@College

Here we are at the tip of a new semester. For us here at Central Michigan University, we are entering Spring semester 2010. Lucky us. This is my sixteenth semester as a student. I evidently spent the the majority of the first decade of the twenty-first century in college learning how to be an obedient middle-class consumer. The joke is on them, however, since I went above and beyond the requirements of the BS program, got my Master's degree and am now bound for a Doctorate degree. My inner elitist is beaming because I feel as though I slipped through the proverbial cracks in the system to a more elucidated understanding of reality as it actually exists. It's like I've awoken from the Matrix. But I know this is a feeling that even freshmen feel after their first semester of any humanities class that is firmly rooted in socialist/Marxist thought.

I have to feign interest in this class I am currently enrolled in called Cultural Pluralism in Literature for Children and Young Adults. There are four men in the class, and about thirty women, including a professor who looks like she could be a fourth grade teacher or elementary school librarian. I guess that is the point. Most people have this misconception that Literature for children is a field for women and elementary school educators. This mentality is correlated to another that subverts the euro-masculine epistemology for another epistemology that preaches equality but instead has its own built in marginalization and discrimination. They call this "multiculturalism." The contradiction is that multiculturalism has built into a hierarchy of cultures, and places "Western culture" at the bottom while saying that all "Other" cultures marginalized by Western culture deserve the spotlight or at least the kind of attention that Westerners gave themselves over the course of their history.

Of course it is complicated because of the reclamation process that is undergoing by every marginalized culture at once. Because this uprising consists of several cultures at once, attacking a multifaceted dominant culture, a dichotomy is created out of the abstracted opposing cultures. There are several problematic implications here, namely that the specificity and uniqueness of particular cultures is lost on both sides of the dichotomy. This makes the task of those promoting "cultural sensitivity" tedious to the point of futile. With this realized, the only reason to maintain such a position is for the sake of vanity. It is my hope that those bleeding heart idealists don't realize the contradiction in being completely reactionary from traditional Western values. Remember: not all progress is regress.

The next step is to determine what is so plural about cultural plurality. My hypothesis is that it is a fluid, dynamic of domination and repression between different alliances of people brought together by various factors such as family, need, etc. The key is to control what matters most to each particular alliance of people in order to control the choices each alliance, or society, will make.

Cerebral vs Visceral Experience

People enjoy getting fucked up. This has really been the case since early civilization began to develop and monks began experimenting with different fermenting techniques. They figured out how to ferment grain, and voilà--humans were no longer nomads. At least that is the story someone told me.. the myth of the genesis of alcohol.

In America, we have a strange contradiction in the legal system. In many circles the discussion has become cliche with the extent that it is merely a self-satisfying circle-jerk for like-minded people who want to rant about the system of control in which they are trapped. I'm talking, of course, about the marijuana vs alcohol debate.

Some people drink alcohol, and frown upon pot smoking. Some people smoke pot, and drink, too. There are probably even those who smoke pot, but frown upon drinking. I haven't met many people who smoke pot but are purposefully against drinking, but there are those who refrain from drinking in favor of smoking marijuana. The reason that these two very popular recreational substances are so interesting in light of one another is because one is legal and one is illegal. Yet, the usage of both is perhaps the same in the age group 18-28.

Personally, I prefer smoking over drinking and I don't like to mix the two. When they mix, I usually get the spins. I've asked people, and they all say they feel the same way. This is a positive thing for some--a negative for others. The reason these substances in compound create such mixed feelings among users is because they intoxicate in a fundamentally different way.

When a person gets high, THC is absorbed into their bloodstream and creates a euphoric effect. This feeling is best described as a "cerebral" experience. Sometimes people smoke weed that produces a "body buzz," but the most commonly affected part of the body when smoking is the brain. This is why once high, a person will begin to notice a more active imagination. Paranoia is evidence of an over-active imagination. But in essence, pot smokers primarily think more, or perceive that they are thinking more because of marijuana's primary intoxicating effect.

Alcohol is a different story altogether. Once alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream it is filtered by the liver. As opposed to the feeling of increased sensitivity in marijuana intoxication, alcohol sedates the user, and makes the user desensitized. This is why drinking and dancing go hand in hand. The user is desensitized and uninhibited, and can really only feel the percussive elements of the music. Stoned people, as opposed to drunk people, may be more inclined to musical intricacies and complexities. Drunk people just want a good beat and refrain so they can dance and sing along without having to remember much.

Alcohol is a visceral experience. This means it is mostly a bodily experience. People drink to get out of their head, to drown their problems--at least that is one reason why people enjoy drinking. Drinking allows one to let their guard down by releasing their inhibitions. Weed makes people more paranoid because every thought is amplified.

All of these assertions are rooted in personal experience. Either I have made these observations about smoking and drinking, or I've learned them through discussion with people about drinking and smoking experiences. So, take it all with a grain of salt--but don't dismiss it all together logomaniacs.

Another interesting issue about the debate between marijuana and alcohol is that one is more lethal than the other, and yet it is legal. Alcohol is far more lethal than marijuana. It is possible to drink enough alcohol to be poisoned, not to mention the consequences of being intoxicated and have all of your senses dulled and impaired. Marijuana has a toxicity, but it would require more than 750 joints of the most potent strain of ganj, and they would have to be smoked in less than fifteen minutes in order to reach overdose. Realistically, no one could smoke that much. Additionally, marijuana does not impair the motor functions of most users.

On average, the general reaction is to be hungry, happy and lazy, with plenty of deep and colorful thoughts to keep you company. Alcohol can also make a person happy, but it can also make a person sentimental. The difference between being happy and sentimental is that sentimentality be emotionally multi-polar. There also is a risk of using alcohol intoxication as an excuse to be excessively emotive, saying and doing things they wouldn't normally do if sober.

Marijuana brings out the lethargy in the person using it; alcohol brings out the animal. Marijuana is a cerebral experience, and alcohol is a visceral. One is mostly a euphoria of the mind, the other of the body. This explains why the mixing of the two causes such...undesirable...results. Again, whether this is really undesirable varies from user to user.

Other contentions against the usage of Marijuana is that it is currently illegal in the United States. This is reason enough for some people to stay away from it, but not everyone follows the speed limit all the time. Of course, there are certain rules that people are suppose to abide by when imbibing alcohol, and those limitations are often pushed--hence the amount of advertisement threatening the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol.

So, should people smoke even though it is illegal? People still drive even though drinking is illegal. Is drinking and driving the same as smoking and driving? As I have tried to explain the intoxicating effects of the two substances are entirely different, and should not be treated as though they are the same. Paradoxically, they should be considered with the same criteria when it comes to determining their legality.

I'm inclined to promote a philosophy that suggests that what is necessary to govern the flock is irrelevant to a single sheep. That is granted that the sheep can think for itself. But we aren't sheep--we are complex biological organisms that have developed ideological structures to help organize and control the masses. Individuals often slip through the nets cast out to keep everything contained. And there are too few people both loyal and zealous enough to hunt down and enforce the ideals that hold civilization together. Therefore, I do believe that if one is responsible enough, confrontation with law enforcement should be avoidable.

Finally, I'm not suggesting that marijuana is better than alcohol, but I am saying that they serve two different purposes when it comes to recreational intoxication. Also, great care should be taken when mixing the two as excesses of both can lead to serious and/or unwelcome consequences. Enjoy your leisure time, have fun and do what you will--but harm none with malice.