cannabisnews.com: Pot Article Misleading Pot Article Misleading Posted by FoM on September 28, 1999 at 08:01:39 PT Opinion By Bill Harper Source: Lexington Herald I found your article ``The parenting problems of pot'' to be shocking in its lack of balance. Several of the statistics that were used were blatantly false government anti-drug propaganda. The headline screams that pot ``is more potent'' than ever. It says pot is ``40 to 100 times more potent'' than in past years. Nonsense. Acapulco gold, Columbian gold and Maui wowee have been around for years. The government uses the ``100 times more potent'' lie to frighten parents into thinking that the harmless grass they tried in college has now evolved into a sinister superdrug.Another false statement made in the article is that those who smoke are ``85 times more likely to use cocaine.'' This research is done by polling cocaine users and asking them if they had ever tried marijuana. The article says that 48 percent of those who enter treatment enter it for marijuana use, yet doesn't mention that most of those are forced into treatment as terms of employment, probation, etc.The article makes no reference to our explosive prison growth, court logjams, or human rights violations in our nation's war on marijuana. The fact that six states voted to legalize medicinal use in last fall's election shows the need for some unbiased reporting on this issue. The government is running a $2 billion anti-drug campaign. Parents are talking to their kids about what matters; cocaine and heroin use are down. The government just doesn't like what they are saying.Bill HarperLexingtonPublished Tuesday, September 28, 1999, in the Herald-Leader The Parenting Problems Of Pot - 8/12/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread2452.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by ian owens on September 29, 1999 at 09:50:14 PT: super hash i would like to know where i can get hold of this super-potent super-super hash from....ive been asking round r way and nobody heard of it!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by herbman on September 29, 1999 at 06:56:22 PT: THC Content Hey I smoked pot in the early 70's that put me on my keester!What was that stuff-skank?I believe pot today is more consistent in Thc values but certainly not alot stronger.I think the dope they are refering to with 80-100% THC content is on the streets today!!It's called MARINOL!!herbman The Hemp Canadian [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on September 28, 1999 at 15:39:09 PT Preaching to the converted... Friends, the problem isn't that the blather mentioned in the original article is posed as 'factual'; the prohibitionist have been lying for 62 years. It's a habit they feel safe in indulging, because no one of any consequence is able to punish them for lying. And since they avoid open debate like the plague, prefering to vomit their lies on TV talk shows and then leave before they can be faced by an articulate Reformer, they have been getting away with it.What we need are the '90s version of the Republican 'truth squads' of the 1970's. Whenever a Democrat stumping for office said something that rankled the planted Republicans in the audience, they would stand up and challenge that person to prove his facts, while providing their own.Granted, this tactic was purely political and little more than organized heckling, but it got a Republican president elected into office. I daresay we have a much more honest and proper goal; the removal of the added burden of the threat of legal punishment for sick and terminally people who are already suffering through no fault of their own. Unless and until the politicians have their feet held to the fire for telling these lies, our cause will never be taken seriously. And they are counting on exactly that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Joel on September 28, 1999 at 12:34:29 PT: Give me a break... The article to which Mr. Harper is referring states that that today's pot is much more potent (choose your own percentage figures, everybody else does) than the pot of 30 years ago. How does the author of the original article know?First of all, due to the contraband nature of marijuana, there are NO statistics concerning potency of typical commercial grass from the '60s. NONE. The research that was done to determine potency was undertaken in the early and mid '70s by (most notably) PharmChem. In 1975, their tests of 138 different samples showed that most fell between the 2% - 3% THC range. One sample had 14% THC. Our government's own tests show that samples tested in 1997 had an average potency of 3.71%. Now, I'm not a math genius, but that just doesn't seem anywhere near "40 to 100 times more potent" than the stuff from the past. The stuff from Amsterdam that everybody talks about being so incredibly potent averages about 8-10%. There are very few that go over 20%, and of the two or three I remember reading about, one of them is a strain that has been around for hundreds (thousands?) of years in an unadulterated state. A pure, natural strain consisting of more than 25% THC. The notion that more potent pot equals more dangerous pot is ludicrous! One of the main arguments you hear from some of the prohibitionists is that pot smoke is worse for you than cigarettes because of the extra tar, etc... Wouldn't smoking more potent pot lessen your need to inhale massive amounts of toxic smoke, thus lowering the dangers associated with the smoke? Just a thought.One more thing, just because there is potent stuff out there (which there has always been), that doesn't mean that everyone would automatically choose the stoniest stuff. Indeed, it's been found that most people who frequent coffee shops in Amsterdam prefer the average (8-10%) stuff. It seems analagous to alcohol. Even though whiskey and the like are very potent, most people prefer beer or wine. I better go before I get too verbose...Joel [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Chris Knestrick on September 28, 1999 at 09:25:51 PT: 40 Times More Potent?!?!?! Since marijuana is about 3% THC, wouldn't that make this new "super pot" 120 - 300% THC?!?!?!? I don't think those numbers add up. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: