cannabisnews.com: Pot Shots Pot Shots Posted by CN Staff on November 03, 2002 at 15:11:40 PT Commentary Source: Hartford Courant Everybody agrees that the best way to stop the magnitude of the problems we see with drugs, with cigarettes and with alcohol is to diminish the number of young people who try these substances in their teenage years. We have decades of research here. People who do not begin during their teenage years are extremely unlikely to start later on. It's not zero, but it is very, very low ...The estimate of people who could benefit from drug treatment is roughly 6 million ... Of that 6 million, 23 percent are teenagers. We have not, in the past, had estimates of that portion of the population needing treatment that young. But it corresponds to what we have known from other sources.Kids are beginning to use drugs at younger ages, and some of the drugs they are using are stronger in their effect and their potential dependency production.In addition, we have had the ability to look at the kinds of drugs that people are dependent on: Of those 6 million people, over 60 percent are dependent on marijuana.I believe this is the single greatest area of ignorance in the country today, despite more than a decade of research on drug addiction, large parts of it paid for by the federal government.Most people my age, the baby-boomer generation, do not believe you can be dependent on marijuana. They have no idea the magnitude that marijuana plays in the problems of treatment need in this country.Of illegal drugs, marijuana is the single greatest source of the need for treatment today of any of the illegal drugs. The next most significant drug is cocaine. Most Americans my age believe that heroin and cocaine are serious addictive drugs and marijuana isn't. It's a soft drug; it's a drug a lot of people try. It is true a lot of people who have tried it don't become dependent, but today 60 percent-plus of the treatment needed in the United States is generated by marijuana.We have more teenagers today seeking treatment nationally for marijuana than all other illegal drugs combined. For the first time in the last couple of years, we have more teenagers seeking treatment for marijuana than for alcohol, which used to be the single greatest source of dependency among teens because it was more widely available ...We need to make more parents understand, especially parents my age who watched "Reefer Madness" in college and who believe that most of the problem with marijuana is that people are just too hysterical about it. In fact, children of those baby-boomer parents are trying marijuana not when they're 17 or 18 but when they're 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. And the marijuana they're trying is not what it was in the 1970s and early '80s - 1 percent THC content or less (the psychoactive ingredient). On the street, it ranges from 7 to 14 percent THC content, and with specially cultivated varieties can go to 20 or 30 percent THC content. It is not your father's marijuana.As we know from research, the disease of addiction causes chemical changes in the brain that we can image with advanced technology. The same changes that we image for heroin and cocaine are witnessed with marijuana. There is no question that it is a dependency-producing substance.It does not have the same toxicity as cocaine and heroin, that is true. You do not see people die from overdoses of marijuana. But of course, nicotine does not have the toxicity of cocaine and heroin. You can have a dependency-producing substance that is not equally toxic with other dependency-producing substances. That doesn't change the fact that it produces dependency. One of the reasons why we believe more young people are using marijuana is that they believe this is not as dangerous as they've been told other substances are.We need to pay more attention, we need to send a consistent message, we need parents to understand that it's not a rite of passage. For some kids it's not just a gateway drug, it's a dead end and a dead end at a young age. Note: White House Drug Czar: Baby Boomers Still Think Of It As A `Soft Drug' - But Kids Today Need To Know That This Is `Not Your Father's Marijuana' Source: Hartford Courant (CT)Published: November 3, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Hartford CourantContact: letters courant.comWebsite: http://www.ctnow.com/What's News in Drug Policy Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/whatsnew.htmCannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #42 posted by DdC on November 04, 2002 at 13:18:46 PT Cannabis Myths Obviously they smoked schwag in the 60's to think its stronger today. They didn't try the Vietnames or Thai stick or Florida Mechmacon...DdCMarijuana is not more potent today than in the past...This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name, "American Cannabis". http://www.ariannaonline.com/discus/messages/4/438.html?SundayDecember1919991129pm Penthouse Exposes the Mindless War On MarijuanaUS: Reefer Mindless [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by FoM on November 04, 2002 at 08:48:52 PT BGreen I think until we get honest campaign finance reform there will be little truth in articles. We don't know what papers get money for keeping an issue on the back burner. That's my opinion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by BGreen on November 04, 2002 at 08:31:03 PT Richard Cowan said the lies will end when the media starts telling the truth. When I studied journalism all we were taught to care about was the truth. I guess what I meant with my semi-rhethorical question was why doesn't the PRESS, the so-called purveyors of truth, question the validity of the information or the qualifications and credibility of the espousers of the lies of cannabis prohibition? [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by Ethan Russo MD on November 04, 2002 at 08:20:36 PT: Confronting the Feds Whoever gets the chance? Walters does not debate. He rather speaks in front of pensioners and schoolkids, hoping that he will be shown deference on these pronouncements that he has not earned.I'd love to have the opportunity to debate the medical issues. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by BGreen on November 04, 2002 at 08:02:15 PT Why didn't Walters sign his name to this trash? It's easy to see that the "facts" this article is spewing are from the drug czar. Walters should have to sign this crap, and then specify the fact he's not a doctor or a scientist, he has no knowledge of these disciplines, yet he speaks in a way that sets him up ABOVE the knowledge of experts in the medical and scientific communities.Why doesn't anybody ever CONFRONT WALTERS about his LACK of qualification to be speaking about medicine? [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by Ethan Russo MD on November 04, 2002 at 07:02:43 PT: Potency It is clear that there have always been stronger strains of cannabis available. The people of India have known how to cull male plants to produce "sinsemilla" for over 2000 years, only they call it ganja.However, there is no substantial evidence that average cannabis is much stronger than in former years:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10641915&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3292744&dopt=Abstract Stronger cannabis means that the person smokes less to gain the desired therapeutic or recreational effect. It does not ensure greater dysfunction, addiction or other sequelae. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by kanabys on November 04, 2002 at 06:57:54 PT What, nicotine not toxic????????? >>But of course, nicotine does not have the toxicity of cocaine and heroin.This person is not very informed. One little drop of nicotine on one's tongue can kill you very dead. This is a natural insecticide after all folks. This idiot should read up a little before commenting on something he/she doesn't know a damned thing about. SHeeeeSH!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by lookinside on November 04, 2002 at 05:23:44 PT Very Big Grin! I think that Panama Red, seeds and all, was probably around 7%.In 1971 a friend had rented a house in the very small town I grew up in. One evening about 15 of us had congregated there and were sharing our stashes. About 1AM the deaf old man next door called the Sheriff's complaining of noise. We were listening to Hendrix and the Moodies and enjoying the colors(A variety of Timothy Leary's favorites were in evidence that night).Suddenly 2 deputies were standing at the open door. My friend turned down the music. The cops asked that we hold down the noise and left. I think it would go down differently today. [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by DANA on November 04, 2002 at 04:38:23 PT ...never mind.... ..http://www.ashleighbrilliant.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by DANA on November 04, 2002 at 04:32:07 PT ..does anyone remember.. ..this comic strip thing called "pot shots",,by Ashleigh Brilliant...? [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by DANA on November 03, 2002 at 23:24:27 PT ...Ahh Gee......More maudlin Memories... ...I remember several occassions in junior high,and high school,,,,when 'the pigs',pulled up,or over ,,to a smoke filled car full of us teens,,while we were passing around some crude joint that was rolled in the dark,with 2 Wheat Straw papers..about the diameter of a nickel..rolled with stems,seeds and all,,,,,all the windows rolled up,,and the joint was kind of like a cheap fireworks thing...nice fresh seeds will send out astounding streams of smoke,,or all of a sudden pop,,like popcorn,,sending a dazzling cascade of red hot cherry fire onto the upholstry of perhaps a '67' Chevelle Malibu.........the smoke so thick,that if you saw the car from the outside,,you might think it had been packed with cotton or something!.....Inside the car,,your eyes are stinging, good times are being had,..you look in the mirror,to marvel at how bloodshot pink the no longer,'whites' of your eyes are,THEN,,the ice cold heat of RED police lights,,(yes,they used to be red),,and the utter chagrin of rolling down the window for the cop,and a huge beefing cloud wafts out,,causing the cop to back off until it clears. ..........Yup,,ya knew you were in trouble,,,you look up at the cop with a sort of sheepish grin,,perhaps the type of uncomfortable grin that one would display while shitting their pants.,BUT,,the cop says,,"OK..give me the marijuana",,he might not even search the vehicle.,,A kid might sheepishly surrender the remainder of a lid to the cop,,and the cop would dump it out on the roadside,,and tell the kids to go home,,perhaps threaten to call their parents.....I'm not kidding,,that was about all that happened in those days!..No ruined life from being labeled a "drug offender"...no absurd treatment/testing circus.....no handcuffs,and humiliation,,,and I'll bet you that more kids grew up with less problems in those days,than they do nowdays...When a teen has to experience the brutal Orwellianesque odysey of a bogus oppressive false emergency,"drug possession" charge,,,the fake emergency of it,is quite likely to be far more traumatic,and detrimental to a persons future,than if the cop just dumped out the weed,and sent you home!.........I know that it wasnt like this every time,or everywhere,,but back then,,,'the pigs',were far more human,...If you were caught with some weed,,you probably wouldnt even be handcuffed. ...handcuffs were for murderers,and rapists,,and such.,,,after all,,why would a Marijuana smoker need to be handcuffed?,,alot of cops would just take away the pot,and dump it out,,and tell you to not be doing it anymore.........yup.......I better go now,, I think maybe I'll turn on my black light,and listen to Electric Ladyland through the headphones...Really loud!,,,,after that,,,perhaps some early King Crimson.......I'm a glad,and proud old Hippie!.....it wont be long,,and Hippies will be extinct!....enjoy them while you can..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by DdC on November 03, 2002 at 23:00:59 PT Marijuana at the California State Fair 2002... "The Sink in WAMMs Garden"ŠIn a state known for it's large, illegal crops of marijuana, one woman has found art, beauty and acceptance in this long maligned plant. A small group of people, and a legal medical marijuana garden are making history in the city of Santa Cruz, California. Jean Hanamoto, with her husband George, is a five year member of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz. She's been the groups' photographer and pictorial historian almost from the start... Continued ...http://www.marijuana-art.com/ACalStateFair.htmlJean Hanamoto's Alcopulco Gold http://www.marijuana-art.com/GarSmSinkT.jpgNew Riders of the Purple Sage Panama Red http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002515.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpgPANAMA RED http://www.kinkajourecords.com/panamared.htm http://www.kinkajourecords.com/panamared.jpeghttp://www.kinkajourecords.com/homegrowncd.jpgALCAPULCO GOLD http://www.marijuana-art.com/AAlcapulcoGold.htmlhttp://www.marijuana-art.com/AlcapulcoBoxA.jpgAnyone tried Meschmacon out of Lake Alice, Gainsville,Florida around 70/71... Vietnames was halucinagenic, Thai stick... *D.C. May Day demonstrations with a school bus from Indiana half loaded with duffle bags of horse choker lids you couldn't wrap your fist around....$12.00 Oh the daze of the past... [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 22:45:55 PT opps that's prop 203 in Arizona They are two seperate initiatives for the two different states. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 22:38:16 PT Whirrlin I think you have them both now.Arizona's prop. 103http://www.sosaz.com/election/2002/info/pubpamphlet/english/prop203.htmand Nevadas's Question 9 http://www.nrle.org/initiative.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Whirrlin on November 03, 2002 at 22:25:27 PT: Cannaman Cannaman,I'm looking for the Nevda measure, is it the same as the Arizona measure. I belivie it's Propisition 203, if this is the one for Nevda. I found this one Arizona's Secretary of State Propisitions page. Any other information you an give me on this I'd appreciate! Thanks alot for your help!!Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on November 03, 2002 at 21:48:00 PT The C-I-R-C-L-E That was a very good explanation. It makes sense. Even when you buy herbs like SJW it is better to buy it fresh. When herbs are pre packaged they can get old until they finally get to the consumer and not have quite as much medicinal properties. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 21:47:15 PT This article mentions 1% THC as the norm That's hemp! I mean what we called 'commerical' grade mexican had to be around 3% to 5% don't you think? And if you where buying 3 finger lids DANA you were getting ripped off!lol...In my neighborhood they where 4 fingers high and two fingers wide($10). When someone told me it was a weighed oz. for the first time I told him to get lost! Anyway what do you think the percentage or THC in Acapulco Gold might have been? [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by The C-I-R-C-L-E on November 03, 2002 at 21:39:34 PT THC at harvest does not equal THC in pipe Canaman asks: "Reading this article they mention "specially cultivated varieties can go to 20 or 30 percent THC content". Is this possible? I've sampled some pretty potent strains but I really haven't noticed any extreme differance since I first started seeing sinsemilla over 20yrs ago."In reality, with potency, it's not that an end user has suddenly found some specially cultivated varieties with high THC content. What I see is more modern growers that carefully handle their plant material, which results in a truer representation of total available cannabinoids. You can grow the heck out of some superior genetic cannabis but then ruin it by one of three things:1) letting it grow too far along in order to yield more weight, which actually results in less THC and more CBD, the sleepier cannabinoid2) drying and curing the crop in hot, sunlit conditions which degrades THC3) the biggest problem for high THC content herb, before it gets to the end user: storing and handling; using baggies that crush and smear and pinching and handling budI believe we are seeing less of the "1,000-miles away and damaged in route" pot from the 60s and 70s, when more pot was imported. It probably started out in great THC-shape. Now we can get fresh local buds in America and are treating them nicer. The herb has not changed.The wackiest part of this whole article is where they claim pot was 1% THC. Go back to the current homepage of CannabisNews and scroll down to the South Dakota hemp bill: "The measure would make it legal under state law -- but not under federal law -- for a person to plant, cultivate, harvest, possess, process, transport, sell or buy industrial hemp or any of its by-products with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of one percent or less. "Hellooo-oo...you mean no one was actually getting high back in the "70's and early 80s"? Give me a break! Yeah only twenty years ago, Americans were smoking hemp to get high...maroons [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on November 03, 2002 at 21:32:50 PT dddd Please stop worrying so much. I'm not mean. If I was mean I would have shown that by now. GRRRRRRHHH! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by DANA on November 03, 2002 at 21:28:55 PT .Canaman.......Do I Remember?..... ...those were the days!.....In 1969/71,,,I remember being able to shop around for extremely potent,and exotic Golds and Reds!...In fact,,in those days,,,where I grew up,,I could get a "lid",of gold or red ,high octane buds for $10, or 15 bucks!......it was during those good old days,when it was not even sold by weight!....it was measured in "fingers"!...a "three finger lid",was a bag that was about three fingers full.....I know it sounds hard to believe,,,but I remember getting lbs of Oaxacan for $180 bucks......hope it's not inappropriate to mention such things now....I dont wanna wander outside of the recommended perimeters!....d [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 21:14:30 PT chocolate thai mmmmmm....tilt-o-meters...wooooooaah!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by FoM on November 03, 2002 at 21:04:50 PT canaman I'm not an expert but I do remember the different kinds you mentioned and I don't see any difference. Maybe we need a tilt o meter! LOL! I'm really not smart about this topic though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 21:03:49 PT cool lookinside So you think Panama Red may have been say 15%. Do you have any idea what absolute the limit might be? [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 20:58:28 PT Yes FoM I've been curious about this for awhile now. This article got me thinking way back. Like I said in a post below Acapulco Gold and a few others were potent varieties a long time ago. Then came sinsemilla and I haven't noticed a huge differance since. Just wondering what the experts think. Not the propagandists. Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by lookinside on November 03, 2002 at 20:52:17 PT potency... I have a friend who, over a period of 25 years, bred a variety that is consistently 14% THC.Recently, another friend accidentally produced a cross between two strains that has proven to be MUCH more potent. Without actual testing, I'd bet it approaches, and may exceed 20%.Looked at under a microscope, the resin glands are so tightly packed that they almost touch.My wife says that it provides much longer lasting relief than any strain she has previously tried.Anyone who tried the Panama Red that hit California in 1971 KNOWS that Cannabis hasn't improved much from back then.(How about that Thai Stick from '73?) [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on November 03, 2002 at 20:37:58 PT canaman I bet Dr. Russo would have research information that could answer your question. Maybe he'll see this and let us know. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 20:30:41 PT Any horticulturists out there? Reading this article they mention "specially cultivated varieties can go to 20 or 30 percent THC content".Is this possible? I've sampled some pretty potent strains but I really haven't noticed any extreme differance since I first started seeing sinsemilla over 20yrs ago. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 19:50:19 PT Whirrlin You're looking for the Arizona measure right? I'll look in a little while if you havn't found it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on November 03, 2002 at 19:43:57 PT Ron They sure did didn't they. Oh what times these are. I was talking to my husband earlier tonight about how the different papers have stood on any of the Initiatives. I didn't expect to read the San Francisco Chronicle would say NO on the one they have about growing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 19:40:37 PT It was pointed out to me in '96 Ron when Jack Herrer was working on prop 215. Apparently he was wanting to do the same thing Anslinger did in the 30's but in reverse. They were forced to call it 'marijuana' on the ballot then also. To strange...we've come full circle. Back in the 30's no one knew what the evil marijuana was. Now most don't know what cannabis is. Doctors used to prescribe cannabis all the time. Now we have to fight to let them 'recommend' the evil 'marijuana'. Stranger than fiction. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Whirrlin on November 03, 2002 at 19:26:01 PT: Thanks, But Thanks,But what I'm actual looking for is the 10 pages of the Proposition 203 Intitive, not just the ballot question. It's got to be somewhere and avaiable if people are suppose to vote on it.Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Ron Bennett on November 03, 2002 at 19:18:10 PT Marijuana Slang Usage... go to this page for the full meausure. Notice how they were made to change cannabis to marijuana. Forced to keep the slang in...so people won't be confused about what it is.That really stood out to me too...and in my view, it's a mistake. With that said, it's so true that most Americans have no idea what cannabis actually is. Use of the slang "marijuana" isn't going away anytime soon, but for a drug policy group to use it in wording a law is a step backwards.In the whole scope of things, I don't see it being that big of a deal, but is an interesting observation...Ron [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by lookinside on November 03, 2002 at 19:04:01 PT The difference... "seeking treatment"?Juveniles and many, maybe most adults seek treatment because there is no alternative when the judge offers you an alternative to jail.More lies from our benevolent Diktatorship. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 18:43:10 PT Hey Whirrlin go to this page for the full meausure. Notice how they were made to change cannabis to marijuana. Forced to keep the slang in...so people won't be confused about what it is.http://www.nrle.org/initiative.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by canaman on November 03, 2002 at 18:33:04 PT Anybody remember Acapulco Gold or Panama Red? How about Columbian Red, Oaxacan or Michoacan? These were all high TCH content cannabis from Mexico,Central and South America. They were highly sought after strains back in the 60's and early 70's.By reading the following some might think high THC content cannabis was something new.---And the marijuana they're trying is not what it was in the 1970s and early '80s - 1 percent THC content or less (the psychoactive ingredient). On the street, it ranges from 7 to 14 percent THC content, and with specially cultivated varieties can go to 20 or 30 percent THC content. It is not your father's marijuana.---Now I don't know exactly what percentage of THC was in that "Badass" weed we longed for back then. But I remember (barely) smokein' a "J" of Apapulco Gold with a friend for the first time. We were upset for having to pay $20 for a 4 finger lid (about 1oz.),twice the going rate. Suffice it to say we where 'blown away'. I never knew being so high could be so fine. For about 6hrs. we were flying...on one doobie...between two people...unbelieveable! The 'commerical' grade after that wouldn't do. We had become conisours...anyway this bull that high grade cannabis being something new is just that bull! Wish I could find some of that Acapulco Gold again...mmmmm...sweet. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Whirrlin on November 03, 2002 at 18:27:25 PT: Does Anyone Know?? Hello! I'm looking for the actual wording of the Nevda Marijuana inititive. All I've been able to find is the ballot question. If anyone knows a website with this information can you let me know!!Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by The GCW on November 03, 2002 at 18:21:18 PT Mention of addiction? “...marijuana has addictive potential,” but according to Addictive Qualities of Popular Drugs at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm, caffeine is twice as addictive as cannabis. The addiction rates of nicotine which is legal, is higher than heroin. SPEW. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Nasarius on November 03, 2002 at 18:07:29 PT Addiction >>As we know from research, the disease of addiction causes chemical changes in the brain that we can image with advanced technology. The same changes that we image for heroin and cocaine are witnessed with marijuana.Uh...I'm pretty sure that this is completely false. Opiates, heroin, cocaine, etc. all affect dopamine production, whereas cannabinoids do not. In any case, this guy keeps making terrible analogies. The physical addiction potential of cannabis is almost nil. There are withdrawal symptoms (as I have personally experienced), but they are extremely mild and short lasting. By any *real* *scientific* measure of addictiveness, marijuana is, at worst, a bit less addictive than alcohol. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by observer on November 03, 2002 at 17:40:41 PT JAIL ? Oopsie whoopsie! Just "accidently happened" to forget to mention that tiny detail of JAIL and INCARCERATION for smoking pot... Why do you suppose they accidently forgot to mention the JAIL part? Slipped their mind, maybe? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on November 03, 2002 at 17:39:16 PT Only thing right about this article is that "This is Not your Father's Marijuana."More correct to say that "This is my great great grandfather's marijuana". No matter how Mr. Walters may sliced the buds, the buds are the same as it has been for 5 thousand years and will do so for the next five thousand years!ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by BigDawg on November 03, 2002 at 17:33:28 PT Seeking? "We have more teenagers today seeking treatment nationally for marijuana than all other illegal drugs combined."Are they seeking treatment for a substance less addictive than caffiene or are they being FORCED into treatment for smoking a joint on Saturday night and testing positive on Monday's urine analysis? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Toker00 on November 03, 2002 at 15:56:41 PT Someone needs to get this guy some truth. "We need to pay more attention, we need to send a consistent message, we need parents to understand that it's not a rite of passage. For some kids it's not just a gateway drug, it's a dead end and a dead end at a young age."This guy hit a dead end back in the seventies, and is still stuck there. 1% THC back in the seventies and early eighties? That Maui Waui I smoked in '72 had to be at least 10%. 1% Acapulco Gold? I think not. He must have been tricked into buying ditchweed from Joe Sixpack.What a liar and a loser. Product of Pure Governmental Propaganda. Common Sense Out The Window.Peace. Realize, then Re-Legalize. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment