"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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
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.
Thanks in advance!
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
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.
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.
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?
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! "