Alexander Shulgin, who has been to contemporary times what Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were to the 60s, says things that are guaranteed to surprise you. Shulgin is a very good writer, making sense of these times.

On the Question of Marijuana's Safety

Dear Dr. Shulgin:

Based o­n the drug research that you have done, I would love to have your opinions concerning the use of marijuana. Does it cause learning problems? Does it damage the ability to store long-term memory? Does it make something go wrong in the brain? With all the anti-marijuana zealots out there, it is hard to get to the truth. — M.J.

Dear M.J.:

I am afraid I cannot be much of a source of truth here, as I really do not know. None of my research has dealt with the use of marijuana, and what I have read in the scientific literature leaves me with the impression that it is slanted towards the negative. This is not at all surprising, as our Government is dedicated to the presentation of the use of marijuana as a socially dangerous thing and o­ne that must be eventually brought under control. And this Government is the source of the permission, and of the marijuana itself, and of most of the funds that support the few research projects that do take place. As with most of the research in the area of psychotropic (and illegal) drugs, a researcher's continuing to be awarded future grants will depend o­n what he finds and reports from his earlier studies.

Kevin Zeese, the President of Common Sense for Drug Policy, wrote a chilling note recently, presenting the political side of the marijuana health issue. Tapes have recently been released of President Nixon's discussions in the Oval Office during the 1970-1971 period. Congress was uncertain of the appropriateness of placing marijuana in Schedule I in the new Controlled Substances Act, and thus created a commission to research the subject and recommend a long-term strategy. Nixon did most of the appointing of the members, with Raymond Schafer being the Chairman (it became known as the Schafer Commission) and nine others. Most were pretty much law-and-order people and bigwigs from a law school here and a mental health hospital there. Four members of Congress served o­n it as well.

This Schafer Commission was officially known as the National Commission o­n Marijuana and Drug Abuse, and it took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects and polled members of the criminal justice community. After reviewing all the evidence the commission came to an unexpected conclusion, unexpected to them, at least. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about removing it from the Federal drug law. Nixon heard about this, some months before the report was to be publicly released. He warned Schafer to get control of the Commission, and from the tapes o­ne hears that they must avoid looking like a “bunch of do-gooders,” who are “soft o­n marijuana.”

Nonetheless, the Commission recommended the decriminalization or non-profit transfer of marijuana. No punishment — criminal or civil — under State or Federal law. The day before the Commission released its report, the tapes show that Nixon had a different opinion. “We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' o­n all fronts … we have to attack o­n all fronts.” Aiming towards the 1972 presidential election year, Nixon proposed that he do “a drug thing every week” that would make a “Goddamn strong statement about marijuana … that just tears the ass out of them.” These tapes are at www.csdp.org.

I am sure that this report might well address some of the questions that you have asked. Unfortunately, those experiments that can document the quality of learning or of memory, with or without marijuana use, are virtually undoable. Looking at people I know, I can see no suggestion that those who are users are in a mental class distinct from those who are not users. A precious example of the political anti-marijuana mind-set can be had from the answer from John Lawn, the former head of the DEA, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, February 1986.

Question: “What's wrong with legalizing marijuana?”

Answer: “I think that if we decide upon legalization, we can forget democracy as we now know it. In experiment animals mutations in the brain caused by marijuana is (sic) found not o­nly in the user or the user's offspring, but in the offspring's offspring. The dangers associated with cannabis are different than those associated with alcohol. Marijuana is fat-soluble and o­ne third of the brain is fat.”

As Molder's wall-poster said, o­n the X-Files, “The Truth Is Out There”, but I do not think we will have factual answers to your questions within my lifetime.

–Dr. Shulgin

Dr. Alexander Shulgin is a chemist and author. He has created over 200 novel compounds with visionary properties. His Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE)  supports public policies that foster and protect cognitive liberty: the right of each individual to think independently, to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought.

On this festive day, this seems like the right kind of post. I expected this rundown of winners in a contest to come up with locations of Iraq's missing WMD to be all over the Net after I got it from listmember Ed Herman — of all serious people to send out something so funny — but I haven't seen it otherwise.  Thanks Ed.  This comes from “In the Loop,” a column Al Kamen writes in the Washington Post.

Where Are the WMD? The Winners Are . . .

By Al Kamen, 6/30/03

Finally, we have some solid clues as to the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of Loop Fans submitted excellent suggestions, which we'll be forwarding to the appropriate authorities.

Here are the top 10 entries, in no particular ranking:

• “He changed the invoices and had them shipped to, and stored at, the National Records Center in Suitland, Md. All we need to find them is the right reference number. I believe they are next to the box which has the Ark of the Covenant.” — Alfred H. Novotne, an attorney with the Army at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.

• “Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons have been ground into radioactive bird feed in order to raise a species of super chickens capable of scratching out simple subtraction problems in the dirt. These new chickens will be known as Capons of Math Deduction.” — Lewis Roth, assistant executive director of Americans for Peace Now.

• “He gave them to Martha Stewart to conceal. She hand-gilded the shells and used her hot-glue gun to attach them to wreaths and swags. Surrounded by tinted seed-pods, dried hydrangea blossoms and sprigs of eucalyptus, they hang now upon doors and over windows across New England and the mid-Atlantic.” — Brenda Clough, financial manager of the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association.

• “I saw them in a white van with a ladder rack, somewhere o­n the road in the D.C. region. Maybe Chief Moose can help us find it.” — John Raffetto, a vice president at Infotech Strategies, a D.C. public relations firm.

• “They're hiding the WMD in the Boston Red Sox bullpen: Those guys are getting paid a lot of money to protect something, and it ain't leads.” — Keith Cunningham, a senior analyst with the General Accounting Office.

• “A town along the Euphrates, halfway from Baghdad to Syria, whose name sounds like a let's-laugh-up-our-sleeves, hide-it-in-plain-sight, kind of place: Al Hadithah. That would be how someone with a southern accent (perhaps a Texan?) might say, 'I'll hide it there.' ” — the Rev. Peter W. Rehwaldt, coordinator, office of institutional research at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif.

• “I have them,” signed Jayson Blair, journalist, New York, New York — forwarded by Robin D. Grove, an environmental consultant in Maryland.

• “At the Lost and Found/Bell Captain's Desk of the hotel in Baghdad where Donald Rumsfeld stayed in Dec. 1983.” — Byron Sigel, director, Japan Program, the Nature Conservancy, Tokyo.

• “Saddam lost them to Bill Bennett in a high-stakes game of Caribbean Poker.” — Notre Dame student John T. Long of Daytona Beach, Fla.

• “WMD will be found lying o­n the ground in a walkway behind Saddam Hussein's house, probably next to an ill-fitting glove.” — Sara Ulyanova, an English teacher in San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

There were five honorable mentions.

• “Saddam returned his WMD to the Baghdad Wal-Mart for credit. They're in the stock room with seasonal goods.” — retired Foreign Service officer Gerald C. Mattran, Springfield, Va.

• “A thorough search of the Gulf of Tonkin might be revealing.” — Kim Schmidgall, Oxnard, Calif.

• “They have been secreted away in Sammy Sosa's bats.” — Washington lawyer Asheesh Agarwal (the first of many).

• “The WMD are in the same place as all the loans we made to Ghana.” — Alex Riley, relationship officer at the Export-Import Bank.

Finally, this o­ne, “Political Party Answers to the question,” doesn't help the search teams, but . . .

• “Republican: Bill Clinton is hiding them and if you don't send us money, Hillary will be president.

Democrat: Ronald Reagan got them back in 1986 and forgot to tell anyone.

Green: Ralph Nader would have found them.

Socialists/Communists: Let's hire all the Iraqi people; o­ne of them will tell us o­nce they are all equal.

Independents: The administration lied about WMD? And this is news, how?” — Bill Lawhorn, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What does anybody think of the latest from Ken Wilber? In case anybody o­n this list is strictly political and doesn't know about Wilber, Roger Walsh, another leader of thought, whom I respect, says this about him: “Ken Wilber is o­ne of the greatest philosophers of this century and arguably the greatest theoretical psychologist of all time.” And Ken Wilber’s site, that we are talking about in this post, Integral Naked, says this:

“Integral Naked is a series of largely unedited, uncensored, live, and taped-live conversations between the most influential, provocative, and important thinkers and leaders in today's world. Many of these are moderated by Ken Wilber, considered the most influential integral thinker in the world today, and his colleagues at Integral Institute.”

I am reeling from recent emails to Ken Wilber's list, wondering if the body snatchers got our hero. Say it isn't so, Ken — tell us that these things were sent without your knowledge.

So, here goes to recount to you what has happened.

First, listmembers got this letter. (Listmembers can't post to the list — someone from the Ken Wilber end decides what is sent.) It leveled a criticism, in a very respectful tone, at something I agree is shocking that Wilber has done:

From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com    o­n Behalf Of David MacClelland
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:16 PM
To: KenWilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] Integral Naked Web Site

Dear Ken:

I have many of your books, which I read with interest to appreciate how another person attempts to put into words the comprehensions resulting from peak spiritual experiences and deep meditation. It is comforting, and humbling, to recognize the subjects of your interpretive concepts that seem so much more encompassing and well stated than my own “amateur” attempts at trying to describe this new-found knowledge and o­neness, this enlightenment.

In contrast with your books, I was disappointed with your new “Integral Naked” web site, which itself is an admirable concept were it not for the overbearing sexual innuendo theme. I may have missed something, but I cannot imagine what motives appeared to justify undermining the dignity of the subject matter, and the speakers, in such a crass manner. Perhaps the intent was to appeal to the immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males among us. It is true, in the shallow thinking, egocentric, mass market world, that sex sells, but can you not see how immature, divisive, discriminating and exclusionary this theme is for those of deeper thoughts and consciousness, of both genders? Isn't it possible that many contributors, perhaps potentially valuable, might turn away because of this theme? Isn't that ironic for a site that purports to be a global base for the encouragement of integral, inclusive thinking and the support for the development of yellow (and up) meme leaders for the betterment of all?

I wish you well with the Integral Institute and the new Multiplex learning concept. Now, if you could just fix that Integral Naked site theme!

Regards,

David MacClelland

I was appalled to see the response, from another listmember, that was sent out to the list:

From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com   o­n Behalf Of Mark Edwards
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 3:39 AM
To: kenwilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland

Dear Ken Wilber list,

An open response to David MacClelland’s concern with “Naked”-ness

Dear David

You are way, way off the mark with your perception that the “Integral Naked” web site has an “overbearing sexual innuendo theme”. You should really get out more often and read some of the Bible while you’re there – The Song of Wisdom might be a good place to start or maybe even Ramana Maharshi's “The Marital Garland of Letters”, or perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec's “The Kingdom of Lovers”, (dare I mention the “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyam).

Does it “undermine the dignity” of the naked human body to place it within the context of human spiritual development? Is it “crass” to speak of the nakedness of our, all too human, endeavours to know the Good, the True and the Beautiful? The Kosmic drive of Eros includes not o­nly the naked physical body but all the bodies that we (and all beings) are and have as we travel the Long Way. If it was good enough for Leonardo, it’s good enough for me.

What, don't tell me! Could it be that all this talk of the naked body, the naked spirit, the naked self, the naked beauty of being human might actually appeal to “immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males”. How dreadful!!

You think it ironic David that nakedness is a theme for a site that wishes to “encourage integral and inclusive thinking” . There’s no irony there that I can see. What my simple Aussie mind does see as ironic however, is that you can find the word “naked” confronting and off-putting when all the while you are actually completely naked under your clothes all the time, even now, even as you composed your little message. Now that is ironic.

Are you a Christian David? Do the Christian mystics speak to you al all? Perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec, Heinrich Seuse, Jacob Boehme might stimulate your “deeper thoughts”.

You must know that the spirit, according to its essence, receives the coming of Christ in the Nakedness of its nature, without means and without interruption. … And this why the spirit in essence possess God in the Nakedness of His nature.

Come now, open the eyes of thy mind, and gaze if thou canst, o­n Being in its naked and simple purity.

Disciple: O where is this naked Ground of the Soul void of all Self, and how shall I comprehend it?
Master: If you go about to comprehend it, then it will fly away from you; but if you surrender yourself wholly up to it, then it will abide with you, and become the Life of your Life, and be natural to you.

To bring our nakedness before the mystery and to truly see the bare truth and beauty that resides there – what better theme, what more appropriate image, what more apt language could there be for a site that attempts to help us lift the veil from our poor tired eyes.

Open up your mind and your heart David and enter unclothed into the simple naked world of poetic imagination – our greatest dreams lie there.

All the best to you

Mark Edwards

Sooooo, I wrote to the list manager. It has been 4 days now, and I've heard nothing from the Wilber world or from the writer of the first letter, who no doubt hasn't seen my email.

From: Suzanne Taylor [mailto:suzanne@mightycompanions.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:05 AM
To: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Cc: Mark Edwards
Subject: RE: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland

Although my two cents o­n the issue at hand, of whether the site is tasteless, is more resonant with MacClelland than with Edwards, that's secondary to dealing with the nature of the communication from Mark Edwards. David MacClelland's respectful cry of alarm could have been fodder for some thoughtful exchanges, but this antagonistic and arrogant response from Mark Edwards o­nly can engender a dualistic combat zone. Hopefully it wasn't sent out by Ken Wilber as a sanctioned response to MacClelland. Woe is us if that is true.

If you don't send this email to the list, please pass it o­n to David MacClelland. I thought what he wrote had merit, and I appreciated the gentle tone of his communication. Also, my hope would be that enough people would write thoughtful protests for Ken Wilber to consider changing the Integral Naked site, which I think could marginalize his body of work. Sex carries too much baggage, I believe, in the collective psyche, to have something intended to be transformational to the species to be appreciated when cloaked in a clever lasciviousness.

Suzanne Taylor
suzanne@mightycompanions.org
http://TheConversation.org

This whole thing is upsetting to me. Bad enough that we are in the political mess we are in, but when what purports to elevate us in fact diminishes us, what then? My two cents is that attention needs to be paid. What do you all think?