Robyn Griggs Lawrence discusses the use of cannabis in
history as mainly ingestion, rather than smoking. She brings forth accepted
historic proof that the herb was cultivated for the fiber and seeds, which were known in the ancient era for
mind-altering properties. Then she
buttresses her claim with the research of the French botanist Jean
Baptiste-Lamarck. He described cannabis’ properties as “going through the head
and disrupting the brain,” and making the user feel drunk and happy. He also
researched, and noted, that there were different species of the plant and each
one had different strengths. However, Lawrence also claims that the plants
controversial status hampered the scientific research into its use. Medieval
physicians suggested it as a way to relieve gout, but without modern studies
it’s difficult to argue in its favor. The anti-cannabis lobbyists, even the
early Reefer Madness films (based on sensationalism and exaggeration) have
always been powerful.
The author doesn’t
say it outright, but it seems that pot was considered foreign to the USA, and
that may have fed the distrust. It came through Asia before reaching Europe,
and was banned by Napoleon. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas both consumed it in
the form of cakes, with the recipe included in Toklas’ famous cookbook.
Unfortunately for her (and the US readers) the recipe was removed by the US
publishers in an effort of self-censorship, given that it was the 1960’s, and
the publishing houses were still in their “Mad Men” stage. Something tells me
if they’d waited until the 70’s, Gale Sheehy of New York Magazine would’ve
hyped up the recipe in one of her radical chic campaigns. There were
high-society characters who brought cannabis to the upper crust of America,
like the food writer Jeremiah Tower, who
served cannabis chicken stock in his lavish dinner parties. He would put the
cannabis infused soups right between the meat and the watercress, so that it
would kick in around dessert time, and the simplest dessert would feel like a
religious experience.
Amsterdam’s
cannabis industry, well-written in this book, was ground zero for its use in
food, and the city’s tolerance of the herb was a complete opposite of the USA.
The Netherlands, aware of the increase in heroin use worldwide, decided to ignore
anything that was not scientifically proven to be addictive. There was never
any solid conclusive study as to the health risks, but cannabis addicts weren’t
going though withdrawal, and there was no prof that it was a gateway drug.
However, the Netherlands did not legalize the importation of cannabis, nor
write any laws regarding cultivation, so the source was in the hands of
criminals.
Lawrence writes
that Cambodia is a country where cannabis as rarely smoked (American
backpackers did that) but was used in soups, and the word “happy” became a code
word for any food with the herb in it. It found its way into drinks with the multitude
of spices available in the region, but thanks to US pressure, Cambodia banned
it. Fortunately, the country never had the resources to do a large-scale
crackdown.
While this book is
a wonderful trove of history of cannabis in cooking, the author spends a little
too much time on the legal issues, and not enough on the benefits. I’m eager to
see how it will make its way into the restaurant industry now that states are
loosening the laws. Will it find its way into drinks? Will it replace beer and
wine? Maybe it will be to 21st Century USA what Absinthe was to 19th
Century France.
No comments:
Post a Comment