Monday 26 March 2012

Mary Jane, Marijuana, Weed, Pot, the list goes on...


            Although it is a pastime I do not partake in, I found the topic of marijuana and conscious altering substances interesting – topic only. Most of you already know how I feel about the writing, but that is a different story. One question I had not given much thought to before and about the only question that intrigued me was “…why is it forbidden?” It cannot be any more damaging than regular smoking or more mind-altering than alcohol. The addiction from it is no more harmful than regular cigarettes. I thought about it for a bit before sitting back and concluding I had no answer to it, so I read on. Of course in true Pollan fashion, he presents us with a question then takes the longest route to it as possible. A story of his garden and a re-enactment of his somewhat humerous run in with the police were very much sidetracked and just when I thought Pollan was getting back on track on page 127 with “Did Marijuana possess a grave threat to Public Health…?” he diverts his discussion again. And yet again he goes to find “The real story” in Amsterdam.
            “I began to piece together the story of how American gardeners…” blah blah blah. It is sentences such as these that bother me; now he has the story, not a story, as if he has alone uncovered the truth and will educate us now. Maybe I am being cynical and tedious now because I already dislike his writing, but it is the little things that make a difference when writing.
            The history he has uncovered continued and was not without its interesting facts. I enjoyed the section regarding religion and sacred plants. I find it neat how culture ties into psychoactive plants and fungi. However nothing really grabbed me until I came across Richard Dawkins’ name. As a big fan of Dawkins and his views on evolution I was immediately intrigued. I was surprised to see Pollan actually liked Dawkins’ perspective on psychoactive plants on culture.
Wait…Did Pollan and I just agree on something?
            As quickly as he sparked my attention with Dawkins, Pollan lost me again when he started describing his own encounters with marijuana again. I continued to read through the scientific section on THC as that made sense and was relevant, but was still rather mind numbing.
            Allyn Howlett described being “high” as cognitive dysfunction which met approval with me. Pollan goes on to discuss that these scientists do not yet fully understand consciousness which I found very interesting. I feel like that is a very multidiscipline field of biochemistry and even psychology. I would be excited to hear more about this. (P.s. Chocolate slows the breakdown of THC? Does this have any relation to “The Munchies?”)
            Pollan, yet again, lost me for a bit. I read but just can’t help from zoning out as I do so. I reappeared at Aldous Huxley. I wasn’t surprised, but was interested in the part about visionaries. Huxley proposed that the mystic visionaries were a result of a lack of nutrition and vitamin deficiencies which “wreak havoc on brain function and probably explain a large portion of visionary experiences in the past.” I loved this quote. It completely fits my belief systems and views on the supernatural world; it was perfect.
            I did not have much to say on this weeks writings. Not much stood out as it is not a subject I choose to involve myself in. The last section of this chapter was a disappointment to me because he still did not answer the question he proposed at the beginning of this chapter: Why is Marijuana illegal? Oh well, I’ll just add that to my list of things to research on my own.

2 comments:

  1. Haha! I love how much you hate Pollan. I haven't read your older entries, so I'm not sure what bothers you abut his writing? I found his intro to The Botany of Desire sounded very arrogrant to me--and it really bugged me a lot. Is this the same way you feel? I found that when I started actually reading into the book, I completely love it, so I can't say I feel you there, but respect what you are saying. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
    This chapter was actually my favourite one we've read of his so far!
    :)
    Larkin

    ReplyDelete
  2. I mostly enjoy how Pollen writes because he makes topics that could be written in a very boring fashion interesting. However I do agree with you that his stories are unnecessarily convoluted and often don’t address very important issues concerning his topics (e.g. addiction; illegality). In some contexts I’m quite a forgiving reader, so long as people write well and say something interesting I will quite often like them as an author. Thus it is very interesting for me to learn how, and why, you dislike Pollen’s writing. Your shock at you and Pollen agreeing on something was an entertaining part of this blog . Your interest in “the munchies” and chocolate’s affect on the breakdown of THC also helped stimulate my own interest concerning this. I had never before considered that “visions” could have been the result of nutritional and vitamin deficiencies, as both you and Huxley believe, which is fascinating!

    ReplyDelete