The Definitive Blog of Jacob Moya.
This Will Destroy You, Explosions in the Sky, and We Were Promised Jetpacks, all with new albums.
This morning on Facebook, someone posted the above image which linked to a message at the ALA against marijuana usage. If you click on the above link, you’ll be led to a short advertorial which will in turn lead you to two more advertorials and a link to a PDF of a pamphlet which includes references to other more serious resources. Those more serious resources I have yet to read. My goal is not to give you the facts or to tell you you whether the above supposed facts are true. But I can tell you this. If you smoke and your lungs become discolored, they don’t become discolored at the very bottom only, with a solid line between the colored and discolored portions. And I am guessing the healthy portion doesn’t look like fresh steak your whole life.
We all knew the above link would not redirect to a study or anything like it. We are on to the way these things work. The fact is, the American Lung Association is not critical of the DIRECT physical affects of marijuana use on the lungs, anyway. Rather, they are committed to the federal regulation of marijuana usage for the following not-so-simple reason: marijuana is overwhelmingly consumed through smoke inhalation, and it just so happens that as far as occurrences of smoke inhalation are concerned, they most often happen when someone’s smoking tobacco cigarettes. Go figure. Furthermore, it is the smoking of tobacco cigarettes that has a direct correlation to millions (to be generous) of deaths in the US., and thus marijuana, and probably alongside it, hemp and tie-dye, and the Grateful Dead, are guilty by association. But why?
Officially, the ALA is not PRIMARILY any of the following: pro-lungs, pro-fresh air, anti-smoke, anti-asphyxiation, pro-happiness, anti-drugs or pro-health. Their views on those issues will likely vary in interest. Here is a copy of the ALA Public Policy Position. Surprisingly, The ALA does NOT exist to “fight for air” as their tagline suggests…well not directly anyway. There goal is summed up as follows: “A tobacco-free society.” Now, perhaps this is for the sake of strategy—branding, as it is called, like Philip Morris existing to promote the general well being of society—but still, we learn a valuable lesson about the modern world, about the power of casting a vision and staying on message, of tactics and strategy, when we take a closer look at these types of campaigns.
Why are they picking on cannabis, then? Because it is apparently a “gateway drug” to the activities that cause lung cancer and other smoke-related illnesses and deaths. How much of a “gateway drug” doesn’t matter. Whether there are other more significant “gateway drugs” also doesn’t matter. It is as if the term “gateway drug” now means “somehow loosely connected,” not that it was ever a very useful term in the first place, at least not in these kind of situations.
The ALA’s commitment is to stigmatize all smoke inhalation AS WELL AS “smoke inhalation related activities.” Here’s the rub. Why pick on one cultural aspect for its apparent connection to other “potentially” harmful cultural activities? It is because we can’t be trusted with culture. And that is far worse than marijuana regulation. That’s mind control, buddy. And the ALA is not the only organization that engages in this…obviously.
The ALA doesn’t pick on s’mores or campfire songs or beef brisket, because they know that they can trust us with those types of cultural artifacts. They know we won’t get the wrong idea. All thanks be to the mighty ALA! But why pick on smokeless tobacco or tobacco-related products like candy cigarettes, even though they’re “fighting for air?” Because they are not really “fighting for air.” If they were to be completely honest, they would say they are not even essentially anti-tobacco. In reality, they’re against you getting the wrong idea. And frankly, you probably would.