In Thailand, traditional cannabis cuisine is back on the menu | Hacker News Reader

In Thailand, traditional cannabis cuisine is back on the menu

atlasobscura.com

Neat. I've often wondered about the culinary use of marijuana, as it does have a rather pungent savory flavor. But where to get it? The trouble with legalization, rather than decriminalization, is that approved uses of marijuana are quite limited. The trim isn't psychoactive, so it should reasonably be legal to sell at a farmer's market, but I can't imagine it would be acceptable to sell a bundle to a kid. Or, should you sprinkle some into a pot of stew for a family dinner, one might expect a stern visit from CPS.

"trim" is so psychoactive.

Because it is not as psychoactive as the flowers does not make it non-psychoactive

Ah, fair enough, I've only got experience with the flowers.

With legalization I encounter potted Marijuana plants more often than Basil, this is not a problem. Weeds are the easiest thing grow at home.

> The trouble with legalization, rather than decriminalization

I'm always intrigued that drug advocacy draws a careful distinction between "decriminalization" (the conduct becomes legal) and "legalization" (the conduct stays mostly illegal), while prostitution advocacy draws the same distinction between the same words, but swaps the meanings.

I'm not aware of that reversal. In the jargon I'm used to for drug advocacy, "decriminalization" refers to removing criminal penalties for possession. It may still be illegal, but it is a civil offense (think traffic ticket) rather than a criminal one. "Legalization" refers to making it entirely illegal; there are no fines or criminal penalties for possession.

If you actually want to get high go across the border to Cambodia and find a happy pizza store. They are all over the place and trade openly. It is legal as a foodstuff.

Cannabis seems to have SO many useful applications, and yet, it’s still illegal in most places. What’s going on? Is it either “not so useful” and all this I usually read (combating pain, helping autism, parkinson and others) is just publicity, or there’s truly some higher level lobby going on for it not to be legalized?

Btw, I don’t consume Cannabis in any form, so this is a genuine question.

Not a (drug) policy expert by any means, but my speculation is that drug legalization is too much of a "soft on crime" move to be politically viable in most places. Note that this doesn't require that a majority of people are anti-legalization, but rather that enough (as few as a percent or two in a swing district) won't vote for you / will vote for your opponent under any circumstances if you vote for legalization, whereas you're not particularly likely to pick up new votes from it.

A accident of history, combined with some of the less savoury parts of the human character.

Cannabis was hardly known in the USA in the 1930s, and when alcohol was re-legalised the prohibition agents, who had a vast infrastructure, needed work. Henry Anslinger picked on pot as it was widely used by Mexicans so they would be able to work more freely. Trouble with alcohol prohibition is rich white people, who then and now, have the political power, drink. Mexicans could be "othered".

In the 1970s when it started to be more popular amongst the counter culture types prosecuting pot was a way of beating on the "dirty hippies".

The meme that "drugs are bad" made it into our collective consciousness and we have been trying to root it out (seemingly one funeral at a time).

That is from my memory but my main source for that is "Chasing teh Screem" by Johann Hari

Yes, this combined with the fact that US and British drug policy was exported everywhere in the 20th century, especially after WWII with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (which morphed into UNDCP), and before that with the Paris Convention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcoti...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_Limiting_the_...

It's been a handy way for cops to bust anyone they feel like busting on the spot. They can "find" a small quantity of cannabis on that person.

If they need to lock someone away for a long time, or develop leverage against them, they can "find" a larger quantity off cannabis in that person's car or abode. Trafficking is a federal offence.

Without being specific about race, let's just say the sudden appearance of a certain profile of wealthy cannabis entrepreneurs in states such as Colorado and California where pot has been legalised seals an ironic legacy.

I remember this being discussed in a documentary a long time ago (I can't remember the name). A few other points suggested in documentary:

* Hemp/Marijuana was a popular source of fiber and competed with cotton. Cotton requires fertilizer and pesticides (marijuana does not), so the petrochemical industry were keen to squash it as a competitor. Interestingly they claimed it was temporarily legalized during WW2 to allow for rope production.

* Marijuana was also associated with sexual activity (and with both Mexicans & African-Americans). Another reason to portray it as a substance that was immoral.

Seems like the true story is beyond Wikipedia. There was definitely a reason why it was banned in so many countries, when alcohol/tobacco weren't. Perhaps it reduces productivity?

It's disappointing to see a comment like this get downvoted, especially on HN. The comment appears to find a pretty obvious inconsistency: "why is weed not treated like booze?" and then proposes an obviously off-the-cuff explanation that should stimulate discussion "Perhaps it reduces productivity". I can only assume that is the reason it's being downvoted, because the former statement is extremely obvious - weed is treated dramatically differently than alcohol in many countries.

OK, if it's not "it reduces productivity", or even "it reduces productvity more than alcohol" then throw in your two cents about why, don't down vote someone looking for an answer and just spitballing possibilities.

US foreign policy, and a precursor for things like trade, arms and military assistance, was banning of substances in those countries.

1971 was when the world changed its policy through the UN, with a lot of pushing from the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub...

The wikipedia article does not cover the world context at the time of the convention, who was pushing for it. I would love to be able to read further on that, as I know the Nixon administration in the US very plainly used the scheduling system as a way to demonize minorities in the US, but I really don't understand much more about the context of the time, and whether it was legitimately a global concern or whether the US rammed it through the UN for social control.

That's what I thought, but the wikipedia page seems to tell a bit of a different story:

>The colonial government of Mauritius banned cannabis in 1840 over concerns on its effect on Indian indentured workers;[202] the same occurred in Singapore in 1870.[203] In the United States, the first restrictions on sale of cannabis came in 1906 (in the District of Columbia).[204] Canada criminalized cannabis in The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923,[205] before any reports of the use of the drug in Canada

The legal history is fairly light - the full story must be elsewhere.

Cannabis has its own weird history for sure, but has a ton of racial undertones throughout the history of its restriction

Minority oppression happens everywhere; perhaps more as a consequence of racism than an act of it.

Cigars keep getting caught up in actions against e-cigarettes and tobacco, with the US moving the age from 18-21, and Australia and Canada applying plain packaging laws.

Surprisingly, the public health risk caused by tobacco doesn't extend to cigars at the same magnitude. Plain packaging increases consumption by shifting spend to greater quantities of discount brands from expensive premium brands. This negatively impacts economies with segments of premium cigar production.

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-articles/cigars-and-the-plain-...

Tyranny of the majority.

In the US, it seems like anti-marijuana legislation was part of the new Jim Crow. Criminalize a common behavior, but only enforce it against a small segment of the population, leading to people trapped in low wage labor due to their criminal record.

It’s been illegal in the US since prohibition basically because the government apparatus that banned alcohol needed new narcotics to go after once prohibition ended.

Cannabis stayed illegal from a combination of it being Schedule I so no medical research can take place (a catch 22), as well as marijuana use being associated with minorities and hippies who are easy to demonize in politics.

As for the rest of the world, the US pushed the UN to schedule it in 1961 and so is effectively illegal everywhere. The scheduling was reduced for the first time just last year, and only partially.

https://www.vox.com/2020/12/3/22149503/un-marijuana-weed-leg...

Nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.

This past year we should have pushed for "Temporary" universal healthcare coverage.

strong taboos on some somewhat arbitrarily chosen psychoactive substances but not others is pretty culturally universal

I wonder how universal the rifts|compatibilities are between, e.g., teetotalers, users, abusers, and gradients in all directions.

The hemp that has been used historically in traditional cultures as a fiber and food source isn't the kind that can get you high.

But figuring out which kind is which is too hard for law enforcement, so it's easier to just ban it outright.

I think at this point, no country really wants their people to be doped up, and the negative side effects that prohibition has are just ignored.

Except in the US. I'm convinced the legislature is working on a way to monopolize the medical benefits. Free easy to grow medicine is bad for profits. Hence delta8 being legal, but delta9 being schedule I.

Edit: also in many countries enforcement is so lax that it does not matter much. E.g. central america and mexico.

If you remove cannabis and just understand the use governments and businesspeople have for black markets it makes more sense imho. There are lots of obvious reasons, but as someone who is interested in threat finance, what any black market does is offer that countries intelligence agencies secret funds outside of the purview of congress.

I use this to explain why the CIA is such a runaway org. Since inception one of the main concerns was lack of control by both the executive and the legiislative, and congresses control of the purse strings is constantly touted as one of the primary forms of control.... but if they can now have off books black bag money to with what they wilt without having to account for it to congress... the joke is every cartel boss really answers to a three letter somewhere.

It's hard to understate Thailand's herb culture. They're salad, they're medicine, they're garnish, they're everywhere.

In many monasteries monks that aren't otherwise allowed to eat after noon can even have a medicinal herb salad.

Related: poppy seeds are used in Indian cuisine [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppy_seed#Indian_cuisine

And in Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppy_seed_roll But growing the plants is a no no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com