Frankster
Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
- 5,188
- 313
In rebuttal, look at roses, tomatoes, or even Papaver Somniferum. All of which have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hybrids just like cannabis, and only some fall under the labeling of heirloom. Heirloom specifically being a line that's been bred in isolation for generations to retain very particular traits. I cannot say that the majority falls into that group, just like non-heirloom tomato seeds.
Anymore, nearly every cannabis lineage is a hybrid of hybrids, lines being worked for a year or two by chuckers masquerading as breeders, and further diluting the gene pool instead of keeping specific lines of historical significance pure and robust. The only way to acquire truly "pure" genetics is to source them from specific geographic regions -- thereby garnering the reasonable use of the label "heirloom."
I'd further contend that while food crops may not carry the same mystique cannabis has (per Terrence McKenna, cannabis was once thought to be the Soma discussed in Sumerian texts, as were poppies, mushrooms, and other food crops), but they have carried significant cultural weight. Look at the Southwestern Native American tribes, for instance. Masa, or corn, is of utmost importance to their cultures, as are tobacco and cannabis. Deviating slightly from main food crops, the same can be said of citrus to the SIberian cultures, ayahuasca plant groups to the Central and South American indigenous peoples, San Pedro cacti (generalized term for this purpose) to the Bolivian and Peruvian tribes, and Coca to the Columbian and Peruvian peoples.
It's not just cannabis that's special, or historically significant so there is no reason to put it on a pedestal when really, there are much more culturally significant plants on earth than an herb that gives a mild high with some medicinal benefits. I personally cannot put such a significant delineation on cannabis, as if it's something completely unique from the thousands of other medicinal plants throughout history. I just don't see it having as widespread historical significance as many wish it did. Before Harry Anslinger in the 1930s, it wasn't even that big of a deal, so that begs the question:
How much has global prohibition influenced the reverence given to cannabis, and made it take on this air of significance where previously it was treated no more special than other flowers and food crops? It has its place in history, certainly. It doesn't hold a candle to many other crops in terms of true single-handed cultural influence though, and shouldn't be addressed in any specially unique way.
Some of the biggest reasons I raise that question are (a) prohibition was started on inherently racist and economic foundations and (b) it's the most harmless of the prohibited plants as one can smoke a joint and go about their day. Can't say the same after drinking a potent poppy pod tea, or eating a handful of peyote.
Sorry for the rant... this deviated a bit from the topic at hand. It's an interesting thing to discuss, for sure.
Heirloom is an excellent term, I'm not against it whatsoever. It's more descriptive than what we currently use.
No doubt you've made some good points. I think when it comes down to it, like other cultural things, some people are going to hold things dear, that others might not, or other might even actively shun, or suppress. Like the days of the buffalo, it was a means of control, to destroy someone's culture, only to remake them in your own image. (So called benevolent approach of reforming the savage.). When you mention things like Harry Anslinger, in the 30's, your really looking at cannabis though the lens of a white man's perspective. When you observe it through the histories of the peoples of South East Asia, or the Middle East, I think there's a longstanding significant history that predates the modern historical record, and just hasn't either been a subject of worthwhile study, or perhaps lost to the ages of time.
I would claim that potent strains of cannabis have existed for centuries, maybe not @20%+, but certainy in the 5-7% range, maybe even as high as 10-12%... I just don't think it's part of the historical record. Man's been at this a long, long, time. We actually have an endocannabinoid system, how did we manage that one?
Modern science, and especially historical records are constantly being revised. When I grew up, black holes were not even contemplated, now they are a known (and fairly understood) phenomena. The hubris of man, don't get me started on that one, it's a predominate feature of modern man.
Last edited: