Ever wonder why the Republican Party's foreign "policy" got so off the wall and bellicose? Want to know why we're in two wars? Want to know why so many evangelicals hate Obama for saying he'll negotiate with Muslims? Want to know why President Obama should not try to work with Republicans?
All you need to know is that the Republican/Sara/Palin base of evangelical support is rooting for war, death and killing as a longed for -- even prayed for -- conclusion to human existence. No kidding! Understand what I'm going to tell you here, and you'll understand what went so wrong with America with W. Bush and why we are the most dangerous country on earth. Shorthand: we have nukes and risk being run by kooks. And, until the election of 2008, an evangelical born-again kook was running our country.
Disclosure: I'm the son of one of the evangelical's foremost thinkers, the late Francis Schaeffer. And until I left the fold in the mid 1980s I was intimately involved with the Religious Right and have been (until quite recently) a life-long Republican. I knew Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye personally and both are followers of my father.
The wild financial success of Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series of sixteen novels is about belonging to the winning side. The books have made hundreds of millions of dollars while spawning an "End Times" industry, inclusive of Left Behind wall paper, screen savers, children's books and video games. The evangelicals -- and hence, from the early 1980s until the election of President Obama in 2008, the Religious Right as it informed US policy through the then dominant Republican Party -- are in the grip of an apocalyptic "Rapture" cult centered on revenge and vindication.
This End Times cult is built on a literalistic interpretation of the book of Revelation. The book was the last to be included in the canon of the New Testament. It was only recognized gradually as canonical late in the process -- after the year 400 AD -- of collecting the gospels and various letters included into the New Testament. The historic Church remained so suspicious of the book Revelation that to this day in the Orthodox Church it has never been included as part of the cyclical public readings of scripture. In other words the book of the Bible that the historic Church found (and finds) most problematic and dangerous is the one that American evangelicals have latched on to like flies on spilled jam.
According to Jenkins and LaHaye the "chosen" (in other words born-again evangelicals) will be airlifted to safety in the "Rapture" when the "End" comes. At last evangelical Americans will know "we" were right about everything and "they" were wrong. We'll know that because Spaceship Jesus will come back and take us away leaving everyone else to ponder just how very lost they are because they failed to say the words: "I accept Jesus as my personal savior."
Evangelicals not only wish to be proved right they also want revenge on all other religions and peoples. Not unlike Islamic terrorists who behead their enemies, the evangelicals relish the prospect of God doing the messy killing for them as they watch from on high. It isn't enough for them to cast the individual "apostate" out of their midst, or to denounce the Roman Catholics as the "whore of Babylon," they want revenge on all people not like them. The Left Behind novels provides access to vicarious revenge . No need to wait for the End Times, you can get your violent jollies now!
Jenkins and LaHaye describe various deadly scenarios proceeding and following believers being "snatched away" to safety leaving the infidels to their punishment. The authors cash in on years of evangelical paranoia and imagined victimhood. (A strange belief imbued with losers' self pity by people who have run Congress and the White House until this election!)
Jenkins and LaHaye provide an entertaining book version of a cosmic I-told-you-so from the backward earthly losers (as evangelicals perceive themselves in this the age of science and secularism) to the earthly winners (as evangelicals think of all those clever big city, over-educated progressive secular "elites"). Glory be! As God kills them, including those "secular Jews" running the New York Times who will have to admit we were right all along just before Jesus blasts them!
The promotional copy for one of the books -- Shadowed -- promises plenty of we-told-you-so entertainment; "After God intervenes with a miracle of global proportions, the tide is turned on international atheism!"
God Is Great! Kill them God! Kill those "international atheists!" They made fun of us because we refused to believe in evolution and built a creationist theme park! They laughed at us for opening our Friday night football games with prayer! They even laughed at Billy Graham, our one and only saint, when his son Franklin raised 28 million dollars to build the Graham theme park! Strike them Lord!
Jenkins and LaHaye are End Times revenge pornographers. Reading about violence against unbelievers is the evangelical Viagra. Take this passage from Glorious Appearing in which Jesus slaughters unbelievers;
The riders not thrown leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated... the soldiers stood briefly as skeletons in now-baggy uniforms, then dropped in heaps of bones as the blinded horses continued to fume and rant and rave. Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement.
Evangelicals can't get enough of this trash. The video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces was developed by a publicly traded company, Left Behind Games. The player controls a "Tribulation Forces" team and allows the player to "use the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." The game blesses and encourages religious violence.
Guided by a literal reading of the prophetic sections of the Bible the expanding Left Behind entertainment empire also feeds the delusions of Christian Zionists who are convinced that the world is heading to a final Battle of Armageddon. Christian Zionists led by the likes of John McCain's Jabba the Hutt lookalike and big fan -- the Reverend John Hagee -- believe that war in the Middle East is God's will. Hagee predicts in his book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, that Russia and the Arabs will invade Israel and then will be destroyed by God. This will cause the Antichrist -- the head of the European Union -- to stir up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. Armageddon will ensue and the Second Coming of Christ.
This would all be a joke except for the fact that sixty million Americans identify themselves as evangelicals. That's a lot of crazy voters -- as McCain proved he recognized when he nominated the religious Right's pet evangelical goof Sara Palin to be his running mate to re-energize the army of goofs who gave us the 8 years of W that brought us to war and economic ruin.
Note to Jews: the evangelicals say they are the State of Israel's friend, love Jews etc., etc. Wake up! In the evangelical "game" Jews are just apocalyptic Jesus fodder! With friends like these you don't need enemies. Friends of Israel -- and I am one -- don't see Israel as nothing more than a pawn in the End Times. Dig under the surface and you'll find Hagee, Jenkins, LaHaye are profoundly and fatally anti-Semitic. Follow their uncompromising "Rapture logic" and Israel will be destroyed. These people will always push the US government to take the hardest line against the Arabs. That is no long term favor to Israel. Eternal war is no answer. Check out the area's demographics. Make peace while there is time!
Christian Zionists support all violent actions by Israel for any reason because in the fevered evangelical mind the nation of Israel is presently standing in for Jesus-the-avenger-on-evildoers everywhere, i.e. Arabs, all of whom (according to the born-again porn peddlers) are soon destined to burn anyway! So, who cares if 10 Israeli deaths from Hamas' rockets fired into southern Israel are avenged by the killing of 1,300 men women and children in Gaza?USA! USA! Go Jesus! Time for another godly session on my Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game! Hurry Jesus come back and kill em' all.
And that is the Republican's base. Good luck to President Obama trying to find bipartisan solutions to our world wide problems with these folks.
Frank Schaeffer is author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back Now in paperback.
I think that, in many ways, the further you look back in time, the clearer things become. Sort of "Hindsight is 20/20 multiplied by time to the power of infinity." Basically, the idea holds that as we become more intelligent and more evolved, we can look back and point at things with our evolved sensibilities and say, "That was good and that wasn't." It doesn't work for everything and there is a cultural bias involved, but when it comes to artists, philosophers, scientists, and social leaders, the proof is in their results. Not only have their ideas stood the test of time, we have seen their influences and analyzed them to death. Consequently, while it can be fairly easily to look back on anything before the 20th century with an objective gaze, everything after that becomes a lot murkier. Add to this the fact that our contemporary issues are more closely and causally linked to the events, people, and culture of the past 100 years, it can be especially difficult to gain enough emotional and intellectual distance to even begin to look at it objectively.
But when we look to history for wisdom and inspiration, the language is awkward and unnecessarily verbose by our modern standards of language economy (obviously not my standards) and the state of the world was so extremely different that we have to question its value in the modern age. John Locke, for example, held that nothing was unnatural; that man, being a natural creation, was in capable of doing or thinking anything unnatural. That's all well, good, and logical, but since Locke died in 1704, he never saw a horseless carriage, much less nuclear bombs, space shuttles, the internet, and Michael Jackson.
For those in Generation X, heroes, great men and women, are confined to the history books. Einstein is dead. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon were all killed. We were left with Reagan and Clinton... and that footnote president in-between. Bush the Lesser just about strangled our last remaining hope for the human race, but I like to think that we will take our horror from the last eight years and turn it into something good. I'm not pinning all of my hopes on Obama, like some people are. He is in a position to do a lot of good, but what we really need are people to bring about change for themselves with their own vision and their own voice.
All of this is to say that it is rare for me to find many contemporary voices which speak with intelligence, wisdom, clarity, and (on top of all of that) actually try to push forward with something they believe in. For me, Douglas Rushkoff is one of those voices. I originally discovered Rushkoff watching a DVD called Disinformation, a controversial television show which never aired. Disinformation has a policy of reporting everything that you don't hear from the mainstream. Some of it is just fucking nutty as all get out, but a lot of it is just common sense. Some of the contributors include Howard Zinn, Howard Bloom, Arianna Huffington, Peter Breggin, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, and Douglas Rushkoff.
In the DVD's special features, Rushkoff was at the Disinformation Convention addressing the counterculture audience with a mixture of self-identification and a healthy dose of humble skepticism. In a room full of angry countercultural types, he spoke about finding the humanity in others. I was stunned and knew I'd have to find out more about this guy.
I picked up his book, Media Virus, about how subversive messages are used in pop culture, followed by his brilliant novel Ecstasy Club (currently out of print, but available used on Amazon) and the equally brilliant Exit Strategy. He has written two comic books: Club Zero G and Testament. He is a frequent contributor to NPR and a documentarian for PBS. In his day job, he is a professor of media theory at NYU.
Check out these videos when you have some time to spare. Rushkoff brilliantly analyzes the destructive effect of living in a world consumed by advertizing and led by greed. Check out the PBS documentaries: The Pursaders and Merchants of Cool here.
Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?
A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Most of my friends are atheists. Most of my family are agnostic. Most of my neighbors are Protestant. I am a product of the secular left surrounded by the religious right. Personally, I don't feel comfortable identifying with any of these, but I feel that it is important to talk about if only because religious values influence politics and politics effects everyone in the country... and American politics effects everyone in the world.
Strangely, although my dad is rabidly anti-Christian today, growing up we didn't really talk about religion. My mom was (and still is) Christian in name only. This is the kind of Christian that doesn't subscribe to most of the ideas, but likes the idea of a benevolent Santa-God rewarding the good and punishing the bad (and everyone gets into Heaven, except maybe Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer). Naturally, it didn't take me long to notice that God didn't seem to be very good at his work, at least not on this planet.
My schools always had Christians and some of them were close friends... others hated enemies, but both fun to talk to. As a child, I believed in the Christian conception of God... probably for no other reason than so many others were certain of it. However, that idea went with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I could never reconcile the idea that good people working for a good lord would produce the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of the Native American people (amongst other things, but I only had a fifth grade education). When I found out that Christianity and Islam were just off-shoots of Judaism, that settled it. No just God would create a belief that could be splintered into such divergent conflicting beliefs. And if such a God did exist, He was certainly not insuring that His church was acting in His name. AND if I was still wrong and God existed and supported His church (which was the Protestant church, as far as my young self knew), I could not feel morally comfortable blindly supporting a God who acted with such cruelty.
Now, I believe that almost everything in life comes down to a decision. You aren't born a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist, an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Muslim, or what have you. At some point you choose to believe in a set of values and ideas while rejecting others. The thoughtful person constantly questions his or her own beliefs no matter how well-founded. To ignore other ideas is to admit that your own ideas cannot withstand scrutiny. This is the root of the word "ignorance." Christianity (and many other religions, I imagine) champions the idea of faith. But what is faith other than ignorance? It is the willful decision to ignore conflicting information to preserve the pre-existing idea.
If I were a Christian, would I have faith in God, the Bible, or the church? To have faith in the church, I would have to accept either that every act of church-sponsored atrocity is good and necessary... or I would have to show foundation why the Protestant church is more likely to be the church of God than the Roman Catholic church (although Manifest Destiny was a product of the Protestant church). To have faith in the Bible, I would have to accept the literal truth of every word, but as Joe Rogan pointed out, Noah's Ark doesn't even make sense to kids. Add to that the fact that the Bible is virtually unreadable, there are thousands of different translations, and they were meant to be read in Ancient Hebrew which no longer exists. I could have faith in God (the way my mother seems to), but once you have divorced God from the church and the Bible, God can be whoever or whatever you want it to be.
So I decided that God, at least as I was told about him, did not exist leading me to the number one philosophical condition afflicting teenagers: existential angst. Does the universe have an order? Does life have a purpose? Is there life after death? If so, what kind of life? If not, why bother doing anything? How we face this question says a lot about us and there are just as many ways to face it as their are people on this Earth. For the religiously devout, there is ignorfaith - the decision to view conflicting ideas as the work of an evil trickster who is trying to remove ideas of comfort. In other words, they don't face this question.
Have you ever had a Christian say to you "If you don't believe in Heaven and Hell, why don't you just kill someone?" What this says to me as that the only reason these people have decided to be "good" is for fear of punishment. These are people who think that morality is about obeying rules and law. I have always found that morality is doing what you believe in despite rules, laws, punishment, or reward.
And then there is nihilism, often associated with Nietzsche, goths, and generally depressed people. This is the idea that there is no God, no meaning, no morality, no order, and no purpose. Anyone who thinks there is meaning is deluding themselves. I call this the pit of nihilism because people either get trapped in it or avoid it altogether. Although it's hard to argue with the rationality of this statement, I've never found it particularly useful. Add to this the fact that I have met far too many nihilists who use their "beyond good and evil" philosophy to justify being a total asshole.
It is clear to me why so many prefer faith to nihilism. I spent a good deal of time in existential angst living a life of purposelessness and depression. I used to fantasize every single day about killing myself, even though that was just as pointless as living. This consumed my life for pretty much all of my teenage years. It was very much like the Christian concept of Hell, but by this point, I could not simply fool myself with ignorfaith to escape. I didn't know if this self-inflicted hell would end. As far as I concerned, people just didn't notice or didn't care, but no one had any answers.
Unwilling to escape the same way I had came in, I tried to find a way to get past nihilism through education desperately searching for scraps of wisdom in a world which ignored the foundation of reason itself. Tumbling through nihilism, nothing is certain. It feels like you are falling and twisting in a dark abyss from which there is no escape. You reach for every possible handhold and it all dissolves through your fingers. The first thing which didn't dissolve, my first stepping stone in an uncertain world, was the Tao Te Ching (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, "dao de jing").
The Tao is not a religion. It is a philosophy. It translates as the "way" or the "path" without any pretensions. Unlike the Bible, the Tao Te Ching is only 38 pages written in short, simple phrases meant to be contemplated, but not accepted. Unlike the Bible, it does not say that it is true. In fact, the first phrase is "The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao." It even says that you should learn it, embody it, and then forget it. The writer, Lao Tzu, was smart enough to know that any belief can be taken out of context and used to support any belief no matter how contradictory it runs to the original intention.
And it is upon this foundation that I continue to build my belief system. Not on a shaky foundation of faith straddling the pit of nihilism, but within nihilism itself and reaching outward, from absolute skepticism toward what seems to be becoming an acceptance of everything. I quickly embraced some transcendentalist ideas, particularly the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which taught meaning not from the purification of the soul, but by the establishment of one's own values and character based on their own experiences. This existed neither in compliment or in contradiction to the idea of a spiritual universe and, in fact, left that for the individual to decide. Furthermore, it suggested that one should encourage the development of individual personal beliefs in others regardless of whether or not those ideas were the same as yours since their beliefs had to be true to their experiences.
As for where my philosophy and beliefs are now, I currently subscribe to a way of thought called subjectivism (which stands in contrast to Ayn Rand's deplorable objectivism). The essential idea is that while there may be such a thing as objective truth, since we live as very, very limited subjective beings we cannot ever know objective truth. We can only develop subjective truth. Knowing that our reality is subjective makes it much easier to reconcile other beliefs. It is basically an awareness that we are all equally ignorant and an acknowledgment that our beliefs are based on our individual experiences.
As someone who has had experiences that I would call supernatural, my subjective experience does not support atheism and that, in large part, is why I am writing this blog. My two best friends are atheists and I have been listening to some prominent atheists recently including Richard Dawkins, Bill Mahr, and Penn Jillette. And while I am 95-99% in support of what they say, I feel like they lump spirituality in with religion a bit too easily and are not humble in front of the vastness of the unknown. As Shakespeare once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy," and I think that's just as true today as it was then.
This post also serves to illustrate where my conception of modern socialism differs from Marxism. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would agree with that (although I'd add spectator sports to it). But while talking with the Dalai Lama of Tibet, General Mao expressed this bigotry toward the Dalai Lama's beliefs. Like many Communists before him, he put his own beliefs before others and as a consequence, another beautiful culture is being wiped off of the Earth.
I recently read a book about Tibetan views on the ability of the mind to influence reality which I found fascinating. Whether true or not, the idea made me think of thought in new ways. Did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Unlike conventional science, alchemy believed in the influence of invisible forces which could act on the material world. Now this idea is not only common place, but we have managed to harness the power of invisible energy fields to send complex information across the globe instantly. To declare spirituality pointless is to strike at the very heart of imagination and creativity... at least for me.
To me, Christianity is religious, but not spiritual. I realized this while talking to a Christian friend when he said that Christianity holds that the individual is not divine. The individual is a sinner. They are freed from sin by the divinity of God (or Jesus, same diff). But in my experience, spirituality is about forming a connection between yourself and the universe. It is about exploring the universe by exploring yourself. The opposite is true as well. By learning about the universe, you learn how you came to exist and how the world around you functions. The Tao teaches that you should follow the way of the universe, and what better way to learn what is and is not in tune with the universe than to study science and history? By denying their own divinity, Christians deny an exploration into their self and the universe, but perhaps more importantly, they deny their place as a natural part of the universe. This can be harmful in the development of the individual and destructive to their environment.
Maybe spirituality isn't necessary. Maybe completely rational atheism is a better belief system, but science and reason have yet to explain many of the things which make life worth living: things like love, art, and beauty. Science may provide great insight, but where it does, it is called "soft" sciences like psychology, sociology, and philosophy.
So what do I advocate? Well, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek: "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." I believe that all people should explore their spiritual selves and come to their own conclusions. I think we should value those who have different beliefs than our own, but I also believe that those beliefs should be tested. Faith is no more than ignorance. Enlightenment comes from a lifetime spent changing and refining your ideas. And science, for all of its broad applications, does not have the monopoly on wisdom.
Will Legalizing Pot Save California from its Cash Crunch?
By Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy Project Posted on February 25, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/128963/
California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has announced the introduction of legislation to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcoholic beverages. The bill, the first of its kind ever introduced in California, would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine, and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
Estimates based on federal government statistics have shown marijuana to be California’s top cash crop, valued at approximately $14 billion in 2006 — nearly twice the combined value of the state’s number two and three crops, vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion) — in spite of massive “eradication” efforts that wipe out an average of nearly 36,000 cultivation sites per year without making a dent in this underground industry.
Ammiano introduced the measure at a San Francisco press conference this morning, saying, “With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes,” said Ammiano. “California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”
“It is simply nonsensical that California’s largest agricultural industry is completely unregulated and untaxed,” said Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith, who also spoke at the news conference. “With our state in an ongoing fiscal crisis — and no one believes the new budget is the end of California’s financial woes — it’s time to bring this major piece of our economy into the light of day.”
Independent experts from around the world, from President Nixon’s National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 to a Canadian Senate special committee in 2002, have long contended that criminalizing marijuana users makes little sense, given that marijuana is less addictive, much less toxic, and far less likely to induce aggression or violence than alcohol. For example, in an article in the December 2008 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Australian researcher Stephen Kisely noted that “penalties bear little relation to the actual harm associated with cannabis.”
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill
I didn't get high until I was 23. I had smoked pot twice before without feeling much of any effect. Prior to this point in my life, I had many opportunities to smoke pot, but I always politely refused. I was never "peer pressured" and several pot smokers actually complimented me on my ability to make my own decision.
When I was fifteen or sixteen, I was in a very private and difficult part of my life. At the time, I was opposed to drug use of all sorts including marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and psychological medication. Although I've always been philosophically inclined, this was this period in my life in which I realized I had questions that no one had answers to, my homework was more for the benefit of others, women were as desirable as they were unattainable, and the entire world doesn't give a shit about my problems. Naturally, this began my depression. My mother, who had recently divorced from my father, was very disturbed by this and recommended anti-depressants. I thought about it long and hard, whether I wanted to be freed of this self-inflicted psychological agony, but ultimately, I refused. My reasoning was that if I needed to enter an altered state to manage my feelings, I wasn't really managing them. I was ignoring them. If I was able to handle my feelings on my own, I knew I would be stronger for it. At the same time, I realized that this was a personal choice and didn't push this belief on others.
Up until the age of twenty-three, I got drunk maybe three times and smoked cloves... maybe five times (never regular cigarettes). I had talked to a lot of people about their drug experiences and, unsurprisingly, the people who had done the most drugs also knew the most about them (granted, I also surround myself with intelligent people). I also read a lot of books, not so much about drugs but influenced by drugs. Then I would read what the writer said about his drug experiences.
My studies on spirituality, the history of spirituality, spiritual development, and spiritual practices also dovetailed into my studies on drugs. I came to discover that hallucinogens helped to influence all of the world's religions. Even more interesting, hallucinogens were often considered exclusively for spiritual leaders including the Catholic clergy. Of course, everyone knows about the role of hallucinogens in Native American cultures (particularly peyote), but anthropological studies have shown that virtually all shamanic cultures practice the safe use of hallucinogens. (Of course, that's not for us logical white folk. *dripping with sarcasm*) In any case, it became clear to me from my studies that for a person on a path of spiritual development, a hallucinogenic experience is vital... although this is an experience I have not yet had.
For the purposes of this blog, I will be focusing on several different drugs. First, I will be looking at marijuana, it's effects, legal issues, medicinal value, associated risks and history. Second, I will spend some time looking at the effects of psychiatric medication with a particular focus on anti-depressants and ADD/ADHD medication and the prevalence of use for treating minors. Third, I will be looking at hallucinogens including psilocybin, amanita muscaria, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mescaline, ayahuasca, peyote, and salvia divinorum. Finally, I will be looking at methamphetamines, particularly crystal meth and ectasy, and opiates, particularly cocaine, heroin, and their legal cousin, oxycotin.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anything except sound judgment and education. Although I try to be as accurate as possible, don't take my word for this. Do your own research on both sides of the fence and decide for yourself what you believe. Most importantly, be safe and be smart.
Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativa is the scientific classification for the plant which can be harvested in two very different ways depending on the intended use (there is also cannabis indica, but sativa is by far the dominant breed for both hemp and marijuana). Cannabis grown for drug use is commonly referred to as marijuana while cannabis grown for fiber, seeds, or oil is referred to as hemp.
Cannabis grows very quickly and easily, well-deserving of the nickname "weed." Technically speaking, cannabis is a weed which is why it is highly resistent to both weeds and drought. It can grow in virtually any environment. Due to it’s long roots, cannabis replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen and helps control erosion of topsoil. Through a process known as phytoremediation, cannabis actually removes and purifies toxins from the soil. (Little known fact: Cannabis sativa was used to clean the ground after the Chernobyl disaster.)
How Marijuana Works
The primary psychoactive component in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol or THC. THC develops in crystals concentrated on the flower and small leaves of the plant, so the strength of marijuana can more or less be judged by amount of crystals present on the flower buds. These buds are harvested and dried for consumption. Most commonly, the drug is smoked, but it may also be used as a tea or infused with butter for cooking.
When consumed, the THC bonds with cannabinoid receptors which are designed to respond to similar chemicals called "endocannabinoids" which occur naturally in the body (endo meaning internal). The body's primary endocannabinoids are anandamide (from the Sanskrit word ananda meaning "bliss") and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG).
Cannabinoid receptors are surprisingly abundant in nerve cells and have the highest densities in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, cerebellum, basal ganglia, brain stem, spinal cord and amygdala. This distribution explains marijuana's diverse effects. Its psychoactive properties come from its interaction in the cerebral cortex. Memory impairment is rooted in the hippocampus, a structure essential for memory formation. The drug causes motor dysfunction by acting on movement control centers of the brain. In the brain stem and spinal cord, it brings about the reduction of pain; the brain stem also controls the vomiting reflex which marijuana has been known to suppress. The hypothalamus is involved in appetite and the amygdala in emotional response.
Recent studies have shown that cannabinoid receptors are essential to depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition (DSI). Temporarily dampening inhibition enhances a form of learning called long-term potentiation, the process by which information is stored through the strengthening of synapses. Such storage and information transfer often involves small groups of neurons rather than large neuronal populations, and endocannabinoids are well suited to acting on these small assemblages. As fat-soluble molecules, they do not diffuse over great distances in the watery extracellular environment of the brain. Avid uptake and degradation mechanisms help to ensure that they act in a confined space for a limited period. Thus, DSI, which is a short-lived local effect, enables individual neurons to disconnect briefly from their neighbors and encode information.
In 2003 Giovanni Marsicano of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich and his co-workers showed that mice lacking normal cannabinoid receptors are less likely to recover from anxiety than mice with functional cannabinoid receptors indicating that endocannabinoids are important in extinguishing the bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences. This raises the possibility that abnormally low numbers of cannabinoid receptors or the faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids are involved in post-traumatic stress syndrome, phobias and certain forms of chronic pain, thereby supporting the belief that marijuana can be used to treat anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or just to help cope with profoundly negative memories.
The Recreational Effects
The effects of cannabis vary depending on the person, the amount consumed, and the manner in which it is consumed. It is most often smoked through a glass pipe, paper (a joint), or a water pipe (bong). [Contrary to some of the propaganda images below, marijuana is not an intravenous drug.] Many users do not feel any effects the first, second, or even third time they consume cannabis. Effects generally last between one and three hours. Like alcohol or any psychologically altering drug, it is safest and most rewarding when taken amongst a group close friends. It should not be taken while driving or performing any action which requires a clear head.
The Positive: Reduced stress levels, muscle relaxation, mild to intense euphoria, metacognition, introspection, increased sensuality (all or some senses may seem slightly enhanced), possible very mild visual or auditory hallucinations
The Neutral: Increased appetite, decreased awareness of time
The Negative: Paranoia, lethargy, temporary short-term memory loss, dryness of the eyes and mouth, possible over stimulation of the senses
Unlike alcohol and many other drugs, marijuana does not promote violent or destructive behavior. Alcohol use in particular has been linked to 72% of college rape cases, 66% of domestic abuse cases, 75% of spousal abuse cases, and more three million violent crimes in the United States annually.
Despite rumors to the contrary, marijuana has an extremely relaxing and peaceful effect as well as certain non-quantifiable social and intellectual effects. It often enables the user to connect disparate ideas and promotes abstract thinking. Due to the effects on short-term memory, it discourages fixation and forces the mind to wander. Both the euphoric and contemplative properties of marijuana encourage conversation and engagement. The disorientation can also make it easier to overcome social awkwardness.
It is also worth noting that marijuana has two important natural means of controlling its effects: If too much is inhaled at one time, the subject may grow tired and fall asleep; and one cannot stay at the peak of their experience for prolonged periods of time no matter how much marijuana they smoke. A breaking period is necessary to lower tolerance levels. For infrequent users, this may be six to twelve hours; for frequent users, several days.
A primary accusation against marijuana use is that it causes people to become lazy and unproductive leading some to suggest that marijuana causes Amotivational Syndrome. While it is true that the euphoric and relaxing effects of the drug encourages the user to be less active, the same can be said of television. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are less likely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Amongst employed adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.
The Legal Issues
The issue around the legalization (or criminalization, depending on your perspective) of cannabis is actually three issues commonly reduced to a single issue. Those issues are:
The legalization of cannabis for industrial purposes only without producing psychoactive material.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for medicinal purposes.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for recreational purposes.
Currently, marijuana is listed as a Schedual I narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While some states have passed laws allowing the production and distribution of industrial and medicinal cannabis, these laws are technically in violation of the Controlled Substances Act meaning that someone who legally produces and/or consumes cannabis at the state level may still be charged at the federal level. Arrests for marijuana possession and trafficking have been on the rise reaching new heights with every year:
(Please forgive the outdated figures. It was the best I could find.)
Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2000. Possession of an ounce or more may result in a felony charge which, amongst other things, carries a one to ten year sentence, a $5000 fine, and permanently strips the individual of the right to vote.
The Netherlands is well-known for its decriminalization of marijuana for people over 18 years of age. This has not led to a dramatic increase in marijuana use and, in fact, Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category, but particularly in the use of marijuana amongst minors.
Cost/Benefit Analysis In 2005, Jeffrey Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, conducted a study titled The Budgetary Implications of the Marijuana Prohibition. In this study, Professor Miron concludes that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion dollars annually on the cost of enforcement ($5.3 billion in state and local, $2.4 billion in federal). Additionally, if marijuana was taxed the same as all other goods, it would yield $2.4 billion in annual revenue. If it were taxed comparably to tobacco and alcohol, it would yield $6.2 billion in annual revenue.
That's $13.9 billion dollars wasted every year. $7.7 billion being spent to persecute American citizens for a victimless crime. And that $6.2 billion, instead of going to schools and roads, goes to criminals.
Medicinal Uses
Fourteen states currently have medicinal marijuana available to those in need including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont.
Although many claim that marijuana has no proven medicinal value, medical groups have overwhelmingly supported legalization of medicinal marijuana and have, at times, broken the law by prescribing the illegal drug to patients. (Technically speaking, I think that any doctor who recommends marijuana is in violation of federal law.) The American Medical Association has actually been the strongest voice of decent during earlier efforts to tax and later ban the drug.
Marijuana has been shown to have medicinal value in the treatment and/or relief from the following conditions: cancer, stroke, glaucoma, chemotherapy, migraines, chronic aches, clinical depression, ADD, ADHD, Tourette's, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorder, constipation, inflammatory bowl disease, fibromyalgia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, anorexia, bulimia, insomnia, sleep apnea, epilepsy, schizophrenia, abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, PMS, asthma, AIDS, HIV, atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. In California alone, marijuana treatment is indicated for over 250 medical conditions. There is also evidence to show that marijuana may be used to help break addiction to more harmful drugs including alcoholism and heroin.
Addictiveness
The addictiveness of marijuana is a matter of some debate, but legitimate debate holds marijuana at somewhere between a little addictive and not at all. Take a look at this addictiveness rating chart from a study done by the University of Chicago:
Nicotine, a completely legal and uncontrolled substance, has the highest addictiveness rating above crack cocaine and crystal myth. Alcohol is more addictive than heroin and cocaine. Even caffeine scores 68% thereby blowing marijuana (at 21%) out of the water. Health Effects
Unlike alcohol or more serious drugs, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. The dosage required would be thousands of times stronger than a recreational dose. Alcohol, on the other hand, requires only ten times that of a recreational dose to overdose. The only widely acknowledged risk associated with marijuana is in the way it is typically consumed. Any smoke, when inhaled, presents a cancer risk as well as presenting risks of respiratory problems. However, there have been no cases of lung cancer which have been conclusively or even strongly linked to marijuana use.
Some have suggested that marijuana may be more harmful than tobacco due to a relatively high tar and ammonia content, but the jury is still out on that one. Two important things should be considered. First, tobacco cigarettes usually contain eighty-one carcinogenic additives including nicotine, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chloroform, formaldehyde, and lead. These may or may not be taken into account in these studies. Most studies are unspecified leading me to believe that they are done using pure tobacco, not commercial tobacco. Second, tobacco smoking often leads to binge consumption behavior commonly referred to as chain smoking. There is no equivalent with marijuana. Recreational marijuana users generally range from one deep inhalation per hour for a novice to roughly ten inhalations per hour for the habitual user. This, of course, is only during the periods in which they wish to be intoxicated unlike tobacco which may be smoked at any time of day before, after, and during complex tasks.
In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
Annual world death rates Tobacco: 435,000 Alcohol: 85,000 (not including accidents, suicide, or murder while intoxicated) Prescription drugs: 32,000 (from adverse effects while used as directed) Marijuana: 0
That's right. Zero. Let me say that again: zero. Nada, zip, zilch. There has not been one recorded death in all of human history due to marijuana. It is the safest intoxicating substance known to man.
The Gateway Drug
Marijuana is commonly referred to as the "gateway drug," a phrase that I always found suspect. In fact, it isn't true. Most drug users start with alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco in particular has demonstrated a stronger causal link to harder drug use later in life. Marijuana has gained this reputation because it is usually the first illegal drug people try. This makes sense, not only because it is the most prolific and abundant illegal drug, but also because it is the safest and most mild. (After all, you wouldn't want LSD, meth, or cocaine to be the gateway drug, would you?)
In some ways, the anti-marijuana campaign actually contributes to further drug use. Like any form of propaganda, when it has been invalidated, people no longer trust the source of information. When young people try marijuana and find that it does not result in murder as some commercials have suggested or when they research it and find out that most of what they've been told is untrue, they tend to distrust everything they've been told and take drugs that are far more dangerous including hallucinogens and opiates.
The Hemp Distinction
Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on Earth. Hemp fibers are ideal for cloth and paper. Cotton fibers are only a fraction of an inch long while hemp fibers can be several feet in length making them far more durable and useful. The fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent, more mildew-resistant, and more UV-resistant than cotton. Hemp is also naturally resistant to most pests and weeds reducing the need for pesticides and herbicides. By comparison, cotton production is responsible for fifty percent of the world's pesticide use.
Hemp fiber is commonly referred to as "biomass" or "farm waste" in studies or legislation to dissociate it from the negative connotations of marijuana. These long fibers enable hemp paper to be recycled considerably more than wood-based paper. Hemp is 77% cellulose to wood's 60%. Due to its low lignin content, hemp paper can also be produced with far fewer chemicals resulting in less pollution. Due to its lighter color, hemp paper can be lightened using simple hydrogen peroxide instead of the harsh, expensive, and toxic chlorine bleach. Hemp can yield 10 tons of fiber per acre; that's four times what you get from an average forest. Also, unlike a forest, a crop of hemp can be harvested in only four months.
Hemp seed has been called the most nutritionally complete food source in the world. It not only contains every single essential amino and fatty acid necessary to maintain a healthy life, it contains them in the appropriate ratios. Many of these nutrients are lacking in the regular American diet leading to heart disease and cardiovascular disorder. Hemp seed is 65% globulin protein, the highest known concentration in the plant kingdom. Globulin is an important component in the human immune system. In fact, antibodies (AKA immunoglobulins) are globulin proteins designed to destroy bacteria and viruses.
Hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids including Omega-3. It is also quite rich in essential amino acids including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk. It has shown promising results in the prevention and treatment of heart disease, hypertention, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rumatoidarthritis, and more.
Henry Ford and John Diesel originally intended for their engines to run on hemp oil. Petroleum was cheap at the time, so by refining the oil, they were able to re-engineer it to function like hemp oil. An acre of hemp can yield 1,000 gallons of oil; three times what cannot be collected from corn and similar products. When burned, this oil is almost completely pollutant free making it an excellent alternative to standard fuels. It is already being mixed with standard diesel in other countries like Canada where many buses run on B20 (20% biodiesel).
In hemp cultivation, plants are grown extremely close to each other, as little as four inches apart, to encourage maximum height of the stalk. Consequently, they grow tall and thin up to 20 feet high. Marijuana is grown to be short and fat with as much as six feet between plants to give them room to spread. Marijuana is bred for a high THC content. Marijuana is bred to produce flowers and leaves in great abundance with a high THC count as opposed to hemp which, when harvested properly, is cut down before flowers develop.
Both members of the cannabaceae family, cannabis is actually a cousin of humulus (commonly known as hops, a main ingredient in beer).
In hemp, THC is not desirable because it decreases seed count, so plants are bred to have a low THC content (between 0-2%) as opposed to marijuana which is bred for a high THC count (roughly 6%-15%). Hemp plants also have a high CBD (cannabidiol) content; CBD is a THC blocker. (Between the low THC content and the high CBD content, it would be nearly impossible to smoke enough industrial hemp to get high and the result would likely be more unpleasant than anything.) Cross-pollination between hemp and marijuana will result in lower THC levels in the marijuana, but not higher THC levels in hemp.
The History of Cannabis Sativa
Historically cannabis has had many names and many uses. The ancient Romans coined the term cannabis, later adopted as the scientific term. In the Middle East, ancient Semites adapted the term as kannab. East Indian cultures called the plant ganja while in China, hemp dates back to 2700 BC where it was named Ma. In the third century AD, sacred Buddhist documents were made from hemp paper. These are the earliest known paper documents. Around 1000 AD, the plant's name was changed to Ta Ma, meaning “Great Hemp,” to emphasize its cultural importance. Furthermore, archeologists have found remnants of hemp seeds and fibers amongst the relics of Neolithic cultures 12,000 years ago.
The earliest reference of hemp in Western culture is from the Greek historian, Herodotus, who praises the Thracian cloth as being nearly indistinguishable from linen. He also mentions that the hemp seeds are burned in funeral rites as incense which produce a state of euphoria when in contact with it. Hemp has a long tradition as a part of religious ceremony dating back to ancient matriarchal belief systems and their pagan descendants until it was outlawed by the Inquisitions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII declared that users of cannabis were heretics and worshippers of Satan.
By the sixteenth century, the process of creating hemp paper had made its way from China, across the Middle East, to Spain and quickly to the rest of Europe. This was a huge asset to the burgeoning printing business and contributed dramatically to the rise of education and rise of the Renaissance. Sailing ships were also using hemp almost exclusively for rope and sails. The word canvass is actually derived from the word cannabis.
In eighteenth and nineteenth century India, the use of cannabis as a drug was common place, although the British authorities spread rumors that the drug caused insanity, crime, and violent behavior. These rumors were supported by the British Temperance League who lobbied for the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission to conduct a one year investigation into cannabis. They reported no serious problems with the substance and advised against prohibition.
In America
In colonial America, hemp was a standard agricultural staple grown both by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson while Ben Franklin ran a hemp mill. Washington once wrote to his farmers, "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" while Jefferson is quoted, "Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country." In this context, its hardly surprising that hemp paper was used for the Declaration of Independence. By 1810, hemp was America's third largest agricultural industry produced mainly by southern slaves for their landowners. Cannabis was also an ingredient in many medicines of the period.
After the Civil War and with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the hemp industry declined due to the invention of mass production practices which enabled cheaper cotton, wood-based paper, and the decline of sailing in favor of steam technology. Machinery at the time could not easily strip hemp fiber.
In 1908 and 1910, with the effect of tree farming for paper resulting in deforestation, the Department of Agriculture started looking for alternative sources for paper. Several articles were published suggesting the use of hemp, referring to it as “one of the most promising alternatives.” Jason L. Merrill, a Department of Agriculture chemist noted that the forests were being cut down three times faster than they could be regrown suggesting that wood was an infeasible source for paper. He reported:
“Every tract of 10,000 acres which is devoted to hemp raising year by year is equivalent to a sustained pulp-producing capacity of 40,500 acres of average pulp-wood lands. In other words, in order to secure additional raw materials for the production of 25 tons of fiber per day there exists the possibility of utilizing the agricultural waste already produced on 10,000 acres of hemp lands instead of securing, holding, reforesting, and protecting 40,500 acres of pulp-wood lands.”
Between 1914 and 1931, local movements, beginning in El Paso, Texas, succeeded in banning non-medicinal use of marihuana in twenty-nine states beginning in the Southwest as part of an effort to control the Mexican immigrant population which was, of course, being used as a sub-minimum wage source of labor keeping the immigrants at the poverty level. White workers, independent farmers and unionists, were threatened by the cheap source of labor prompting local law-enforcement officials spread the same rumors about crime and violent behavior that the British used to describe the Indians. One officer is quoted as saying, “Under its baseful influence reckless men become bloodthirsty, terribly daring, and dangerous to an uncontrollable degree.” In 1915, authorities from El Paso filed a complaint against marihuana with the federal government leading to a ban on importation of the drug for all purposes other than medicinal.
Two years later, Dr. Alsberg, the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, dispatched his personal assistant, Reginald Smith, on an eleven city tour along the southwest Mexican border to gather information about marihuana and marihuana use reporting that it was used infrequently to treat the pain of child-birth, asthma, and gonorrhea. He also found that the drug was used recreationally by Mexicans, “Negroes,” and “lower class whites.” Based on testimony from local law enforcement, he concluded that the drug was harmful to the user and often caused the user to commit heinous crimes. This was based on no scientific evidence, but merely second-hand accounts by law enforcement officials. Smith concluded that the prohibition against non-medicinal importation of the drug was completely ineffective and recommended that the more stringent Harrison Act be amended to include cannabis.
Meanwhile, in 1916, American military authorities stationed in the Panama Canal Zone received reports that army personnel were smoking the drug leading to a 1925 investigation into the Canal Zone marihuana problem. Based on a series of first hand experiments and personal testimony, the committee reported, “There is no evidence that marihuana as grown and used here is a 'habit-forming' drug in the sense in which the term is applied to alcohol, opium, cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciable deleterious influence on the individual using it.”
In 1926, Dr. W.W. Stockberger of the Bureau of Plant Industry supported the Panama Canal Zone report and contradicted the reports coming out of El Paso: “The reported effects of the drug on Mexicans, making them want to 'clean up the town,' do not jibe very well with the effects of cannabis, which so far as we have reports, simply causes temporary elation, followed by depression and heavy sleep.”
Marihuana had long been a recreational pastime amongst poor black communities of New Orleans after the drug was introduced by Caribbean sailors and West Indian immigrants. Marihuana use was especially prevalent in the jazz community of the 1920s and traveled with it as the popularity of the music spread into urban communities across the country. Naturally, the drug again found its way predominantly into the lower-class ethnic communities where local white law enforcement officers blamed the drug for contributing to violent behavior that was clearly a result of the dire conditions in which these people lived.
In the cities, marihuana began to be defined by layman as a narcotic. This is an important distinction because the Progressives' temperance movement which had passed the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 to prohibit the use of opiates and coca products due to their addictive properties. To pass this act, they engaged in a campaign designed to depict the drug addict as society's most evil criminal. Cannabis was not included in this act because it was determined to lack the negative effects associated with these other drugs. However, with the rise of the jazz scene and the corresponding marihuana use, the white middle- and upper-class were in fear of a cultural revolution.
It wasn't until 1929 that the federal government even formally acknowledged the existence of marihuana. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas introduced the first federal anti-marihuana legislation proposing that marihuana be included in the Narcotic Drugs Export and Import Act, but since Congress was largely ignorant of the drug, the Surgeon General was asked to conduct a study of the drug which was entitled “Preliminary Report on Indian Hemp and Peyote.” This report ignored the 1925 Panama Canal Zone Report and the British Indian Hemp Commission Report and concluded that marihuana was a narcotic, addictive, and induced criminal behavior based on rumor and lacking all scientific fact. Additionally, the report reiterated a popular myth that Marco Polo gave marihuana to his Assassins to invoke a bloodthirsty, berserker state.
In 1930, the Federal Narcotics Control Board and narcotics division of the Bureau of Prohibition were disbanded to form the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry J. Anslinger was appointed by his future uncle-in-law Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon to head the Bureau. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was the DuPont company's chief financial backer. The DuPont company had patents on methods of creating plastic from coal and oil as well as processing wood into paper. At that point, machines for processing hemp fibers were becoming a practical reality making the use of hemp fiber and hemp oil a serious risk to the future of their business.
Anslinger immediately pushed for a total prohibition of marihuana. One of the first actions of the Bureau was the enactment of a uniform state narcotic law including cannabis in its provisions. They engaged in a campaign of misinformation linking racial minorities, crime, and marihuana. A source within the Bureau is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as saying, “Instances of criminals using the drug to give them courage before making brutal forays are occurrences commonly known to the Narcotics Bureau.”
Meanwhile, the American Medical Association continued to oppose the inclusion of cannabis in the UNDA which determined which drugs would be prohibited. When the UNDA was finally passed in 1932, marihuana was considered optional leaving the issue to be decided at the state level. The Bureau relaxed its position on marihuana, apparently having faith that states would exercise the optional marihuana clause, but due to lobbying by the AMA, only five states prohibited marihuana. In 1935, the Bureau responded with a misinformation campaign far greater than they had previously.
Media mogel William Randolf Hearst was a lead voice in the campaign to demonize marihuana. Hearst was the Rupert Murdock of his day and his papers were about as fair and balanced as Fox News, and like Fox News, Hearst didn't hesitate to lie or propagandize to incite expanding use of military colonialism. He well-known for saying, “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,” and he repeatedly tested this idea. According to Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, Hearst employees were “willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." He also asserted that Hearst newspapers lied “remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably."
Hearst had a vested interest in the paper industry. Aside from his newspaper empire, he owned hundreds of acres of tiber and a vast number of paper mills. The concept of using hemp for paper seriously undermined his business interests and he had a convenient method of swaying public opinion, often publishing many stories that Anslinger had fabricated for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
This resulted in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which made the possession or transfer of cannabis illegal excluding medical and industrial uses which were taxed exorbitantly. The AMA opposed this act because it imposed a heavy tax on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and the industries of cultivating and manufacturing cannabis. New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was a strong opponent of the act, started the LaGuardia Commission that in 1944 contradicted reports of Hearst's papers and their accusations of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality... but by then it was far too late.
In 1942, the United States military was facing a severe shortage of cloth, rope, and cord. To combat the problem, the US government produced a film entitled “Hemp for Victory” to encourage the farmers in the heartland to grow as much hemp as possible. After the war, this film was suppressed. The USDA and Library of Congress denied its existence until it was finally recovered in 1989.
Also during the war, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a precursor to the CIA, used marijuana as a truth serum at OSS labs in St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington DC. It is reported that the drug caused the subject "to be loquacious and free in his impartation of information." In 1943, head of OSS counter-intelligence operations Major George Hunter White spiked a tobacco cigarette with THC concentrate to get information about Lucky Luciano's heroin operation from Augusto Del Gracio. It was extremely effective. 1952 saw the passage of the Boggs Act followed by the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 which made first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years in prison with a fine of up to $20,000. This was not changed until 1970 when Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.
In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, at the direction of Congress, appointed the bipartisan Schaffer Commission to investigate marijuana and the governments current stance. The Commission determined overwhelmingly that there was not a substantial health risk and recommended decriminalization. The report was ignored.
In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that is was “not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis." The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory sentences. A later amendment created a three-strikes law which created mandatory life sentences for repeat drug offenders and a possible death sentence for “drug kingpins.” In 1989, President George H.W. Bush declares his War on Drugs. In 1996, California voters passed Prop. 215 allowing the sale and use of medicinal marijuana.
Writer of Overcast ("the most successful novella no one has read"), A Relationship in Ten Minutes ("the funniest screenplay never produced"), as well as the creator of several short films. His current projects are comic book works "Most Modern," "Genius" and a superhero story set during World War II tentatively entitled "Astonishing Adventures."
