Knowledge is shaped by subjectivity. This is not my opinion but rather an objective fact that has been independently confirmed by many different disciplines, from philosophy to the study of witness statements, from physics to economics.
Therefore, what we know about drugs is based on who is asking the questions and why.
To date, most studies on drugs like marijuana (really, THC) have been motivated by the enforcement of a taboo and legal prohibitions. We see THC through the lenses of the criminal or epidemiological investigation because that is how most studies of the drug are funded. Thus, our elite or formal understanding of this drug has largely been produced through the filter of a political and moral struggle.
There is, however, a popular or informal understanding of THC which is at odds with the formal understanding. This is the common knowledge of “pot” as the drug of respected artists (and a few politicians), of stoners and their rituals and artifacts. Reconciling these different understandings is a large part of what is taking place in the many popular referenda on the “legalization of marijuana.”
There are notable exceptions to our knowledge of mind-altering drugs. For example, LSD and later MMDA were produced by industry. They were thus studied formally outside the scope of their morality. (In fact, LSD was studied by our most respected authority – the U.S. government – using tests deemed illegal.)
While this formal knowledge has not had much impact on the legality of these drugs, they weaken the claim that all psychoactive drugs are inherently deleterious. Rather, they suggest that a prescribed use of psychoactive drugs is possible. Today you may legally go to a doctor, describe certain psychological symptoms and be prescribed valium. It is not a stretch to imagine going to the same doctor, describing a different set of symptoms and being prescribed THC. (i.e., not because you’re dying of AIDS or cancer.)
In sum, our problem with drugs is in large part a lack of shared or common knowledge. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Our lack of formal knowledge about the social and cultural uses of THC, for example, is an impediment to its use as a tool rather than its misuse or abuse.
Perhaps, the only distinction between medicine and poison is the dosage. Recreational drugs like alcohol, for instance are governed not just by legal prohibitions but also by well-honed social and cultural prescriptions. For example, consuming alcohol alone is frowned upon while consuming alcohol in a group (e.g., in a bar or party) is celebrated.
Developing a similar understanding of the proper consumption of THC would help its proponents make a more reasonable case.