cannabisnews.com: Going Up in Smoke Going Up in Smoke Posted by FoM on August 06, 2000 at 08:53:37 PT By Linda Williamson -- Toronto Sun Source: Ottawa Sun For a group of people who claim to be mellow, live-and-let-live types, marijuana activists can get pretty worked up. The supposedly landmark decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which technically struck down down the ban on pot possession, set them off from coast to coast last week, declaring the day for decriminalization was high -- er, nigh. You'd have thought the judges had made the stuff legal. But the truth is, they were only trying to make life easier for folks who need marijuana for medical reasons. The reason they suspended the law for 12 months was basically to light a fire under the feds -- fix the law or all of Ontario will be up in smoke (or rather, smoking up) come next August. In fact, the court specifically noted that this was a case where simply striking down the law "poses a danger to the public." Exactly. Medical use is one thing, but Canada is far from ready for legalization of pot, or even decriminalization. Yes, I'm well aware -- thanks in part to all those activists, who are avid writers of letters to the editor. And I'd agree it's time for a full, open discussion about our marijuana laws. But first the activists are going to have to admit a few things about their miracle weed. For one thing, it will have to be regulated. Yes, it's "natural," but we're talking about a strong, mind-altering substance here. Today's pot is far more potent than the stuff aging boomers might have experimented with in college -- up to 2,500 times more potent. Blame technology -- sophisticated hydroponics, breeding and home grow-light systems. This stuff can have you practically hallucinating after a couple of tokes. So don't try to tell me it doesn't impair people's faculties and that users don't endanger anyone. Pot devotees, of course, will swear to you they actually drive, etc. better when they're stoned -- even as they're bursting out laughing at the joke someone told 10 minutes ago. One study in 1994 found 276 drivers killed in accidents had used pot. We still know very little about the effects of this drug. You don't really know what's in that joint you're smoking -- you can't tell how strong it is and it's difficult to control how much you're ingesting. There's no breathalyzer-type test of impairment, and we don't really know if it's addictive, or how long-term use affects the body. A few activists admit these risks, though of course they blame the law. "The black market prevents you from having any quality control," says David Malmo-Levine, who's fighting his B.C. possession conviction up to the Supreme Court. At least he conceded, in an interview with the Winnipeg Sun, that smoking pot can be harmful. This would seem evident to any non-smoker (of tobacco, I mean -- now that stuff should be illegal) -- all that inhaling can't be good for the lungs. Malmo-Levine advocates "harm-reduction" methods, including using a water bong and taking Vitamin C. Also, know what strain you're smoking. (How? Where's the label?) "Smoke organic, high-potency marijuana during high-pleasure, low-stress activities and you will do no harm to yourself or anybody else," he advises. Great. But what about those who don't follow those mellow guidelines? Obviously, I'm not what you'd call a pot person. Legal or not, it wouldn't affect my life much, since I've never been a big fan of the culture -- I don't particularly like the passing-the-joint thing, the loss of control, the stupid stoner stare, and I hate any kind of smoke. Yes, alcohol can be evil, but it's more pleasant to imbibe, easier to pace oneself and generally makes for more convivial conversation -- not always Noel Coward, perhaps, but preferable to Cheech and Chong. Once some of the basic questions about health risks are answered, I wouldn't object to more accessible, carefully controlled and labelled marijuana, perhaps sold in liquor stores (as cigarettes should be). After all, with an estimated 2.5 million users out there, it's pretty prevalent anyway. As one pot paraphernalia retailer told the Toronto Sun, "Sales are booming now. If it becomes legal, it's not like you will see a massive increase in consumption." But let's not kid ourselves. As Malmo-Levine says, "Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's not medicine." Indeed. And medicine can be dangerous. E-mail: lwilliam sunpub.comPublished: August 6, 2000Copyright © 2000, Canoe Limited Partnership. Related Articles:Reefer Madness Reduxhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6594.shtmlMarijuana as Medicinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6593.shtmlRewrite Law on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6589.shtmlCourt Strikes Down Marijuana Possession Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6577.shtml CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by Dan B on August 06, 2000 at 19:08:50 PT: Check This Out. An excellent response by Richard Cowan to the article from which this person obviously lifted her data can be found at Marijuana News. Below is a link to the response titled "We have another reefer madness winner!"The original article is titled "Pot Controls Still Needed" and was published in the London Free Press. One should point out that the above article does more to support the legalization of cannabis than to refute it. For starters, she reveals quite clearly that she has never paid attenton to a conversation about cannabis legalization with any knowledgeable advocate of legalization. If she had, she would know that most of us do think the drug should be regulated in one way or another (sold only in certain places, not sold to children, etc.). It just shouldn't be illegal for any adult to possess it, and children who need it for medical reasons should be afforded the same protection that adult medical cannabis users deserve. That is what most of us want.Second, most of the other comments on this thread speak to the ridiculous nature of her assumptions about alcohol use versus cannabis use and about her idiocy when stating that marijuana of today has a potency level that is 25 times its own weight (at least). To these, I would like to add that her allusion to those who do not follow David Malmo-Levine's "guidelines" for safe pot use is foolhardy. It's none of her or anyone else business what people do in the privacy of their own homes--least of all the government's business. Third, she argues that people often don't know what strain of weed they are getting or how potent it is. True--which means we need to legalize and regulate it (to a degree) so businesses will place labels to that effect on the products being sold. That is the only way we would know. Keeping it illegal creates this problem; it doesn't solve it.Her argument that "we don't really know if it's addictive, or how long-term use affects the body" speaks volumes about the "we" she is referring to--those people who rush into government-sponsored judgement of this plant without taking the time to check facts. Plenty of studies have been conducted on this plant, and they all point to the fact that it is one of the safest therapeutically-active substances known to humanity. Twinkies are just as dangerous--perhaps more so.In short (I know--when do I ever write anything "in short"), articles like these exhibit to all the ludicrous nature of arguments against the use of marijuana, and they highlight some of the reasons why it should be legal. Of course, they never mention the harmful effects of arrest, searches and seizures, prison terms, or hefty fines. Interesting omission. We Have Another Reefer Madness Winner! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on August 06, 2000 at 13:54:51 PT: The requisite put-down. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this: reporters write about the 'cannabis culture' in which they invariably:1)Show disdain for those involved in it, even to the point of impugning the intelligence of users.2)Attempt to compare the cannabis experience to the alcohol experience in a way that supposedly shows the legal alcohol one to be somehow superior.Now, why must they do that? Why must they feel that strong a need to disparage those that they write about?Part of the reason is editorial bias, plain and simple. The editor doesn't like the 'type' of people who he or she thinks exhibit the behavior typical of 'dopers'(...passing-the-joint thing, the loss of control, the stupid stoner stare) which many associate with the '60s.So, Ms. Williamson would prefer the company of those elegantly coiffed, satin dressed and Brookes Brother suited members of the elite, delicately sipping their sherry and brandy in their drawing rooms with soft candlelight and Sibelius playing on the stereo. Fine. Good for her. But my own experience with alcohol imbibers have been less genteel. No matter how decent they may be when sober, I've witnessed some wretched behavior; behavior that comes out sooner or later. Most of whom, at one time or another, will reduce themselves to vomiting, shaking, publicly urinating louts eager to pick a fight with their best friends, terrorize innocent household pets, or attempt to play vehicular 'chicken' with the nearest lampost, guardrail, or unlucky motorist. I find the smell of alcohol revolting. The only thing it's good for is cuts and scrapes, unless you happen to be driving a Formula One Racer, in which case it makes an excellent fuel. Knowingly drinking something that chemically lobotomizes you by destroying brain cells does not strike me as particularly intelligent. Yet people do it. Legally.Whereas, I've had some of the most engaging conversations and satori-like insights while buzzed and in the company of stoners. No one fought. No one disaparaged anyone else. People got along effortlessly. And if you smoked too much, you drifted off to sleep; not sloppily passed out and laying in a puddle of your own gorp.I know whose company I prefer; too bad Ms. Williamson will allow her editorial prejudices from precluding her from meeting people she might like... in spite of herself. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by squidmunch on August 06, 2000 at 10:14:24 PT DANGEROUS? I read in the local newspaper,almost on a monthly basis,that someone impaired by alcohol has tried to tearapart someone else's face with broken beer bottles.This includes similar attacks on police officers who frequentlyhave to deal with people who have not paced their drinking very successfully.Yet,not once have I read of any marijuana smokers trying to carve people apartwith joints or anything else for that matter.It seems to me most alcohol users are anything but convivial. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by R.Earing on August 06, 2000 at 09:57:49 PT: Oh, c'mon now! Hi,Where to start? 2500 times more potent. Average=6%THC/weight X 2500=really,really good weed."Hallucinating after a couple of tokes" that really is good, isn't it? "1994 study shows 276 drivers had used pot" What, within the last 3 months? How many were killed by alcohol,how many had no drugs in their systems? I'll bet that number was a whole lot higher. "WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER IT'S ADDICTIVE."-Hmm,how about doing some fair and unbiased studies then?(Never mind that there is "some" research on the topic dating back to Shen Nung in 5000 B.C. and continuing right through today with NIDA.Isn't 7000+ years of research about enough already?)She fears the "LOSS OF CONTROL", then mentions that alcohol is more "CONVIVIAL".Has she ever been in a bar? Hard to be very convivial when vomiting or fighting.You tell me,who's more friendly and passive, a Viper or a Boozer?I know my local bar is just brimming with NOEL COWARD types spinning "Bon Mots" and engaging in raffish "repartee".(More like drunked up cowboy thugs looking for someone to beat up.) [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by DCP on August 06, 2000 at 09:53:41 PT: 2,500 TIMES MORE POTENT? Lets see, if marijuana of the '60s was 1% THC (a low estimate) then today's pot at 2,500 times more potent, it must be 25 times its own weight in THC. Somebody needs to go back to school and study arithmetic! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: