Connect with us

Alternative News

How Addicted Are We? Kicking The Smartphone Addiction

Published

on

I’ve had a love-hate relationship with my smartphone since 2010.

advertisement - learn more

When I first turned it on I sensed life was never going to be the same. The ease of writing text messages in a stream of conversation. So many old devices all wrapped up into one. Boundless internet connectivity. This thing was awesome… and I was suspicious.

The last six years, insofar as my smartphone is concerned, have gone like this: awe, suspicion, cautious adoption, addiction, suspicion, and rejection. This is the story of that journey, and life less connected.

Technological Abuse

Through the 2000s I dabbled in techno-pessimism. I was drawn to this idea that technology can provide us great gifts with the one hand, and stab us in the back with other. Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb then pleaded for it to never be used. Rachel Carson sounded the alarm on DDT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us to curtail the burning of fossil fuels or we’ll melt the polar ice caps.

When we make new things a part of our world, or our lives, we should be thoughtful about their potential to harm, destroy, or displace. Reckless adoption seems to consistently get us into trouble.

So, in this vein, I aimed to cautiously use my new smartphone to supplement, not substitute, real world engagement.

advertisement - learn more

Bowling Alone

Around this same time, I was studying the rise of the Religious Right in the US and the conditions that led to the born-again movement and its politicization. It turns out the phenomenon happened in lockstep with a few important social trends: lower community involvement, less time spent with friends and family, and declining social trust. As Harvard political scientist Dr. Robert Putnam argued, we had become less trusting and more isolated. And, as psychologists like Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers have pointed out, we don’t like feeling lonely. A sense of safety, belonging, and purpose are core human needs. The more we feel that void, the more we seek to fill it — or ignore it.

What caused this alienation?

Putnam looked at a host of factors starting in the 1950s through the 1990s, including: suburbanization, lower trust in government, economic forces, and spectator entertainment. His conclusion was that the most powerful cause was television or, more accurately, the time we spent watching television.

When I was a child my grandfather used to scold us, “turn off that idiot box and go play outside.” He was on to something.

Psychological Manipulation

Something else interesting happened in the 90s. Advertising companies began using language like, “supporter engagement” and building “brand communities.” Logos were big and ubiquitous but were not enough. Marketers realized they could engineer cult-like support by building trust, and loyalty, and — most importantly — becoming a platform for interpersonal relationships. Saturn Motors organized “Homecomings” for their vehicle owners. Lululemon Athletica hosted yoga sessions in their stores. The Running Room created local running clubs that started at their shops. Brands didn’t want to just tell us how great they were, they wanted to become an active part of our lives.

These were the pioneers for the social media age.

Today’s social web — and games — exploit many more psychological hooks. Likes, shares, followers, comments, messages all carry micro stimuli: a buzz, a flash, a notification, a reward. These stimuli are designed to fire a release of dopamine. Input becomes associated with gratification, which, if abused, can lead to obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Tech companies now openly discuss designing “compulsion loops” that result in obsessions with their applications. As Bill Davidow of the Atlantic put it, “Many Internet companies are learning what the tobacco industry has long known — addiction is good for business.”

One problem with addiction is that eventually you become numb. It takes more hits to solicit a response. Then you start to do it because that’s your new baseline. This can lead to many more mental health issues like detachment and depression.

The End Of Absence

By 2013 I was totally hooked.

I had worked for years in digital strategy and political campaigns. Staying on the cutting edge was my jam. And to be honest, I found the frontier fascinating. But it became totally unhealthy. I was checking work emails at dinner. Thumbing through my Instagram feed on the bus because I was bored, or anxious. I’d fall asleep reading a news article while my partner watched Netflix. We’d face away from each other, back-to-back. The phone had become an extension of reality. I had placed it between other people and myself. I used it to substitute real world face-time. At its worst, the over-connection created new anxieties, à la Portlandia’s technology-loop.

In the spring of 2015 I woke up to feeling disconnected. Disconnected from people, but also moments. Less present, less aware. My short-term memory had become terrible. The transition from sleep and being awake became less clear. I’d go through the daily motions, ear buds in, spending the majority of the day looking at a screen. I even felt sluggish, as if my energy was being drained, which led to another crutch: coffee.

So I downloaded an app that tracks your daily smartphone usage called BreakFree. Given the nature of my work, and my symptoms, I assumed I was somewhere on the more extreme side of the spectrum. Turns out I’m only slightly above average.

According to a study by Locket the average user checks his or her phone 150 times per day. Another study estimated that the average 18-33 year-old spend five hours a day looking at a screen. Close to 55% of us sleep with our smartphones on our bedside table, 13% keep it on our bed, and 3% fall asleep with it in their hand. This may help explain why three quarters of women in committed relationships feel that smartphones are interfering with their love life. The mere presence of a phone on a table leads to more shallow conversation, lowering the amount of empathy exchanged.

How Addicted Are We?

In a 2015 Pew Research Centre study 24% of teens described going online “almost constantly.” Surveys in the United States and Europe from 2012 indicate Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) rates varying between 1.5% and 8.2%. Other reports place the rates between 6% and 18.5%. The Governments of China and South Korea have already declared IAD a significant public health threat. Usage is highest among Millenials, which means if we stay the course these trends will only worsen.

Artists, satirists, and public commentators are trying to point out the sickness and the absurdity.

Erik Pickersgill’s photo series Removed features people in normal social situations looking at their phones (the phones are edited out). In all the photos no one looks particularly entertained or happy. Award-winning Israeli filmmakers Shosh Shlam and Hilla Medalia followed young Chinese men as they spent three months at a military style anti-addiction rehab centre in their PBS documentary, Web Junkies. Louis C.K. eloquently pointed out cellphone use is now the number one cause of motor vehicle accidents in North America. My personal favourite is Darby Cisneros’ stinging critique of “Instragram Reality” via her now inactive Hipster Barbie account.

Even President Obama chimed in, “Put your phones down. I’m right here.”

Searching for guidance I mentioned my symptoms to a friend. She recommended I try meditating and mindfulness exercises. So I got an app for that. Another friend recommended I read Michael Harris’ The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost in a World of Constant Connection.

Harris’ thesis is that anyone born before the mid 1980s will be the last generation in human history to know the pre and post Internet era. “I fear we are the last of the daydreamers. I fear our children will lose lack, lose absence and never comprehend its quiet, immeasurable value.”

That was the tipping point. It was only after reading Harris’ book that I realized what I was missing was absence. And through absence I would find presence. My relationship with technology needed a serious course correction. It wasn’t enough to simply recognize the dependency; it was time to take control.

Brave New World 

I started by decoupling my work email from my phone. I sent an email to my Board and told them I was “trying something new” and would no longer respond to work emails outside work hours. That helped, but it only made a small dent in my pattern.

Then, through a stroke of good fortune, I lost my phone while on vacation. I was upset for a few hours then saw it as a blessing. Okay, that’s it. I’m out. I called my provider and asked them to switch me to the most basic plan: Text and Calling only. Then I found a $15 ol’ school Nokia phone on Craigslist. Apparently it’s a growing global market, and not just for drug dealers. All the key functions are there: calling, texting, alarm clock, calendar. Apps are gone, as is Internet connection. So is the capacity to play music, take good pictures, and do group messaging.

For most functions lost there are workarounds. At the airport I print out my boarding pass. Before I go somewhere new I print a map, or write down the directions. If I want to hail a cab, I call the company. If I need to check my bank account balance, I do that before leaving home. You learn to chill out a bit and appreciate that not everything will always be at your fingertips. You also re-learn how to pre-plan better. If someone really needs to get in touch, they can call you.

Some functions are just lost. When away from my laptop I can’t participate in group chats, like WhatsApp. I can’t take good pictures or post to Instagram. If we had Uber here in Vancouver, I don’t think I’d be able to use it. If a question comes up that I can’t answer and I’m itching to solve, I write it down and come back to it later. I can’t play music and I’m resisting getting an MP3 player. Sound, apparently, is a huge part of feeling connected to space. For most of these lost abilities I say good riddance; others can be annoying but you learn to make do. The upshot is worth it.

First, I feel liberated. Liberated from the constant urge to open my phone. Liberated from the rush of concern if I can’t find the device. Liberated from the thought, “Hey, I should take a picture of this!” I’ve relearned (and apparently rewired my brain) to just be present. On the bus I look around and think about the other people, or just let my mind wander. Walking home I pay more attention to all the little details, and make an effort to smile as people walk by — although, 30-40% of the time they’re on their phones. My awareness feels sharper and my energy feels stronger.

My mental capacity has noticeably increased. I think about my friends and family more. I feel more empathetic, and “in-tune.” Because I don’t use headphones in public I’ve found myself sparking up more conversations with strangers. For example, I’ve gone to the same gym for almost a year. I’ve had more conversations with people in the last two months than in the previous ten. Some of the artificial boundaries have dissolved.

I have moments where I get an “itch” to reach for my phone — usually in a moment of boredom — but those quickly subside. They have also become less frequent as time goes by. The biggest hurdle was making the switch; now I’m perfectly content and have neither desire nor any intention to go back.

Pro-Internet, Anti-Abuse

To this day I remain very pro-Internet. It’s one of the most empowering inventions in human history. Digital rights organizations like Electronic Frontiers Foundation and OpenMedia.ca are doing excellent and important work.

The question, really, is, are we in control of our digital lives? If we are dependent or addicted, have we come to terms with it? If yes, what are we doing about it?

Harris, who went on a one-month digital detox, put it this way:

This book is a meditation more than a prescription. There are no ten easy steps to living a healthy digital life; there is no totalizing theory, no maxim, with which we can armor ourselves. Nor is digital abstinence the answer, absolute refusal being just another kind of dependence after all. Easy fixes are for easy problems. And what do real problems, big problems, call for? Experimentation and play.

I’m optimistic that we will take a step back from this mass addiction because in many ways it is in our own self-interest. Presence and absence have intrinsic value. So do awareness, and daydreaming, and creativity. Human connection is beautiful. Time is precious.

Some with stronger self-control will be able to self-monitor. Some will use tools (i.e. BreakFree) and strategies (digital breaks). Some, like me, need to restructure our lives without a smartphone. Each of us who agree this is a problem, can be part of the solution by helping ourselves, and others.

As we barrel down the path toward nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology it feels all the more pressing to stop and reflect on our relationship with the virtual world, and its gatekeepers.

What kind of lives do we want to live? What kind of world do we want to create?

As Marshall McLuhan said, “There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.”

The choice is ours, but it’s going to take some effort.

A Quick Important Notice:

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

A Jury’s $289 Million Verdict Against Monsanto Might Be Overturned By The Judge

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dewayne Johnson was the first lawsuit alleging glyphosate causes cancer to go to trial. He ended up winning and was awarded nearly $300 million. Now, the judge is threatening to overall the decision made by the Jury.

  • Reflect On:

    How can corporations like Monsanto and government regulatory agencies constantly approve products that an uncountable amount of research and science has shown is harmful to human health as well as the environment.

Not long ago, school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson became involved in the very first lawsuit to go to trial alleging glyphosate causes cancer. The case made global headlines when the jury at San Francisco’s Superior Court of California deliberated for three days before finding that Monsanto had failed to warn Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers. We’ve seen the same issue with similar substances like DDT, which was sprayed for years before it was finally banned decades ago. The unfortunate thing is that DDT is still highly present in the environment and in our soil, and is a catalyst for many diseases. Are we seeing the same thing with Glyphosate?

The court ended up awarding $39 million in compensation and $250 million in punitive damages. It’s also vital to mention that Monsanto, now a unit of Bayer AG following a $62.5 billion acquisition by the German conglomerate, faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States.

Grounds For Reversal?

Now, just two months after jurors made the decision in favor of Johnson, who is dying of cancer, the judge suddenly has an issue with the amount and might overrule the decision. Again, Johnson is one of the thousands of cancer patients that are taking Monsanto to trial. The judge is apparently calling for a new trial, and she has now granted Monsanto a request for a JNOW on a tentative basis. A JNOW is a judgement notwithstanding the verdict. This is basically when a judge in a civil case overrules the jury’s decision.

This is extremely confusing, isn’t it? What prompted the judge to do this, and did Monsanto have anything to do with it? And even if the judge denies Monsanto’s request to drop the $250 million fine, the Court would grant a new trial on the grounds of ‘insufficiency of evidence’ to justify the award for punitive damages–this after the evidence was found to be quite sufficient at the time.

Even the jurors are speaking out, according to CTV news:

Jurors who found that agribusiness giant Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer contributed to a school groundskeeper’s cancer are urging a San Francisco judge not to throw out the bulk of their $289 million award in his favour, a newspaper reported Monday.

advertisement - learn more

Stock Drop

Shares in Bayer, which bought Monsanto as mentioned earlier, dropped immediately after the original decision and hasn’t risen since. It’s still trading at approximately 30 percent below its pre-verdict value. The statement given by Bayer after the initial decision does its best to restore confidence in their product:

The jury’s decision is wholly at odds with over 40 years of real-world use, an extensive body of scientific data and analysis…which support the conclusion that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe for use and do not cause cancer in humans. (source)

This statement strongly goes against the statements made by thousands of scientists across the world.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate is used every year on more than a billion acres. (Cherry, B., “GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States,” Science in Society 45, 44-46, 2010) (source)

Years Of Activism

The alarming thing is that for decades, scientists, activist groups and environmental/health awareness groups have been creating awareness and presenting the science explaining how and why Monsanto’s glyphosate (the main ingredient in their Roundup herbicide) causes cancer, among other diseases. Despite the fact that this has been happening for years, the political stranglehold these corporations have on governmental regulatory agencies has prevented this information from being taken seriously.

If the truth was widely known it would result in an unfathomable drop in profit for Monsanto’s products which contain glyphosate, but mostly in North America. Many countries have completely banned the ingredient and other Monsanto products, due to clear links to diseases like cancer and kidney disease, for example. In fact, most of the products manufactured by Monsanto and other giant North American biotech companies are completely banned and illegal in many other countries.

It makes you wonder how such a substance can go through the review process, whatever it is, and still be approved for use. Monsanto has been sued many times; in fact one lawsuit unearthed documents showing how Monsanto misled regulators and scientists to speed up approval for the development of genetically modified foods. You can read more about that here. So, the science itself becomes subject to fraud when power and money are applied. Roundup herbicide is over one hundred times more toxic than regulators claim. And a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International showed how Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. You can read more about that here.

We are talking about clear hormone disrupters and clear catalysts for cancer. Decades of science and scientific fraud that’s been exposed has forced the World Health Organisation, a major hub of the establishment that seems to regulate the shady industry of health, to finally admit that glyphosate, like cigarettes, processed foods and meats, is carcinogenic.

Clear Injustice

This judge’s reversal will end up having enormous financial and reputational repercussions for the corporation, and it seems obvious that she has been influenced by power and money. The truth is, if you take the scientific evidence, as well as clear evidence of scientific fraud and corruption by these corporate and government agencies (who are constantly in collusion with one another), there is no jury on the planet that would not reach a guilty verdict. That’s because the evidence is quite clear, which is why if this decision was going to be reversed, it would have to be the Judge over-ruling the jury’s decision.

This verdict proves that when ordinary citizens, in this case a jury of 12, hear the facts about Monsanto’s products, and the lengths to which this company has gone to buy off scientists, deceive the public and influence government regulatory agencies, there is no confusion.”  Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the organic consumers association

At the end of the day, we are the ones using these products and we are the ones voting with our dollar. That being said, it completely goes against our free will and interests for products to be approved that are obviously completely unsafe. It’s unfortunate that those who choose not to use these products or be near them, still end up with it in our system. The fact that Monsanto can still somehow fight this and provide evidence means our work is not yet done.

The Takeaway

The work of many brave activists has brought awareness to the severe health risks of glyphosate and Roundup, but to honor all their efforts we must continue to spread awareness about these corporate crimes until the time comes when these chemicals have been removed from all corners of the Earth.

A Quick Important Notice:

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Man The CIA Wants You To Forget

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Former LAPD Narcotics Detective and whistleblower Michael Ruppert spent years speaking out against the CIA for allegedly running drugs throughout the USA. He was found dead in 2014 by an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we continue to give credibility to agencies like the CIA who have been caught abusing their power time and time again? Who's watching the watchers? What can we do to better protect whistleblowers when they come forward?

Michael C. Ruppert was an ex-LAPD Narcotics Detective and whistleblower who came out against the CIA in the late 70’s. He claimed they tried to enlist him in protecting and helping to facilitate their drug running practices. When Ruppert declined involvement and came forward he said he was threatened, wrongly discredited, and even shot at, but that didn’t stop him from speaking up.

“I will tell you, director Deutch, that as a former LosAngeles police narcotics detective that the agency has dealt drugs throughout this country for a long time.” – Michael C. Ruppert

At a now infamous town hall hearing in LA, he faced off against the chief of the CIA with a packed room of people from the South-Central area cheering him on from the crowd. It was not only the unlawful behavior Ruppert wanted to expose, but also the incredible hypocrisy of the CIA and the LAPD for bringing cocaine and other drugs into the community, and then locking up small-time drug dealers and users.

These imported drugs were ripping apart communities with widespread effects like addiction, increased crime and gang activity, overdose deaths, and many incarcerations that broke up families leading to cycles of crime that spanned generations. You can see the video of the emotional town hall meeting below.

He Didn’t Stop There

Michael Ruppert spent most of his life trying to expose criminality at the highest levels. Tackling everything from the peak oil crisis to the military industrial complex. He also believed that 9/11 was allowed to happen by the Bush administration.

advertisement - learn more

” 9-11 was a predictable event and it was motivated precisely and solely by Peak Oil and nothing else.” – Michael C. Ruppert (source)

Ruppert became a published author and gained more notoriety for his controversial book “Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World.”  That ended up inspiring the eye-opening documentary “Collapse”, which is a worthwhile watch to start understanding the deep levels of corruption and cover-up that has been taking place around the globe.

No matter your thoughts on the legitimacy of Ruppert’s claims, it’s clear he wasn’t afraid of taking on the Goliaths of the world but for doing so was branded by many throughout the mainstream media as a wild conspiracy theorist.

“All corporate-owned and publicly-traded media is our first and foremost immediate enemy.” Michael C. Ruppert

Redemption?

It’s 1996 and in comes Gary Webb. A very well respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who begins investigating the ties between leaders of the Nicaraguan Contra Rebel organizations and the CIA. Webb wrote a 3 part investigative series that got published in the San Jose Mercury News. This caused a public uproar, especially from people in poorer communities where the crack-cocaine epidemic was destroying families.

The publicity from Webb’s scathing piece of journalism against the CIA is what allowed Ruppert the chance to finally be heard on a larger scale, and Webb’s conclusions even launched a federal investigation into the issue. While many people believed him, Gary Webb ended up losing his publisher, getting smeared all over the mainstream news for exaggerating and was even called an outright liar. Alongside Ruppert, Webb was outspoken in saying there was massive media manipulation around the issue.

“The government side of the story is coming through the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post. They use the giant corporate press rather than saying anything directly. If you work through friendly reporters on major newspapers, it comes off as The New York Times saying it and not a mouthpiece of the CIA.” – Gary Webb (source)

Tragic Ending

Gary Webb was found dead in his home in 2004 with two gunshot wounds to the head. His death was ruled a suicide but there is still some speculation considering the fact that it’s uncommon for a person to pull the trigger twice in a suicide but to be fair it has happened in the past. There was a suicide note and his wife has stated he was depressed for a while about no longer being able to get a job at any major newspaper.

An eerily similar fate was met by Michael Ruppert. He was found dead in his home in 2014 with one gunshot wound to the head. He also left a note and his death was ruled a suicide. Just like Webb there was mystery around Ruppert’s official story, some believe it was a hit for saying too much or that maybe he was onto another big story, some believe the suicide was staged and he went off the map to get a fresh start, and others take the story at face value and think that maybe he’d just had enough of fighting, of always looking over his shoulder. As a man that spent his life questioning the mainstream narrative, it seems fitting that many conspiracy theories have formed around his death.

The Takeaway

If you check out the video above you can hear from Michael Ruppert himself about some of his story and see him in action at the town hall meeting where he challenged the CIA. His question to the chief is a powerful one, asking if he comes across information of illegal activity but it’s classified, will he report it?

Are these organizations we give the power to enforce the law and/or to protect us above the law? Are there circumstances where illegal activity by some organizations is justified, say if the information is a threat to public safety? Why could none of the CIA’s internal investigations find any hard evidence of the claims against them? Who’s watching the watchers? One of the final sentences of Ruppert’s suicide note reads:

“I do this for the children, may it bring love and light into the world.” – Michael C. Ruppert (source)

That seems like a cause that we can all get behind. Working together to build a world worth leaving to future generations. Let’s leave it better than we found it, I know we’re capable of it. Whether you agree with Michael Ruppert’s beliefs or not we can learn from him because I feel that he was trying to do just that, leave the world a better place. Love and light!

A Quick Important Notice:

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Consider This Before Indulging In Legal Cannabis In Canada

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cannabis is now legal in Canada for recreational and medicinal use.

  • Reflect On:

    Will the legalization of cannabis change our relationship and habits with cannabis? Should it?

For some Canadians, October 17th is a day they have been anticipating for a long time. For others, it may pass by without much notice. Yet, one thing is for sure. Eventually, virtually all Canadians will be impacted in one way or another by Canada’s decision to legalize cannabis. Parents. Children. Regular Users. Non-users. Teenagers. The Elderly. Those of all ages suffering from illnesses of all kinds.

And not only will this impact the everyday lives of people in Canada, most Canadian institutions will be going through a learning curve and devoting attention to this new phenomenon. The government. Law Enforcement Agencies. Growers and farms. Wholesalers and retailers. Advertisers and marketers. Who in Canada will be able to say they have not been touched by this one way or another, once the intoxicating and healing powers of cannabis become more accessible even than alcohol?

What Will Change

Some changes will happen immediately, some changes will evolve over time. Some people argue that Canada is not yet ready for all the implications of legalizing cannabis at this point, but the prevailing attitude is that things will sort themselves out in an orderly fashion over the next 1-3 years.

Law enforcement: The change in the criminal code means that limited possession of cannabis is no longer a crime, though people who are currently in jail for possession of cannabis are not being automatically let out of jail. Much of law enforcement rhetoric focuses on preventing youth from indulging in cannabis, in a fashion similar to the restrictions on alcohol. More likely, the majority of funds and manpower will be diverted to combating black market enterprises, given that the government now stands to gain $675 million per year in tax revenues from the sale of legal cannabis. Regulations for impaired driving as a result of cannabis consumption look to evolve over time as technologies for measuring impairment like alcohol ‘breathalizers’ improve.

Home Growing: Individuals will be permitted to grow up to four plants for their own use. While the sale of edibles (baked goods, drinks, etc) will not be allowed initially, individuals can make edibles at home for their own use.

Marketing and Retail: The way in which legal cannabis is promoted and sold to the public will likely go through a push-pull transition between advertising regulations and the way wholesalers and retailers will try to get around those regulations to sell their products. The same can probably be said for the business chain as a whole from growth to consumption.

advertisement - learn more

Usage in General: Usage in Canada is bound to increase, simply due to an increase in the availability for those who have not actively sought it out in the past, and the removal of the stigma of its illegality, as well as the social acceptance of the consumption of cannabis which is bound to grow over the next couple of years.

What Will Not Change

There are two things that will not change when cannabis is made legal in Canada on October 17th: cannabis and you.

Cannabis itself is not suddenly safer or better for you than it was before just because it has become legalized. The same decisions you were making on whether or not to indulge in the past still pretty much apply, so ubiquitous was its use despite being illegal. Will regulation make the quality of cannabis you receive better? Not necessarily. It may become more consistent, if less potent, if the quality controls in place are reliable. But remember, black market dealers and sellers had an intrinsic investment in the quality of their product if they were to hope to have regular customers.

By ‘you,’ I am referring to your deepest, truest sense of self, the person you are and who you want to be in the highest vision of yourself. This does not change with any change of regulation in the outer world, and certainly you have to be wary if this change of regulation arbitrarily changes the choices you make and impacts your habits, goals, and dreams.

What To Watch Out For

You may be one who will be inclined to be more open to the personal recreational use of cannabis once it becomes legal. With this comes the possibility of gradually developing a dependence, facilitated by a greater legal and social acceptability. It is important to take notice if recreational use begins to devolve into a catch-all means of escaping from the stress and discomfort of real-life problems, in ways that you get out of the habit of confronting problems and discomfort at their source.

The same can be said about the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. No doubt, cannabis and CBD oil will be marketed as the healthy sedative for physical ailments and will also be touted as a curative agent for certain types of diseases. While this may be true in some particular cases, you have to be cautious about the claims made by sellers and marketers of the product, whose job is to sell rather than research and diagnose exactly what conditions will benefit from cannabis treatment, and even more particularly what strains of cannabis will work for given conditions.

There is a body of research about the curative effects of cannabis made from an Eastern holistic perspective, which treats each individual case not based on outward symptoms, as Western medicine does, but in terms the particular physiological, emotional and spiritual conditions an individual is in which seen to be at the root of the individual’s ailment. Hence, being wary of marketing practices does not mean avoid cannabis or CBD oil as medicinal treatment for a particular condition, but try to do so in consultation with an unbiased and trusted practitioner/researcher whose motives are healing your particular condition rather than making profits selling cannabis.

The Takeaway

The consumption of cannabis has the potential to be both consciousness-expanding and consciousness-numbing. It does have healing properties but you really have to do your due diligence and use it in a very disciplined way in order to truly gain healing benefits from it rather than getting into the habit of simply escaping from pains and difficulties that are part of a normal life. It is an exciting time for Canadians in that we are now more free to choose something that never should have been illegal to begin with. Let’s make sure this newfound freedom serves us in the best ways as individuals and as a community.

A Quick Important Notice:

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support

If just 5% of people reading this TODAY supported our campaign, we would be able to hire an investigative team TOMORROW. Your support matters, and goes a long way. Join the conscious media movement!

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.