Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana

New submitter Colin Castro writes with an exceprt from the San Francisco Chronicle that reveals a different side of Carl Sagan: MarijuanaMajority.com founder Tom Angell spent a few days this summer in the Library of Congress researching the iconic American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and author and has come away with a bounty. Angell says he found some never-before-released writings on marijuana policy from the author of classics such as 'Contact' and the TV show 'Cosmos', which is the most widely watched series in the history of American public television. ... I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs,' Sagan wrote in 1971, under the name Mr. X.

Comments

Argument from authority

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Sagan's popular science work, and so do a lot of you. So what? His opinion on marijuana policy is no more valid than anybody else's.

Re:Argument from authority

[i kan reed]

Well, it's more valid than the status quo that imprisons millions of people for dumb-as-hell reasons derived from 1960s moral panics and 1920s racism.

Re:Argument from authority

[Deadstick]

He seems to have gone into it with an open mind, made observations, and drawn conclusions...if you study the process by which cannabis became contraband, "no more valid than anybody else's" starts to look a little silly.

But if we change, who will provide cheap prisoners

[WillAffleckUW]

Nobody thinks of the economic impact of freeing millions and millions of American citizens from indentured servitude.

How will the prison industrial complex get cheap labor if we legalize MJ, which is used to imprison non-whites and seize all their assets without warrants?

If the South has to give that up, it could be the end of the plantations!

Who cares?

[StikyPad]

Can we take Carl off the pedestal yet? I know, it's hard to let go of childhood heroes, but almost all of his "contributions" to science were of a metaphysical nature, which is to say, not really scientific contributions at all. These writings included.

Re:Who cares?

[Immerman]

You seem to be acting on the assumption that the only benefit of popularizing science is to attract future scientists into the field - and in that context I would agree, good K-12 science teachers would be better. But then again, how many of those do we actually have, especially in backwater places where they may be under undue pressure to skip ? And really, we've got plenty of scientists, more than the available funding can support.

What I see as one of the great benefits of popularizing science is that it helps make the general population less ignorant and more willing to listen to (and fund) scientists. Sure, you're not going to convert a lot of Creationists with Sagan's brief summary of evolution, but you'll increase the number of people who understand the science well enough to not be suckered in to that fantasy land. So long as churches and snake-oil salesman of all types are allowed to spread their foolishness we need a cultural counterweight to spread the voice of reason among the populace.

Re:what an idiot

[King_TJ]

Actually, your comment shows you narrow-mindedness.

Sure, people who are under the influence of perception-altering drugs seem annoying to listen to or be around. But being "unable to think straight" means they're thinking in very non-standard/non-traditional ways. I think attributes such as one's creativeness, imagination or even intelligence level, aren't subject to change just by taking drugs. But the creative mind, under those conditions, might well come up with some very interesting things that it wasn't likely to come up with while the brain was functioning normally.

Driving is a task that requires a particular set of skills and behaviors; none of which would be enhanced (or even remain unaffected) by getting drunk. That's pretty irrelevant to asking if, say, the artist under the influence of LSD might create more interesting music or artwork than he/she did without it.

Re:What 20 years of research on pot has taught us

[UnknownSoldier]

> Adverse effects of acute cannabis use
- Cannabis does not produce fatal overdoses.

Indeed! There is no LD50 for Cannabis that I'm aware of ...

It is hypocritical that some far worse drugs have social acceptance such as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, while safer drugs are socially ostracized.

Re:Prove him right some more

[Mr. Slippery]

This is not a new kind of perception, it's a chemical illusion

And what sort of perception is not "a chemical illusion"? Is the feeling you get when you comprehend Cantor's diagonalization proof an illusion? The feeling you get from listening to the music of Bach? The feeling you get when you look up and see a meteor streak by? Everything you experience supervenes on neurochemistry, and a cannabis experience is no less valid on that basis than any other.

Re:Prove him right some more

[Kingofearth]

If our perception is fallible and illusory, doesn't that necessarily imply that there is "something else out there" beyond what we perceive? How can someone believe their perception of reality is inaccurate while simultaneously dismissing the notion that there is more to our existence than we understand?

And how can our internal experiences (feelings) be meaningless when they're the essence of what we are as conscious beings and are the only things we can be certain of?