A nice little facebook exchange with Nora Callahan, executive director of the November Coalition, led to two more aphoristic observations from which research questions can be derived. And by research here folks, right now I mean send me responses that can help shape how the research is designed and processed — democratically, not technocratically.
This exchange was inspired by the excellent analysis by “W.W.” from Houston Texas, writing in the Economist Blog. W.W., if you are out there, the Center is very interested in meeting you!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/marijuana-legalisation
So, here you go:
As we go along, I also want to incorporate a bit of scientific method, which is to say that we must clearly define our null hypothesis, and then try to disprove it by gathering data.
Null hypothesis: Cannabis is never common ground.
Process: search for evidence that disproves the null hypothesis in a robust fashion.
Cannabis is common ground. Cannabis consumption has allowed otherwise disinterested, structurally more privileged citizens to learn about structural racism, structural problems with our medical system and so forth.
Have you experienced this? Please comment below.
On a related note, Cannabis is a gateway to knowledge about one’s place in society at large. Not for everyone, but for how many. Null hypothesis: Cannabis is never a gateway to knowledge about one’s place in society at large. Evidence to the contrary disproves the null hypothesis …