Category: History & Culture

Two days. That is how long this title has sat there while I contemplated just how to go about this article. The original premise was to be a series of small anecdotes of fake names and made up circumstances. All would relate to a perspective into why any given person on any given day could be so easily overwhelmed or in pain of some kind and lash out at a stranger online. It does not even have to be lashing out; a not well thought out reply is often enough to offend someone.

Yes, we are going to discuss social media interactions and the bitterness that seems to be so prevalent of late.

To save some of you some time, I have no idea what I am talking about. I can relate only my own personal experience and I have no business or intent to speak for anyone else. I am without post-graduate education of any kind and therefore have no qualifications or belief that would make me an expert of any kind.

OK. Let me know when they are gone.

Are they gone? It’s just us? Excellent! Let’s try and have a discussion. I think if we focus on influence and choices, we might find that great nirvana that frees us all: An alternate perspective.

Influence, while seemingly more powerful than choice, is incredibly powerful but truly second to informed choice. It is all around us every day. We constantly see Republicans bashing Democrats and, in other countries, Conservatives bashing Liberals. Public discourse among nations’ highest leaders offer little in terms of having respect for political opposition. Recent years have seen this ramped up to extraordinary levels with veiled insults being set aside for openly abusive language.

Before long, the neighbour who displays a different political affiliation on their lawn goes from respected to hated because that is what leaders are telling them. Human exploration into global connectivity and intercommunication on levels never seen before comes with it’s own downsides. The widespread belief that free speech is just that — regardless of the media or intent — is as false a human premise as could be imagined. It is a myth, a carrot held over our heads by those who would choose to use the stick.

Everyone has a right to life free from abuse. Any law or given right that permits violation of that right is immoral. Yet so often it is the cry of the oppressor that it is their right to be abusive. What it is, is a choice that is made. A choice to be abusive, condescending and to try to unload some personal baggage onto someone else. A choice to respond in anger instead of with understanding. Sadly, it’s the easiest choice, but it’s far from the most powerful.

Setting aside influence, choice is the path past anger and hostility. Just as those going after another, for any reason, seem to be able to justify it a hundred different ways, the hardest choice requires no justification. Choosing to attack someone who was rude only keeps the cycle of negativity going. Yet some seem to derive great satisfaction from it. In the moment, they are fully unaware that they are elevating themselves by stepping on another.

Choice is the great power we all possess. It is ours alone and, used well, great benefit for oneself and others is easily found. If, that is, we make the right choices.

Choose to be aware that everyone you encounter on social media is damaged in some way. We all are. No human walks this life without knowing difficulty in some manner, visible or otherwise. Choose to be aware. Communication is a gift and a skill some are much more proficient at than others. Choose to look at intent over content. Quite often they can be polar opposite, again reflecting a lack of communication skills.

You can choose to create and feed fires or you can choose to put them out. You can choose to be understanding, perhaps offering a hand in friendship. Inspiring gratitude for even a small kindness in another is a gift that everyone receives.

You can choose compassion.

You can choose to embrace the positive.

You can choose to be happy.

These are the only rights that matter and that no one can take away.

What will you choose to do?

Maybe it has to start with me. Or you. Us. How about everyone? Who cares, as long as it begins.

Okay, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself here. Let’s lay out some context. Following the lead of the United States, Canada long ago created laws to make cannabis use illegal. Since that time, a massive number of Canadians have been persecuted and faced criminal charges, criminal records and suffered all the downsides that come with that. All for the desire to consume cannabis.

This would be normally a good place to go into benefits verses harm of cannabis; however, the reality of it now being legal for recreational use makes a much stronger case on its own merit. For a long time it was clear, sort of. We knew growing up that cannabis was illegal, like theft. We also later learned, through parents or peers, that cannabis use was, well, fun, not to mention a lot more benign than the other rebel option, alcohol. Grass fit easily in your pocket and was a heck of a lot easier to carry 3 miles across town than a two-four of bottled beer.

Even interactions with law enforcement in my youth betrayed the letter of law in how those who were meant to enforce said laws almost did not want to. There were far more serious things they could be concerned with. In many ways those early interactions were as much responsible for my own skepticism of the official legal position of our government. The first of those interactions is one of the funniest: After catching me and a friend at 1 am sitting behind a building smoking hash and seeing the hash sitting in the open, he sent us on our way. He surprised us when he pulled up and rolled his window down and asked, “What are you boys doing here?” I panicked and replied, “Just smoking some hash. It’s well lit so I can see to roll”. It was not the answer he was expecting, I suspect. After asking who we were, he sent us on our way with, “Well, we had a noise complaint, so go smoke your hash somewhere else”. We did.

It was not until some years later when getting involved with medical cannabis and cultivation of same I began to really understand the division. The ‘no big deal’ attitude I had learned was in stark contrast to the reality for many. Seeing a simple plant medication being denied to the most in need was bad. Seeing those same people being punished for trying to live a healthy life was just wrong. It breeds anger.

Anger and frustration became common for many on the pro side who were fuelled by a senseless drug war with no logical reason to exist. That war was only born of hatred and discrimination. It has gone on for decades now, with two fairly clear sides.

Sort of.

What also became clear at some point was that my experience was not necessarily representative of others. That everybody had their own unique entry and interpretation of cannabis and it’s standing in society. Much of which I did not understand was regarding its opposition.

For the opposition side there were a few different, key positions depending on context and employment. Doctors who prefer to stay inside the box, for example, claim no benefit based on no studies. Recommending illegal substances does not tend to go over well with medical boards and administrators to whom they must answer. Law enforcement? The name says it all. If it’s illegal, it is their job to enforce those laws. It is only natural that after many decades, the perception and language used would evolve to suit the goal. It was clear, however, that many really did not buy into the Reefer Madness mentality. The result was a wide range of reactions depending on who you happen to come in contact with and the scope of the situation. A joint may get dumped or ignored; a couple of pounds might present a more sticky situation.

For many in every day society who simply had no real world experience with cannabis, what they were told by authority, medical and legal, was what they believed. Why wouldn’t they? We believe many things based on what an expert or educator tells us and we are quite content to do so. Were that not true, I would be building a particle accelerator instead of penning this op-ed. Today there are many conflicting viewpoints around cannabis, even though it is a legal substance. More and more we also have an extremely diverse number of incredibly talented individuals in a wide range of careers who, for whatever reason, have an interest working in or even trailblazing in this new legal landscape.

Maybe we are getting onto the main point. Many social media interactions led me to want to write this article. There are situations where someone working in the cannabis industry, for whatever reason, does not seem to fit the perception of another of who belongs in those jobs. As a result, some people feel it is appropriate to question, interrogate and sometimes even berate them openly and publicly. It’s as though they have committed some offence for being successful or having a high profile.

Some of these attacks are made by high-profile advocates who, for whatever reason, see these newcomers — I was tempted to say ‘corporate newcomers’, but it is broader than that — as unwelcome intruders who have no right to be where they are. There are several problems with a purely confrontational approach to the emerging legal cannabis sector professionals. Not least of these problems is the stark contrast to what the entire cannabis culture and society is built around: The acceptance of those who accept cannabis, without judgement or preconceived notions as to why. That “stick together through adversity” belief permeates deeply into the culture.

When did it become acceptable to degrade someone pro-cannabis only because they are wealthy and you have never seen them smoking a joint? It makes absolutely no sense to attack, berate or demean anyone who is pro-cannabis for any reason, whether they be an executive or craft grower.

I know some of you who have gotten this far might be a tad triggered and ready with all kinds of ‘But, but, but’ rebuttals and justification for the aforementioned attitudes. Let me, however, explain why that is a dead end approach that actually hurts the progress of the current legal cannabis landscape in Canada.

First off: Quality. Let the quality of a product stand on the company name, not individuals who quite often have had little or no ability to affect end-result retail product. Over time, product quality will allow the market to determine who should survive and who should not. The barometer for any professional individual is how well the decisions and career choices see them progress based on results. The best will rise, the good will survive and the rest will recycle into something else or get out of the game. That’s how it should be with any profession.

Second: The changes we still wish to see. Consumers want good product at affordable prices. Companies want to make money. Both sides want a market that meets those needs. Consumers need products. Producers need clients. It is a very simple formula. We will have a much harder time getting the changes required to establish a stable and effective retail cannabis system when we are too busy fighting with each other to focus on where real change needs to happen. The government’s intended goal of illicit market elimination also is very much dependent on a good quality, affordable, retail marketplace.

Some things will take time. Medical acceptance is growing by leaps and bounds, as is the research that is so long past due. Schools will adapt fairly quickly, as will much of the medical establishment. The landscape in 5 years will look very different from today.

I remember vividly as a teenager smoking and pondering why weed was illegal. Even then it seemed simple. Many of us said it: “They should just make it legal and tax it. It would pay off the deficit”. Maybe 30 years ago it could have, but not today and not in its current form. That form will be much better suited to our needs and closer to our desires when we accept without pre-qualifiers. If you accept cannabis we accept you, unless you’re a pedophile or some other horrid creation.

Personally, I find many of the high-profile individuals very interesting. There are perspectives shared through curiosity and asking civil questions that provide ideas and concepts I may never have been able to consider. Perspective is a pretty major thing. Moreover, we need these leaders and trailblazers as allies. Far more can be achieved in attaining mutual goals as a united, well-informed front. Well-informed goes both ways. I am sure there are questions and opinions to be shared almost equally among all parties.

Unless we all sit at the same table, in respect and acceptance, how will we ever find reconciliation with the other side? How will the war ever end? Personally, I want to learn, engage and be active in this new green reality.

Let’s finally make it what we once envisioned. Let’s not perpetuate what was once forced upon us.

The evolution of language involves a complex history that is written daily. Trends, fads, songwriters, events, etc., all nudge and influence what we say and how we say it. Language is fluid and dynamic, being driven by popular usage. In relation to the popular cannabis terms, Indica and Sativa, there is a growing number of voices declaring those terms to be incorrect or even irresponsible and invalid.

Everyday people by the hundreds of millions use popular and familiar cannabis terms such as Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis, Hybrid and Hemp to effectively and clearly communicate in any number of cannabis-related discussions. The clarity of these terms is such that a consumer at a dispensary who is asking for a nice, sleepy-time, bye-bye Indica to help offset insomnia will almost assuredly get exactly what he or she wants. That clarity is akin to walking into a pharmacy to get aspirin and actually walking out with aspirin. These few terms are incredibly effective and efficient at creating the desired outcome.

The history of these terms and their widespread use is another byproduct of prohibition and research restrictions. Left without the benefit of scientific coevolution, the medical cannabis civil disobedience movement grew and learned as they went along. Breeders were able to buy strains based on these predications and to consistently and effectively achieve the desired results.

That same special breed of cannabis devotees grew, bred and learned about what this plant would offer. They learned about phenotypes and chemovars, how they interact and how to cross-breed for desired results. Such learning was mostly done without the input of the greater scientific community and the many relevant specialties. Yet when effectively communicating about cannabis, the terms Indica, Sativa, Hybrid, Ruderalis (AKA auto flower), etc., are still very much the most used tools in the cannabis vernacular toolbox.

Enter The Shift

Realistic attitudes are spreading globally at a pace cannabis proponents could only have dreamed of even a mere 10 or 15 years ago. Laws are being changed and attitudes are changing. The science that medical advocates and patients have desired for decades is finally seeing promise. The answers as to why cannabis is so beneficial on so many levels are finally going to be known.

One shift that was not so easily foreseen, however, was the effort to convince hundreds of millions of people that suddenly, after many decades, everybody is saying it wrong. There are many who claim that the terms in popular usage are invalid, an exercise in futility and/or total nonsense. That presents a couple of problems. Because research is just at the beginning of the journey, many of the whys, particularly regarding entourage effect, are still unknown. Aside from discussion of terpene profiles and specific terpene effects, science is only beginning the path to understanding the millions of ways cannabis interacts with our bodies.

The other problem is imposed, unnecessary context. A teaching physicist for example, will use terms that are familiar and understandable when speaking to the general public to help explain a broader meaning. When conversing with colleagues, however, that same physicist will revert to terminology with colleagues that would leave me — and most others — dizzy and confused. The language used is of critical importance to the context.

Currently, people are making cannabis purchases, getting what they want and are quite content using the terms with which they are familiar and prefer. Were those serving the needs of customers to start trying to ‘educate’ every customer beyond that familiar vernacular, they would likely lose a lot of business. Of course, there is a place in the discussions for terpene profiles. Consumers and providers are not at all unfamiliar with the technical details that they require and wish to discuss. That stated, almost every discussion centred around ‘What are you looking for?’ will invariably have Sativa, Indica or a hybrid variation as an initial qualifier.

Terms such as Indica or Sativa have evolved into entry points for discussion. They are a predictable indicator of what you are seeking. It’s not about species anymore. Instead, such terms are more of an amorphous designation that enable us to quickly and clearly drill down into specific detail.

As research develops, horticulture, plant biology, biochemistry, etc., will all bring with them new ways of describing specific plant function and composition. That will drastically change how the cannabis plant is seen in the learned community and the language used to describe it. That is what we all want. We do not, however, all want to become scientists. Just as it is not a requirement of every day life to know the exact molecular make up of your favourite beer, it is unrealistic to expect the general public to suddenly learn an entire new cannabis language.

Although the current terms are not conforming to the new profiles being discovered, they’re still extremely useful. It is counterintuitive to expect that the suggested changes would be welcome and accepted. Without an easily explainable alternative that can serve as an adequate replacement, how could they be? The general public converses in common, everyday vernacular; that will never change and attempting to change it is futile.

While terms such as Indica and Sativa will find they have no place in laboratory or horticultural settings, they will remain with the public. Does that mean they are not translatable or usable when endeavouring to explain the science in laymen’s terms? Perhaps.

Ultimately, the terms have come to mean something else entirely. When I enter a discussion about obtaining a specific phenotype, generalized terms such as Indica or Sativa and the meaning behind it is end result effect. Growers will attest that Indica and Sativa do indeed show different growth traits, with hybrid versions expressing variations. Beyond that, specific lineage and terpene profiles are the relevant factors in the conversations. So, in pure science terms perhaps they do not translate.

Indica. Sativa. Hybrid. These are basic roadmap terms that provide information similar to describing directions, such as north and south. They are effective terms that serve the basic purpose for which they are required. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no need to require everyone to be able to understand the physics of an engine in order to drive a car.

Twelve thousand years. One hundred and twenty centuries. Four hundred-plus generations. While the number may actually be much larger, archeological records confirmed that we have cultivated cannabis for at least 12,000 years. How much longer is impossible to say, as it predates any form of recorded history. Prehistoric hunters found with hemp clothing and cannabis itself open the possibility that humans have always used cannabis. The first known medicinal use of cannabis dates back to 4,000 B.C. in China. Cannabis was used as an anesthetic for surgery. Throughout the B.C. era, period cannabis flourished from Asia and Siberia into the Middle East and Europe. The plant was widely used for many purposes, with hemp and fibre production being the vast majority of use. From the A.D. era, cannabis spread first into the African continent, followed by the U.K and, later, South America. While it may have landed in South America as early as the 1600’s, it did not find its way to North America until the 1800’s. In North America, Cannabis flourished as a miracle medicine whose main ingredients were components of thousands of medical elixirs sold by everyone from doctors to snake oil salesmen. Hemp farms were commonplace and provided significant quantities of valuable fiber and oils at low cost. Our history with this ‘weed’ has been quite peaceful one, save for approximately the last 100 years. With social and industrial pressures turning against Cannabis use and hemp production, the war on cannabis has been a tragedy of epic proportions. We’ll discuss prohibition as the topic of a future blog post. Until then, may health, healing and herb be with you. Stay Mellow.