Category: QbyN – Daily Musings

These Facebook memes, or whatever you want to call them, seem to be all the rage these days. I can’t begin to tell you how many I have seen in the last little while, and normally I either chuckle or go: “Really.” Of course, the supposed “quotes” are most often not uttered by the person in the photo behind them…come on, that would be asking too much! I am not sure why this one grabbed my attention for more than a millisecond, but it did. Later that night, when I looked at it again, a few things popped into my head that I thought would be worth exploring. Firstly, I went digging to see if I could find who might have uttered these words of wisdom. No such luck. The closest I could get to, after way too much time searching, was a notation from “StarndedonEarth” (ya gotta love the name) that had the above aphorism followed by, source: murky. Even after this, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I had read something vaguely similar many years ago…hmmm.

So, back to the keyboard I went. It took a while, but I finally found what I was looking for, and it goes like this: “The problem with the world is that intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence,” (Charles Bukowski 1920-1994). Now, “we live in a time,” is certainly interchangeable with “the problem with the world,” “doubts” is swapped for “silenced,” and “full of confidence” becomes “won’t be offended.” The last one doesn’t swap out as well, but the sentiment is the same. And of course, “intelligent” and “stupid” are the status quo. However, did Bukowski start this worldly observation? Back to the keyboard, and here is what I found. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), the British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist and Nobel laureate had this to say about his world: “…those who feel certainly are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” Going back even further, much further and you get none other than Shakespeare (1564-1616): “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” Apparently “we” have been thinking about this for a long time.

Secondly, there are two words in the most recent iteration and Bukowski’s that I felt needed some clarification, if that is at all possible. What is intelligence? What is stupid? Whose barometer are we using to determine who belongs to one category or the other? For example, when it comes to “stupid,” are we talking about the politically incorrect term for someone who is mentally challenged or are we using the word as a cultural/slang label for someone we deem to be somewhat beneath us. You know like (use whatever accent you want): “Did you hear what so-and-so said? He/she’s soooo stupid.” And what about intelligence? Isn’t it also one of those nebulous states of being? When we use the word, are we referring to academic achievement, business acumen, entrepreneurial skills, or perhaps we just mean “street smart?” Which one sticks out for you as being the closest definition of intelligence? The dictionary defines it as: “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills,” which is somewhat straightforward, until, of course, you start thinking about what “knowledge” really means. Adulting is tough!

What happens if you apply any of the above to what is going on politically in this country right now? I would answer this, but I’m tired and I need to go to bed.

Los Angeles 2024

The first “rumble” in my title was popularized by wrestling announcer Michael Buffer, who uttered the phrase just before some scary looking men (and now women) were about to engage in a “wrestling” match, or what Roland Barthes, in his 1954 essay “The World of Wrestling,” called “all-in wrestling” (more on this shortly). The “h” rumble (taken from rhumba) was added by a British music group (1994), “PJ & Duncan,” who used Buffer’s phrase repeatedly in their song, in order to avoid copyright infringement, as Buffer had trademarked the phrase. If PJ & Duncan isn’t ringing any bells, it’s because the name belongs to British duo Ant & Dec, more famously known these days for their duties in the wings of the Britain’s Got Talent stage. Now that I have cleared that up, let’s get back to Barthes.

Barthes’ 1954 essay was republished in 1957 in Mythologies, a book divided into two parts – part one a series (53) of short essays, part two an extended analysis of myth(s). Myths are a part of every culture in the world and are used to explain where people came from and how their civilization developed, and why things happen the way they do. Generally speaking, Barthes contends “that a myth is like a mask that shields people from direct access to reality. I can hear your audible sigh. Barthes suggests that the popular imagination consists primarily of stories that take the form of myths that shape the mind.” The very first line of his essay, “The World of Wrestling,” states: “The virtue of all-in wrestling is that it is the spectacle of excess.” A little further on, he says that some people think that wrestling is an “ignoble sport,” and then quickly refutes that by saying: “Wrestling is not a sport, it is a spectacle,” because that word is worthy of repeating. It has, unfortunately, become clear to me that the “myths” about this country that we are currently creating can definitely be framed as a spectacle, perhaps with a capital S.

Barthes’ reason for the “all-in” prefix is to make the distinction between the Olympic sports of Greco-Roman and Freestyle wrestling and the scripted and over-the-top soap opera dramas played out in arenas all over this country. If you have ever been to one of these spectacles or watched them on tv, you will know exactly what I mean. I have watched both, although I have not seen an all-in wrestling match in many years, and I can tell you that in the Olympic version there are no pyrotechnics, no throwing bodies outside the ring onto tables, no climbing on ropes, no hitting referees over the head with chairs, no blaring rock music…in other words, no spectacle.

Barthes goes on to explain that everything in “all-in wrestling is clear; roles and situations are easily and rapidly understood. The body of the wrestler is the seed of his character, which is then used, in each instance, to express a gesture, which serves to visualize intention and passion to the audience. The moral and the private are made public.” The “roles” that Barthes refers to are quite simple, especially in today’s uber spectacle of, say, the WWE and its three brands: RAW, SmackDown, and NXT. They are all about Good vs Evil, and, as in life, you get to make up your own mind about who is who. And if you are going to get into a ring with the sole purpose of destroying your opponent, you’d better have an appropriate “handle” – Bam Bam Bigelow, Excellence of Execution, The 8^th Wonder of the World (André the Giant), The Rock, The Undertaker, The Samoan Bulldozer, and my personal favorite, The Ayatollah of Rock ‘N’ Rolla, just to name a few. I wish I were making these up! While I’m on the subject, have you ever heard of Terry Gene Bollea? Neither have I, but I do know him by his professional wrestling name: Hulk Hogan. Although he finally stopped wrestling in 2012 (at 59 years old!), he has been in the news often, most recently as a headline speaker at the July 15-18 RNC, at which he wowed the crowd with his signature move: ripping the shirt of his chest to show his muscles. Granted, these are now 70 year-old muscles, but hey, to each his own. Why am I bringing this up? One word: S-P-E-C-T-A-C-L-E.

If I have taken anything away from the past few months leading up to the grand finale on November 5^th, it is that this year’s election appears to be mining the WWE’s spectacle playbook. And if Barthes is right about myths, which I think he is, then someday in the future, what is happening with this year’s election, all its ups and downs, name calling, staging, dramatics, etc., etc., will form part of the myth of this country. And, as I mentioned above, with a capital S.

What you have just read was sparked by a conversation I had the other night with a friend of mine about the fate of the world and this country…you know, the usual neighborly banter. One of the topics of conversation was the US/Mexico border, as he had just returned from visiting several “hot spots” in Texas and New Mexico for a photography project he was commissioned for. What he described based on his experiences, along with photos to back it up, was absolutely horrendous on many different levels, and his subsequent interviews with sheriffs and border patrol personnel very illuminating. So much so, that he ventured to say that the single most important issue for this election is the border. This observation was later bolstered by an Aug.6 article in The Atlantic titled, “Seventy Miles In Hell,” about the Darién Gap, a popular and treacherous place where many attempt to enter the US.

Later that evening, after reading the article and recalling what my buddy had said, it occurred to me that maybe I have been, and, I would venture to add that many of us have been, looking at this election the wrong way. Perhaps the, shall we say, “draw” to the “Right” is centered around one single issue: the border and not the actual person running for President. After all, they are there for only a short time and the border will always be there and continue to be a problem. There was a bipartisan border and national security bill on the table this past February, but it failed to pass because of pressure put on the “Right” not to pass it. Whether or not this bill would have solved all the problems at the border is open to debate, but as it did not pass, it’s a moot point. I would argue that running a very close second and third to the border issue are abortion and gun control. To put it succinctly, the “Right” appear to be saying to anyone who will listen: “Don’t come where you’re not wanted, Don’t mess with my ‘child,’ and don’t you fucking dare touch my gun.” There it is in a nutshell. It doesn’t really matter who the hell is standing at the podium as a Presidential candidate supporting these three things, what I am now referring to as the revised “holy trinity” of this election (although, come to think of it the original “holy trinity” does have a seat at the table, if you will). And, probably more importantly, is to understand who the major bankrollers of the trinity are. It has been, and will always be, a question of following the money, as we were told in the 1976 film, All The President’s Men. Don’t give me what I want, the money goes to someone who promises to deliver, until of course they don’t. Next. This is true for both sides: Good and Evil. So why, you might ask, was the border not dealt with the first time around?  Well, perhaps the first year everyone was looking around and muttering: “WTF!” Or, it might have been an impeachment or two, Stormy Daniels, the pandemic…take your pick.

So, where do we go from here? Although I do not like to disappoint, I do not have an answer. However, and in the service of introducing my second “trinity:” “If there is something weird, and it don’t look good, who you gonna call?” Photo number three. Damn straight.

Los Angeles 2024

Most of us have used the above idiom, usually with a smirk of self-satisfaction on our faces, or have had it said to us, wincing at that same self-satisfying expression on the face of the person enjoying themselves just a little too much. These words are sometimes uttered as a “warning,” which means you alert someone that something is going to happen, and they say: “Yeah, right,” and then it happens just as you said it would, and you respond… Or someone disagrees with something you’ve said, and then it turns out that you were right. What follows is along these lines, with a slight twist.

When I began this Daily Musings page of this blog in 2022, my very first post (Jan.21, 2022) was titled: The Pain Index and had the same photo as you see above. It was a very short (352 word) rant about how I hate being asked by any doctor I happen to be seeing at the time the following question: “On a scale from zero to ten, zero being the least and ten being the most, what is your pain level?” In my mind, it is the dumbest question one could ask, because everyone’s pain threshold is different; you might consider a slight ankle twist the most painful experience you’ve ever had, while I, on the other hand, would simply wrap it and continue skiing. Put another way, if you told your doctor that the ankle sprain feels like a “nine,” your doctor might say: “Oh no, here are some painkillers, go home a put your foot up,” whereas I tell my doctor the ankle sprain feels like a one, and he says: “Okay, wrap it up and you’ll be fine.”

The reason for this brief trip down writing memory lane is because of an article I just read in The Atlantic (June 24, 2024) titled: “Pain Doesn’t Belong on a Scale of Zero to 10.” The subtitle is even more revealing: “A popular scale for measuring pain doesn’t work, but medicine still has no better alternative.” So, I will cut right to the chase: I TOLD YOU SO! My vindication was further bolstered by the fact that the article was written by a former E.R. doctor turned journalist, Elisabeth Rosenthal, not just someone else like me with an axe to grind, but no medical background. And the article is quite revealing.

The pain index concept, “reducing [the] shades of pain to a single number,” dates back to the 1970s, but as Rosenthal states: “…the zero-10 scale is ubiquitous today because of what was called a ‘pain revolution’ in the ‘90s, when intense new attention to addressing pain – primarily with opioids – was framed as progress.” And we all know how that turned out. I recently had back surgery to repair some bulging discs, and at my initial appointment with the surgeon, I was asked the same question: “What is you pain level 0-10?” Really? Are we still asking that question? What was more disturbing, though, was when I was discharged after my surgery, I wasn’t even asked that question, just given a prescription for opioids, which I choose not to take. The reason for being given the prescription, as Rosenthal explains, is because 30 years ago “physicians who championed the use of opioids gave robust new life to what had been a niche specialty: pain management.” What this means is that they were pushing the idea that “pain should be measured at every appointment as a ‘fifth vital sign.’” Of course, the problem with this is that the other vital signs like blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, etc. have “objective” scales measured by instruments designed for doing so. Your “subjective” response of: “Oh god, it hurts like hell, it must be a ten,” might be a sign, but it is not a vital one! Can you see my ear-to-ear smirk?

Los Angeles 2024

I completely understand that ‘brief’ is a relative term. However, my subtitle does give you my timeline: 1936 (the year the film “Reefer Madness” was first released) to May 21, 2024, the date of the upcoming Cannabis Business Times webinar on “navigating cultivation room design,” whatever the hell that is. The actual timeline reefer-ing to marijuana, weed, dope, pot, grass, ganja, herb, goes back much further than that; much, much further. I learned this thanks to The University of Sydney’s “Lambert Initiative for Cannabis Therapeutics.” This initiative is aimed at looking into “advancing cannabinoid-based treatments in mainstream medicine,” and made possible by a donation of 33.7 million dollars from Barry and Joy Lambert for research into the therapeutic use of medical cannabis. Let’s take this opportunity to give them a resounding round of applause!

The University’s website provides a sidebar devoted to “a brief timeline of cannabis and cannabinoid research,” and that timeline begins in 2800 BC. Yes, you read that right. According to the website, “the first documented case of its use dates back to 2800 BC, when it was listed in the Emperor Shen Nung’s (regarded as the father of Chinese medicine) pharmacopoeia.” If you are wondering how anything was “first documented” in 2800 BC, you’re not alone, but I will leave that conundrum for another time. There is also a Hindu legend that Shiva was given the title “The Lord of Bhang” because the cannabis plant was his favorite food. I will take the “high” road here and not make a joke about this, but you need to know that it was really, really hard not to.

When we finally get to Anno Domini, we get Galen, also known as Aelius Galenus, Claudius Galenus, or Galen of Pergamon (129 AD – 216 AD), a Roman and Greek physician, surgeon, and philosopher who “used cannabis for its therapeutic properties and mood enhancement.” Now, while there is no way of knowing how Galen’s consumption of cannabis impacted his life and well-being, one cannot ignore the fact that in the second century Galen lived to the ripe old age of 87, when the average life span for that era was 35-40; that is, if you made it to age five. Just sayin’!

There were a few entries in this “brief” timeline from the 1800s, but the first entry from the 20^th century is 1936 and the film in my sub title: Reefer Madness (“RM”). The website has the following to say about the film: “1936 RM was released, demonising (sic) cannabis as a highly addictive drug that caused mental disorder and violence.” While the information from the website is a fairly accurate summary of the film’s “message,” it does not give one the full picture, which is needed since it is my starting point for my brief history. The film, originally made as Tell Your Children and sometimes titled The Burning Question, Dope Addict, Doped Youth, and Love Madness, was an American exploitation film (a film that tries to succeed financially by exploiting current trends, niche genres, and lurid content otherwise known as a B movie) “about drugs, revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try marijuana – upon trying it, they become addicted, eventually leading them to become involved in various crimes, such as hit and run accident (sic), manslaughter, murder, conspiracy to murder and attempted rape.” Need a minute to digest all this? Good, because it gets worse.

According to the film’s script, “while all of the above is happening, they [the teens] suffer hallucinations, descend into insanity, associate with organized crime and (in one character’s case) commit suicide.” It will come as no surprise to you that the film was originally financed by a church group and “intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use.” Interestingly enough, one year after the film’s initial release, the uses of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes were effectively taxed out of existence in the US when the government introduced the Marijuana Tax Act (1937). All I can say about this is that it is a good thing I was a late bloomer when it comes to marijuana use, otherwise I would be writing this from my prison cell awaiting my third parole hearing to perhaps have my 25 to life sentence reduced for good behavior, and/or the fact that I was convicted of having in my possession one joint.

The film resurfaced in the early 70s, gaining new life as an unintentional satire among advocates of cannabis policy reform, that policy reform taking the better part almost five decades to get to where we are now. Of course, by the late 70s there was another film that put marijuana in a different perspective, to say the least, and that is Up in Smoke (1978). There have been many “stoner” movies, as they are affectionately called, since Up in Smoke debuted. Films like Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), Dazed and Confused (1993), Dude Where’s My Car (2000), How High (2001), Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle (2004), and Pineapple Express (2008), just to name a few. While these films do have other elements to them other than marijuana, in Up in Smoke marijuana is front and center. Two of the characters in the film, played by Strother Martin and Edie Adams, are named Mr. Stoner and Tempest Stoner! While the film was negatively received when it was released, it went on to be a “cult classic, and is credited with establishing the stoner film genre.

And then there are the books, lots of them. I will spare you a long list and just highlight some of my favorites from the recent past: 1. The Cannabis Grow Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing Marijuana for Recreational and Medical Use (2009); 2. How to Smoke Pot (Properly): A Highbrow Guide to Getting High (2016); 3. The Brain on Cannabis: What You Should Know About Recreational and Medical Marijuana (2021); 4. The Joy of Cannabis: 75 Ways to Amplify Your Life Through the Science and Magic of Cannabis (2023). (I have not read this one, nor was I consulted on any of the 75 ways!); 5. It’s Not Just a Plant: A Children’s Story About Marijuana (2020). I know what you’re thinking…okay maybe I don’t. I saved this one for last, because it segues nicely into the last book I want to highlight, which served as my trusted guide as I navigated through those smoke-filled years of the late 60s and 70s: A Child’s Garden Of Grass (The Official Handbook for Marijuana Users) (1969), by Jack S Margolis and Richard Clorfene.  I still have my copy! The title is taken from Robert Louis Stevenson’s collection of poetry entitled: A Child’s Garden of Verses. And as a tip of the hat to Stevenson, they begin every chapter with a complete poem from the collection that they feel fits the chapter’s material “very well.” Hmmm.

The book begins with a WARNING! “This is not a good book to hollow out and hide pot in,” and then the next page is the book’s INTRODUCTION: “Hi. We’re Dick and Jane.” And what book would be complete without a dedication:. “To the tortured soul of Harry J. Anslinger, former head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. If it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have a book.” While the authors certainly have both of their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks throughout this wonderful book, there are definitely things to learn from chapters, like “The Beginner,” “The Physical Effects,” “Grass As An Aphrodisiac,” “Acquiring Grass,” and “Smoking Grass,” just to name a few. However, my favorite chapter in the book, which just happens to be the shortest at just one page and eight words, is Chapter VIII, “The Dangers of Grass.” Turn the chapter heading page and you will see the following: “The dangers of using grass are: 1) – Getting busted.” Sadly, the original version of the book has been out of print for some time, but as I mentioned above, I still have my copy, and would be willing to trade it for some…

For clarification purposes, this book is about pot and hash. It is not about THC, CBD, CBN, CBG, CBC (no, not the Canadian television network), pheromones, gummies, cookies, edibles, mints, candies, perfumes, sodas, oils, topical ointments, sativa, indica, or hybrids (similar to the vehicle in that it’s like a “real” car, but not quite). Back in the day, when I was first “experimenting,” there was pot and there was hash, period. Dispensaries were where you went to get your prescription medications and “bud tenders” worked in horticulture and was not the term used for spaced-out looking individuals standing behind a counter, a little too eager to tell you all the wonderful things you will feel when imbibing their products. And let’s not forget “vaping,” which wasn’t even a thing until the early 2000s However, the word dates back to 1983 when author Rob Stepney wrote “Why Do People Smoke” for the New Scientist, in which he described “a hypothetical device: “an inhaler or ‘non-combustible’ cigarette, looking much like the real thing…”

Ah, the good old days, when “mad men” were simply street dealers that you stiffed, when a “bong” was a lit piece of hash on a paper clip stuck under a glass, and “spotting,” which we knew as “hot knives,” was all the rage. For the uninitiated, hot knives refers to the practice of wedging two kitchen knives under the burner of an electric stove until they are red hot, carefully removing them with oven mitts, and then placing a piece of hash or bud of grass between the knives and inhaling the smoke. Many years ago, my mom came over to the apartment I was living in for dinner, and when I set the table, I realized that all my knives were discolored for some reason! When my mom sat down to eat, she picked up her knife and said: “Irwin, you need to be more careful with where you put these knives!” I smiled and said: “Yes mom.”

Los Angeles 2024