cannabisnews.com: Reefer Madness Redux










  Reefer Madness Redux

Posted by CN Staff on July 27, 2007 at 15:08:31 PT
By Paul Armentano and Marsha Rosenbaum 
Source: Orlando Weekly  

USA -- Heard the latest buzz about cannabis? Word on the street is that today’s pot is exponentially more powerful, and thus more dangerous, than the marijuana available some 20, or even 10, years ago. The nation’s drug czar says so. (“We’re no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s,” John P. Walters recently warned Reuters; “this is Pot 2.0.”) Law enforcement says so.
(Speaking to the Associated Press in June, United States Drug Enforcement Agency special agent Mark R. Trouville, who heads the agency’s Miami office, said, “This ain’t your grandfather’s or your father’s marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you.”) Pot dealers say so. (Advertising to your clientele that you sell only the most potent weed is an effective marketing tool.) Even most pot smokers say so. (Admit it. Who among you is going to tell your friends that you smoke schwag?)Of course, just because people say something often enough doesn’t make it so.Truth is, much of the marijuana available on the market today – just as in past decades – is fairly low-strength, commercial-grade weed. But don’t take our word for it. Read what the DEA has to say. According to the agency’s 2005 handbook, Drugs of Abuse: http://www.dea.gov/pubs/abuse/7-pot.htm of the more than 4,600 domestic samples analyzed by the government between 1998 and 2002, fewer than 2 percent were found to contain THC levels above 20 percent. (THC, for those who don’t speak acronym, is short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the plant’s chief psychoactive ingredient.)A more blunt assessment comes from the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center’s 2007 National Drug Threat Assessment: http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs21/21137/marijuana.htm#Start which states, “Most of the marijuana available in the domestic drug markets is lower potency commercial-grade marijuana.”Perhaps the most reliable source when it comes to the subject of marijuana potency is the University of Mississippi at Oxford, which has been randomly testing seized samples of cannabis for THC content for over two decades. According to the university, average pot potency has increased over the past decades to roughly 8 percent THC. That said, there’s nothing remotely or uniquely dangerous to health about consuming weed that’s 8 percent THC.Unlike alcohol – or even aspirin – today’s pot still poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of its THC potency. In fact, any physician can prescribe a pill that’s 100 percent THC and nobody at the drug czar’s office seems to mind. Moreover, cannabis consumers readily distinguish between low and high-potency marijuana and moderate their use accordingly.In addition, despite claims that marijuana alters the brain, it is important to note that THC – regardless of its potency – is surprisingly nontoxic to the adult, as well as the teenage, mind. Recently, scientists at New York’s Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research reported in the Harm Reduction Journal that they could find “no … evidence of cerebral atrophy or loss of white matter integrity” attributable to cannabis use in the brains of frequent adolescent marijuana users (compared to non-using controls) after performing MRI scans and other advanced imaging technology. Read the study here: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/17 Separate studies assessing the cognitive skills of long-term marijuana smokers have also reported no lingering deficits.But what about the suggestion that today’s pot is so strong that taking just one puff is a one-way ticket to drug rehab? Predictably, the devil is in the details. Data from the federal Drug and Alcohol Services Information System confirms that more individuals are now enrolled in drug treatment for pot than ever before. However, this increase is a direct result of the fact that more Americans are being arrested for pot (nearly 800,000 at last count) than ever before. In fact, a new study published in June in the online journal BMC Public Health reports among the 27,000-plus adults entered into Texas drug treatment clinics between 2000 and 2005, a whopping 70 percent of them were diverted to treatment as a condition of sentencing, parole or probation. Faced with the choice of jail or attending drug treatment, most minor pot offenders – understandably – choose treatment, whether they need it or not. So if today’s pot is essentially the same plant it’s always been – with any marginal increase in potency akin to the difference between a cup of tea and an espresso – why is the government claiming otherwise? Mainly to scare parents, particularly those millions of parents who may have, without incident, experimented with marijuana in the 1970s, when they were about the same age as their children are today. Fortunately for them, while the feds’ latest “reefer rhetoric” may sound alarming, there’s little substance behind the hype. Note: The myths behind 'potent' pot. Source: Orlando Weekly (FL)Author: Paul Armentano and Marsha RosenbaumPublished: July 27, 2007Copyright: 2007 Orlando WeeklyContact: feedback orlandoweekly.comWebsite: http://www.orlandoweekly.com/ NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #21 posted by The GCW on July 31, 2007 at 05:09:07 PT
why is the government claiming otherwise? 
There are a combination of reasons the Gov. claims cannabis is bad....The primary reason comes down to its ability to bring peace in a spiritual way.Cannabis: the tree of life, of Biblical reality has the potential to help end war etc.The very last page of the Bible says the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations.The Feds / Gov. are warmongers not peaceniks.Healing is not their interest.Think about it.The leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations.Rev. 22The Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by RevRayGreen on July 29, 2007 at 21:34:29 PT
Yeah.......
from a distance it was a distincet yellow/orange in the
bag, take a bud out it was like hay :( sun-bleached/dried with something to make it a brighter color. not much of a smell either.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on July 29, 2007 at 20:56:24 PT
Well...it could have, I'm sure.
Could have happened during one of my many and extended "down" times. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on July 29, 2007 at 20:54:35 PT
Bleached weed?
That's terrible. Apparently, that trend didn't hit this area.Yuck!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by MikeC on July 29, 2007 at 20:00:34 PT
Rev...
I am from the midwest, originally from Chicago now Wisconsin near the twin cities. I do remember the bleached crap as well. It was ridiculous. I also remember however some very gold in appearance MJ that was out of this world. Whether it was from Columbia or not I hadn't a clue...I could only go by what was told to me at the point of the aquisition.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by RevRayGreen on July 29, 2007 at 19:09:54 PT
Who remembers that crap
early 80's, bleached weed that people were passing off as Colombian Gold or "Gold" commercial variety, sure it was
"Gold" or bright yellow, but it wasn't from Colombia :(
I remeber gettiing stuck with some of that once,and only once :( If you're from the midwest you may remember.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by MikeC on July 29, 2007 at 17:21:24 PT
museman...
I recall one time during the seventies a friend gave me a small baggie of Colmubian Gold....almost canary yellow in color.  It was just a small amount but enough to roll one. I had back pain that needed medicating after all. In any event pretty much every other strain that I have tried in the last thirty years paled in comparison. These potency claims are bunk! I just don't understand how we as a society can't overcome this. Apparently programs like D.A.R.E. work on the weak minded. Here's an example of one ridiculous experience that I had. It is known by a few that I work with that I enjoy marijuana and have for decades. One day a co-worker was having auto work done and asked me if I could drive him home. As we got to his neighborhood he said to me "You can drop me here on the corner". I said "Nonsense, I'll take you to your front door". He said (exact quote!) "My wife doesn't want you to know where we live. She said that because you are on the pot you might come back and rob us". "On the pot"? I laughed out loud. "On the pot"? "I might rob you"? I did not attempt to educate him...they sound too far gone. Wow, people sure are ignorant. I didn't think that it was possible for anyone to think that way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by museman on July 29, 2007 at 16:11:24 PT
lest we forget...
Ah... the good 'ol days. Thai Stick. Panama Red. Ohoacan. Columbian Red, Gold, Brown, and Black. Vietnamese. Afghanistani. Maui Wowie. Kona Gold. Alaskan Thunderf--k. Acapulco Gold -my first taste of herb in 1969 during the moon landing-. Michmuachon. Lambs Tails. And the source of all comparisons to weed of the '60's and '70's = 'mexican dirtweed.' I just scratch the surface.Hogwash, blather, and absolute nonsense - the lying is getting really thick. Increased potency of ignorance is more like it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by user123 on July 29, 2007 at 10:51:19 PT:
From the Mouth's of Idiots
Speaking to the Associated Press in June, United States Drug Enforcement Agency special agent Mark R. Trouville, who heads the agency’s Miami office, said, “This ain’t your grandfather’s or your father’s marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you.”
Ok, I'll bite. Where are all the bodies? If this will kill you, it stands to reason that there should be high body count tied directly to the use of this potent cannabis. Yet, I see nothing in the news about teenager's O.D.ing on weed and we all know if it were happening it would be headline news everywhere. The Sheeple should learn to trust, but verify. Right now they just trust. Blindly!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on July 28, 2007 at 16:14:14 PT
Hemp Sand Bags
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n903/a08.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on July 28, 2007 at 14:27:32 PT
LaGuardia
You said one of the truest thing...known to every experienced cannabist and connoisseur of cannabis. "And no matter how much you smoke, you eventually reach a THC saturation threshold above which you get no additional psychoactive effect. At that point, you could keep smoking and smoking high potency weed and you might as well be smoking banana peels."One of the things that makes it such an astounding substance, in my opinion.It seems to have built in safeguards. Mixing types and batches is not a good idea, either. It has something to do with those other cannabinoids besides the THC, that, obviously, have a balancing, agonist, or buffering sort of effect on each other. And it's also why Marinol and Drobinol, or whatever they call the pharmaceutically produced artificial THC, is such a strong and powerful "mind bender". Marinol doesn't have the natural, built in buffering or complementing cannabinoids that are in the natural, whole plant. Pardon my burst of spiritual zeal...or insanity...as you may see it... but that's just too amazing, to me, anyway, not to have been designed by a powerful, powerful and very interesting intelligence of some kind. That intelligence gave us some gentle and lovely things in creation and some not so apparently gentle and lovely things...but cannabis is, truly, one of the gentle and lovely ones. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Hope on July 28, 2007 at 14:06:49 PT
MikeC
Surely there is someone at NORML or MPP or Drugsense that can at least get in contact with someone that might be able to pose your question to Walters and Souder.They could have had the human decency to respond to your e-mail. They, JW, MS, and the rest of them, despise us and what we are concerned about, obviously.Over the years I've phoned, spoken to, or written, snail mail, and e-mail, to quite a few lawmakers. I have received answers from them and got on their mailing lists on every subject that I broached... except where they concerned marijuana or drug policy. I have gotten responses from lawmakers when I sent them notices of concern about drug policies. Ron Paul's office for one. And even my cranky old dinosaur of a Rep. that voted against Hinchey...and has before and told me why and what he thought about it. We disagreed... rather vehemently...but at least he had the human decency to acknowledge my concern.But my correspondence to some of them on the matters of drug and cannabis policy have just been, apparently, totally ignored, more than not.I get their message. They despise me. It's really hard not to feel the same way about them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by MikeC on July 28, 2007 at 11:43:41 PT
Hope/LaGuardia...
Thank you for the kind words.I've wondered that since the first time that I've heard those ridiculous statements. I just wish I knew someone that has opportunities to pose my question directly to a guy like John Walters or a Mark Souder. I would really like to hear the answer to my question. I have in fact posed the question to JW, MS, and many others in the form of an email but as you can guess, I've never gotten as much as an acknowledgment that received my email.Thank you again. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Hope on July 28, 2007 at 09:45:54 PT
So true, LaGuardia.
I meant to say something to Mike C. about his comment. That was a brilliant observation, in my opinion."I have to wonder when they make such stupid comments like "This isn't your fathers marijuana we're talking about here" or "This isn't the marijuana of the 60's or 70's".Are they saying that the marijuana from that era wasn't so dangerous after all? Are they saying that they made a mistake in keeping marijuana from that era illegal?It's quite simply more b.s. They can go to hell."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by LaGuardia on July 28, 2007 at 09:19:51 PT
How they made up the potency figures 
The figures for increased marijuana potency are usually based on comparing the kindest recent pot to some weed from the 1970s that was stored in oil drums for twenty years before the government tested it in the 1990s. By that time it had dessicated and lost almost all of its THC content.That is how these geniuses came up with the "30 times more powerful" figure that you see cited time and again.But even if pot is stronger, so what? You would still need to ingest about two pounds in an hour to overdose, and that is not humanly possible. There has never been a reported marijuana overdose fatality in over 5000 years of human consumption of the plant. And no matter how much you smoke, you eventually reach a THC saturation threshold above which you get no additional psychoactive effect. At that point, you could keep smoking and smoking high potency weed and you might as well be smoking banana peels.MikeC makes a good point. The DEA and the drug czar are saying, in effect, that the marijuana from the 60's and 70's was not so bad. There probably are some plants from that era that are still around as clones. I guess that smoking those buds would be A-okay!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by MikeC on July 27, 2007 at 20:18:17 PT
whig...
Well then I'd gladly use it for a bonfire!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by whig on July 27, 2007 at 20:11:03 PT

MikeC
I'd think most marijuana from the 60s and 70s would be stale by now. :)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by MikeC on July 27, 2007 at 19:17:21 PT

Hmmm...
I have to wonder when they make such stupid comments like "This isn't your fathers marijuana we're talking about here" or "This isn't the marijuana of the 60's or 70's".Are they saying that the marijuana from that era wasn't so dangerous after all? Are they saying that they made a mistake in keeping marijuana from that era illegal?It's quite simply more b.s. They can go to hell.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by ekim on July 27, 2007 at 19:11:21 PT

MOST WATCHED SEGMENTS--
http://www.c-span.org/
WASHINGTON JOURNAL
MOST WATCHED SEGMENTS--see what environmental book he compares his to.
Joseph Califano, Author, "High Society" (7/14/2007)ON Q&A
Filmmaker Kevin Leffler 
This weekend on Q&A is Filmmaker Kevin Leffler. He discusses his new documentary, "Shooting Michael Moore". In his film, he examines Michael Moore's work. You can always watch previous programs and read guest biographies in the Q&A archives.
SUN., C-SPAN2, 8PM ET
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by ekim on July 27, 2007 at 18:53:13 PT

send a copy to your mayor or who wants to be

US: U.S. Mayors Declare Drug War a FailureURL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n901/a02.html 

http://www.stoparrestingpatients.org
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by dirtmover on July 27, 2007 at 18:29:04 PT

Yawn!
Same old, same old....BS.I'll put the seeded Panama Red from 1969, or the Thai Stick of 1973 up against anything grown today.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment