that a true integralogracy would allow all people to stay at their "station" in life. I wonder if this could even hold true for this issue. Perhaps I do not understand the concept well enough. At the very least, it doesn't seem like you could categorize people and treat them differently according to that categorization.

I guess my question is: What kind of laws can you put in to place that take all these perspectives into account? I feel one of the biggest issues is the overcrowding of prisons that sending away pot dealers has had. We are having to build more and more jailhouses simply for someone growing a plant. Then again, one could make this argument for a drug like cocaine, also a plant, but not, in my opinion, as innocent and is more-punishable. I feel like drugs that do massive immediate harm, especially to non-drug users involved, the "innocent bystander", should be considered the most dangerous. I agree strongly that marijuana can have an adverse effect on a persons life and is psychologically dependant. But aside from the arguable machine-operation impairment, marijuana does its damage in the long-run. (One could argue that this long-term damage could be more severe than the short term incident of a drug-accident as more likely induced by cocaine, herione, etc.; but we have to remember that even the short-term drug-accident shares long-term consequences-- they are often forgotten/overlooked because the initial incident is, well, so tragic).

In that bit of confusion, I was trying to illustrate how many perspectives there truly are (as if that wasn't obvious). I am not sure even where I would be classified, if one were to be classifying here (if you've any idea, feel free to tell). I suppose my position on the issue is decriminalization/regulation much like cigarettes are, or as they are in states where medical marijuana is legal (even though this is so deeply abused, it seems we either allow it or don't allow it). Should it be a state right? Hard to say, but ultimately, smoking marijuana is a choice, and if someone enjoyed it enough to move to a state where it was legal, what's so wrong with that? Or, if someone enjoys marijuana enough to agree to use it responsibly and succomb to the judicial if any sort of drug-accident does occur, what's wrong with that? But then, you could say that about any drug.

It is obvious that the gateway references to marijuana are a bit overblown. They are "of course..." types of states, once one really thinks about it. But it is still a real problem. I feel strongly that if marijuana was legal, the entire motivation for a person to "go to the drug dealer" would be eliminated (the drug dealer thus reduced to selling all those other drugs that marijuana is such a "gateway" for). If there is never exposure to that culture, the "drug world" (which for anyone who's bought pot knows is rare-- only if that drug dealer happens to sell anything other than pot, usually), incidence rate would logically go down. I don't know if there is reserach on this-- a point of future learning, perhaps. But it seems that if you had to see a drug dealer to get alcohol or cigarettes now-a-days, alot more people would be exposed to cocaine; then those drugs would be gateways(, too). It doesn't help to forget that for anyone seriously in the drug game, it is a full-time job, socioeconomic pressures no less than forcing them to, once again, be a dealer or not.

Perhaps I have been stating the obvious. This is typical considering I am really quite in the blue as to the integral "solution" to the "problem" of some people wanting to smoke marijuana, other's not wanting to. Or maybe I am in the Blue in thinking that some drugs should be legal and others not. Or what if it is such that the basic want to smoke marijuana arises or doesn't (physio/psychologically), our reason for it's legalization or illegalization following suit. I understand that the vMemes are containers of values, not the specific contents. But what comes first? The value or the understanding of the container into which it can be classified? The answers must obviously vary.

Mark, you say, so far, "The challenge to second tier is to find an integrated approach that does not absolutize or ignore any particular quadrant, level, line, state, or type." And thus far, to my ears, these are empty words...

whtdoYUsay?

tim.

PS if there is an administrator anywhere on this place, this topic seems to be in the wrong thread group (not "integral critics circle").

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God