Don't Believe the Hype! Potent Pot, So What?

"This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."- Mark R. Trouville, DEA Miami, speaking to the Associated Press (June 22, 2007)

Government claims that today's pot is more potent, and thus more dangerous to health, than ever before must be taken with a grain of salt.

Federal officials have made similarly dire assertions before. In a 2004 Reuters News Wire story, government officials alleged, "Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin." (Anti-drug officials failed to explain why, if previous decades' pot was so "gentle" and innocuous, police still arrested you for it.)

In 2007, Reuters again highlighted the alleged record rise in cannabis potency, proclaiming, "U.S. marijuana grows stronger than before: report." Quoted in the news story was ex-Drug Czar John Walters, who warned, "This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s -- this is Pot 2.0."

Predictably, in 2008 the mainstream news media ran with yet another set of 'news' stories alleging that the pot plant's strength had reached all-time highs. According to a June 12, 2008 Associated Press story:

"The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007. It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 percent in 2007, compared with 8.75 percent the previous year."

Or not. An actual review of the 2008 U-Miss data revealed this nugget of information: The average THC in domestically grown marijuana -- which comprises the bulk of the US market -- is less than five percent, a figure that's remained unchanged for nearly a decade. (See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12)

Which brings us to this year. Naturally, the Feds are once again sounding the alarm, as reported today by CNN: "Marijuana potency surpasses 10 percent, U.S. says."

I suppose, if nothing else, the government's annual "new and improved pot" claims are good advertising for marijuana dealers. As for the rest of the public, it's time for a reality check.

First, it's worth noting that police and lawmakers made these same alarmist claims about the suddenly not-as-dangerous-or-strong-as-we-once-said-it-was pot of the 1960s, '70s, and 80s. These allegations were false then and they are still false now.

Second, THC -- regardless of potency -- is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody at the University of Mississippi or at the Drug Czar's office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.

Third, survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands -- where users may legally purchase pot of known quality -- indicates that most cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.

Finally, if US lawmakers and government researchers were truly concerned about potential risks posed by supposedly stronger marijuana, they would support regulating the drug, so that its potency would be consistent and this information would publicly displayed to the consumer. (Anyone ever been to a liquor store that sold a brand of booze that didn't post its alcohol content marked on the label? Didn't think so.)

So let's review, shall we? Our federal government ostensibly wants fewer Americans to consume pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders, over time, clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then inadvertently give America's marijuana growers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that today's weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent cannabis they've been hearing about on TV. The Feds then demand more of your hard-earned tax dollars so they can get more Americans "off the pot."

Then next year we do it all over again: same time, same station.

Any questions?

Comments

[Tapps]

Marijuana should be legal, and Hemp should be allowed to be grown by farmers. The US not only has outdated laws, but laws that should never have been passed in the first place. We have criminalized our citizens for using a natural herb, and we have prevented our farmers from producing a useful and productive crop - Hemp. The same people who are against legalization of Marijuana because of harm to children are the same people who want less government. Let us have less government and let concerned citizens educate children about drugs. The real harm is ignorance and not knowing the facts. I know Marijuana possession has been lowered in many states to a misdemeanor but that was not always the case. I have two brothers that were incarcerated for 2 years for possession in the 1970's. We have more dangerous criminals to fill our jails. I do not smoke marijuana, but it is not government's place to assume every pot smoker is an addict or deviant, just as every drinker is not an alcoholic, every smoker is not killing themselves (okay - scratch that one), and every person who overeats becomes a medical burden to society. If that was the case, all vices or pleasures would be illegal. I think California should vote on the legalization of Marijuana and Hemp, and be put on a national ballot as well. We can fuel our cars with Hemp. Tax revenue and solve energy issues at the same time :)

[Hollis333]

I used to smoke a lot of pot (quit about 6 yrs. ago) and all I can say is the government is so full of nonsense when it comes to marijuana. The DEA is using textbook propaganda in its "war on drugs," and this bout with pot is just another losing page.

Heck, if you tell kids and adults that the pot of today is stronger, that's just gonna make them want to get even more. Hello?!! That's why people try to get the "chronic" or "hydro" or "northern lights" or whatever other mystical marijuana that is out there - they want the strong stuff!

Personally, I think the government is so out-of-touch with the drug culture and there is no understanding whatsoever. Then again, the CIA knows how to sell crack.

[zitlight73]

Anti-pot people lied in the 30's, Reefer Madness and the Marijuana Tax Act. They lied in the 70;s with their stupid, "this is your brain on drugs" ads, that wasn't our brains that was an egg in a frying pan. They are lying now and wasting taxpayers' money doing it.

[senorlou]

I remember that ad. It was in the 1980s. Ronnie Ray-gun/ Pappy Bush.

[zitlight73]

You're right, my memory isn't what it used to be....now what was I going to write.

[BusGreg]

The media is too much depending on the advertising dollars from special interest groups. Late in the 90's the drug czar's office heavily promoted the vision of your brain being akin to a fried egg. It was the best Gen. Barry McCaffrey's dis-information team could come up with. Rather than engaging in fact filled, open discussion the government relied on the advertising gurus to dazzle us with weird messages. The government's ad money came with a catch. Congress would only authorize the "sunny side up" ad money if the networks would match time for free. A good deal for the taxpayer. For every buck spent we got two bucks of propaganda. After the contracts were signed and the ads had started to obfuscte the facts and further stifle discussion the economy changed and the networks were hit by ad buyers who wanted to buy higher priced ads. There are only so many slots per hour and the networks started to lose ad revenues, yet were stuck with the contracts. Our illustrious government came to the rescue by offering the networks to get their free ad time back if the primetime shows would reflect the appropriate story line. Sort of not so subliminal advertising. A system was put in place where an antidrug message of a certain length per half hour or another longer antidrug message per full hour would satisfy the drug czar. Salon discovered these somewhat shady bed fellows and exposed the whole sordid mess.

[editorjuno]

I have never encountered anything even close to the "Maui Wowee" I sampled over thirty years ago. Moreover, if the average potency of street pot has increased that's actually a good thing -- higher potency means less smoke inhaled for the same effect, and inhaling smoke (which contains particulate respiratory irritants and carbon monoxide gas) is what's responsible for the worst health effects of using pot.

[moldy]

I would like to know where in hell was our government when tobacco was killing people. How much nicotine was in there? How much did they put in there?
How can the Fed's be so worried about a harmless chemical (THC) when nicotine and cigarettes were and still are killing millions?
Oh, I forgot about the millions of people that depend on locking up pot users as a form of employment. Yeah, that's really a sure way to keep jobs going. On the backs of mostly young, minorities who already are at a disadvantage. Sure, who gives a crap about them? Nixon put them right where he wanted them. And it continues today.

[zitlight73]

They were subsidizing tobacco and the tobacco companied were help keeping the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thumrnond in office.

[Hopeington]

Okay, on almost every page of this thread, we've been reminded of Thai sticks....the fondest memories in my illustrious years of smoking....I guess they forgot about this one when they talk about potency of 70's pot.....

[Hopeington]

My son owns a hydroponic gardening supply store in CA. I know the ins and outs of this situation. They have been to our home and ransacked it, never telling us their "probable cause". What pisses me off is that they would legalize it for their monetary gain but not because of all the positive benefits for the people. oh well, nothing new.
However,my other point is, if legalized,and there by allowing it to be grown in the sunlight, it would cut the outrageous consumption and waste of electricity use generated by grow rooms and would probably really help in cleaning up our carbon footprint a bit, it would also produce a much better product, but I guess, by this article, that better pot argument won't go over too well.

[Sarah Katherine]

Ok, so in early April, a university in Spain discovers that THC can shrink cancerous tumors in half and prevent the spread of cancer cells, causing a process called auphagy where the cancerous cells eat themselves, leaving the healthy ones... and the news says nothing. Cancer cure? This is huge news!

Then, we find out that this wonder-chemical is now found in greater amounts (by 5%) and instead of celebrating, we are being warned about it.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer

[StonyStoner]

Cannabis!

It's good for what ails you.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2003/01/23/the_truth_about

http://www.cannabis.net/hist/

[12inchfallacy]

I am SO damned tired of the misinformation given not only by the government, but by rebuttal articles like these. Looking at peer-reviewed studies on marijuana, I've found that:

1. Average THC concentration in marijuana HAS risen drastically in the past few decades. The White House Drug Policy almost never cites proper research and is known to write coercively.

2. While you can't overdose on pot, there is more than enough evidence that it is neurotoxic with long-term use (through shrinkage of the amygdalae and hippocampus in fMRI's)

3. Cannabidiol coupled with THC has only been shown to hinder leukemia growth (not all cancer). This mixture also decreases neuroinflammation, acts as an anti-psychotic, acts as an anxiolytic, and also provides pain relief. While this seems like a miracle drug, using it too much can mask underlying mental disorders that NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. Constant escapism (through any medium) is detrimental to human health.

I HIGHLY suggest doing your own research to anyone who wants to have a legitimate opinion. Don't just follow the masses, be they culture or counter-culture. Pursue the truth.

[BusGreg]

Please reference your statements to the research data / research facility.
Thanks in advance!

[senorlou]

Got a link to show how it causes brain damage? I'd love to see it.

[BusGreg]

To dispute item 1.

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.

King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. “Cannabis potency in Europe.” Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6

Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But It’s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.
Brown, Lee. “Interview with Lee Brown,” Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995.
Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.
Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29.
Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990.

[BusGreg]

As to number 2.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.

Iverson, Leslie. “Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis.” Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5(2005): 69-72.
Weiser and Noy. “Interpreting the association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia.” Dialogues in Clincal Neuroscience 1(2005): 81-85.

"Cannabis use will impair but not damage mental health." London Telegraph. 23 January 2006.
Andreasson, S. et al. “Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal study of Swedish Conscripts,” The Lancet 2 (1987): 1483-86.
Degenhardt, Louisa, Wayne Hall and Michael Lynskey. “Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 71 (2003): 42-4.
Weil, A. “Adverse Reactions to Marijuana: Classification and Suggested Treatment.” New England Journal of Medicine 282 (1970): 997-1000.

[BusGreg]

As to number 3, cancer, click the link and read recent medical report...

>>"Led by Dr Wai Man Liu, at Barts and the London, Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry, the team has followed up on their findings of 2005 which showed that the main active ingredient in cannabis, tetrahydro­cannabinol­, or THC, has the potential to be used effectively against some forms of cancer. Dr Liu has since moved to the Institute of Cancer in Sutton where he continues his work into investigating the potential therapeutic benefit of new anti-cancer agents."

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/01/16340.aspx

[Dende]

Pot Potency? Boomers' blissfully unfazed by mere facts.
wwwaldoSmo­ked80sSchw­ag

In order to signal to middle-age people that the marijuana experiences with which they are familiar are no longer applicable, “the marijuana that is available today can be 5 times more potent than the marijuana of the 1970s.”"

Research increasingly shows that intensive marijuana use often meets the technical requirements for addiction (or dependence). Analysts use this as evidence of the need to maintain the drug’s illegal status. But the fact of addictiveness is irrelevant to legality – addictive drugs (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol) are legal and nonaddictive drugs (e.g., LSD, Ecstasy) are not. Indeed, the fastest growing category of illicit use is of legal, but controlled, pharmaceuticals – both addictive and not. Addiction is a sideline in outlawing drugs, a label applied conveniently by authorities and cooperating scientists in support of prior policy biases.
~ Marijuana Is Addictive – So What?
The Stanton Peele Addiction Website, January 7, 2006

1987 The Partnership for a Drug-Free America was given $200 million annually by the federal government. Media outlets contributed over $3 billion in free television time, making it the largest and most expensive anti-drug campaign ever.
~ I Know – Let’s Really Scare Kids About Drugs! by Stanton Peele
The Stanton Peele Addiction Website, March 30, 2006

[BusGreg]

"Advertising" er... propaganda
The media is too much depending on the advertising dollars from special interest groups. Late in the 90's the drug czar's office heavily promoted the vision of your brain being akin to a fried egg. It was the best Gen. Barry McCaffrey's dis-information team could come up with. Rather than engaging in fact filled, open discussion the government relied on the advertising gurus to dazzle us with weird messages. The government's ad money came with a catch. Congress would only authorize the "sunny side up" ad money if the networks would match time for free. A good deal for the taxpayer. For every buck spent we got two bucks of propaganda. After the contracts were signed and the ads had started to obfuscte the facts and further stifle discussion the economy changed and the networks were hit by ad buyers who wanted to buy higher priced ads. There are only so many slots per hour and the networks started to lose ad revenues, yet were stuck with the contracts. Our illustrious government came to the rescue by offering the networks to get their free ad time back if the primetime shows would reflect the appropriate story line. Sort of not so subliminal advertising. A system was put in place where an antidrug message of a certain length per half hour or another longer antidrug message per full hour would satisfy the drug czar. Salon discovered these somewhat shady bed fellows and exposed the whole sordid mess.

[moUSAnMe]

I have hoped for the end to the war on pot for 36 years and i'm 55 yrs old. I've been healthy for the most part, no major illness, no major surgery, no major run-ins with the law. My sisters whom do no smoke, are all on a slew of meds, much stronger than pot. They can't get through the day without there zanex, and depression meds. I can get through the day without pot. My usage is now low compared to my younger days.
My mother bless her heart, at 80 yrs, is also addicted to her zanex & depression meds. She would prefer pot if it was legal.
My nephew passed away from aids, and pot was the only thing that helped him. He took so many meds and suffered for so long.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is pot should be legal. Stop the violence at our borders, and quit making drug lords rich and richer.

[senorlou]

Great post. We're all waiting for this nutty "war" to end. I'm sure Mexico would appreciate it, especially.

[Indra]

The way the federal deficit is going my guess is that pot will get legalized so that they can tax it. If that sounds like it is not going to happen think about it. The government needs money really badly and that is one way to recoup those giant losses. That's what they did with alcohol.

[Frank Smith]

That's an excellent point . . . .hello Depression, goodbye Prohibition.

As far as the great potency of today's weed, that's a lie that's been told for 20+ years now going back to the fraud Bill Bennett's days as drug "czar." If today's weed is all so much better, how come I can't find it?

[senorlou]

Come to California.

[senorlou]

Think of how many billions we would save in law enforcement and prison sentences, probably even more money than the tax would generate.

[BusGreg]

Federal and State taxes amount to roughly 25 billion dollars annualy to incarcerate drug users, enough to hire over 400,000 teachers a year! (8000 per State) That does not include the roughly 14 billion dollars in taxes that could be collected!

[thinayr]

Decriminalize. Tax. Regulate.

This is the obvious deterrent to any ACTUAL harm that cannabis engenders to society (essentially all of which are DIRECT products of prohibition.) Despite the continuous falsehoods imposed on the public in the guise of "public safety" Since decriminalization + regulation (the only solution) is the last thing these alarmist drug warriors want, I think it's time we all start looking at the REAL reasons cannabis was made illegal in the first place, and why there has been a systematic "war" to keep it out of the hands of the farmer and the minds of the people:

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html

All people interested in this topic should immediately get a copy of Jack Herer's 1985 magnum opus: "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."

Jack Herer's (1985 - present ) $100,000 challenge to the world to prove him wrong:

"If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere, all at the same time…and that substance is the same one that has done it before…

CANNABIS HEMP! "

[senorlou]

The most dangerous thing about marijuana, aside from the insane drug laws on it, are electrical fires. It's not a huge problem nationwide or anything, but since people have to grow them secretly inside with lights most of the time, people that don't know what they're doing who live in apartments (you know who you are) and houses with bad wiring burn the place up from time to time. Of course, this problem would vanish if people were allowed to grow it legally in their gardens. Sure, there would be garden raiding parties and thieves in the night, but there always have been. It's time to make it legal and tax it.

[moldy]

Good point! My grow is pretty safe and it all boils down to if you are trying to make a profit or like me, just a med user growing for himself. This is another product of prohibition. Forcing secret grows inside. If it was legal most of the home grown would be gone in 10 years or so. But in that time they would be able to inspect (permits ya know) proper wiring and air movement, etc using the proper safe gaurds, etc. It's all due to prohibition and the black market causing the dangers as you know.