cannabisnews.com: Reefer Madness?





Reefer Madness?
Posted by FoM on August 13, 2000 at 07:06:38 PT
By Linda Williamson -- Toronto Sun
Source: Toronto Sun
Cannabis crusaders try to blow smoke on some of the points in last week's column. Well, I'll say this for marijuana smokers, they're able to react faster and more forcefully than I gave them credit for. After last week's column expressing my misgivings over decriminalization and possible legalization of pot, I've been crushed, rolled, twisted and set on fire (metaphorically of course) by cannabis crusaders. To all those folks, may I say, respectfully: chill. 
 Of course, many were incredulous over my statement that pot today has been found to be up to 2,500 times more potent than it used to be. They were right. The number, which came from one of our sister papers, isn't correct. The reference is from an RCMP document entitled "Taking a Balanced Approach: Canada's Drug Policy from the National Police Perspective," by: C/Supt. Tim Quigley of the Mounties' Drug Enforcement Branch. Here's what it said: "The type of marijuana ... baby boomers may have used back in the 1960s is not the same type of marijuana that is smoked today by our youth. Marijuana potency levels have dramatically increased. This new marijuana is now, on average, up to 700% stronger. This does not include the omnipotent sensimilla brand of marijuana ... or hashish oil, which on average, is up to 2,500% stronger than the 1960s marijuana cigarette." So you see, it's 2,500%, not 2,500 times, and he's talking hash oil vs. pot. Mea culpa. However, Quigley goes on to say: "The concern lies in the fact that parents are generally unaware of marijuana's increasing potency, and thus, do not assess their child's potential marijuana use given the current situation .... It is our belief that a drug is a drug. For example, we know that one dose of high-potency marijuana is equivalent to one dose of LSD." Now, I can already hear the response to this - it's a police document, after all. Cops can't possibly have a "balanced approach," now, can they? Hey, tell it to the RCMP. I have other things to deal with. Like, for instance, all those who took issue with my lighthearted observations about what I dislike about the pot-smoking experience. For instance, the way time stretches out and you start giggling about something that was said 10 minutes ago. "What evidence do you have of this 10-minute delay in reaction time?" one writer demanded. Oh, lighten up. Several writers hotly denied my saying some pot is practically hallucinogenic (see LSD comparison above). Yet one sent me an essay from the late scientist (and pot advocate) Carl Sagan, who enthused that it helped him see "pictures on the inside of my eyelids" back in the '60s. Others dismissed my call for more studies to determine the long-term effects of pot use and exactly how much it impairs one's ability to, say, drive a car. The issue has been studied to death, and no serious effects have been found, they said. (Though a number of writers cited several studies that concluded just the opposite.) That's all well and good, but I was thinking of an authoritative Canadian study from which we could develop standards and a breathalyzer-style test for marijuana impairment. If there's no such impairment (though most of my e-mailers conceded they, personally, wouldn't drive stoned, duh!), what's everyone so defensive about? Hey, tobacco and booze have been studied to death, too. Yet there are still folks out there who swear smoking cigarettes isn't harmful either. And speaking of booze, many writers were insulted that I would personally prefer relaxing with a glass of wine to getting stoned, since, with today's high-potency pot, it's difficult to control just how whacked out you're going to get. In some folks' books, that makes me no better than an alcoholic, even though I acknowledged the misery demon drink can cause. One correspondent, however, gently suggested that "inexperienced pot users tend to overdo it" and practice makes perfect. Perhaps, but I'm still not a big fan of smoking anything - and, I note, most of the known health risks with pot come from combustion, not the mind-altering cannibinoids. This same person also summarized the lengthy reasons of Ontario Justice John McCart in a 1997 medical marijuana case, who concluded, among other things, that marijuana was "relatively harmless" compared to booze, tobacco and other drugs; there's no evidence of it causing irreversible physical or mental damage; that it "would not be prudent" to drive a car while stoned; that pot doesn't "induce psychoses," is not addictive and does not lead users to crime or harder drugs. That judge, in turn, cited the concern of B.C. Justice Francis Howard, who lamented the "lack of open communication between young persons and their elders" about their use of pot and other drugs, along with the risk that young pot users "will be associating with actual criminals and hard drug users who are the primary suppliers of the drug" and "the lack of governmental control over the quality of the drug." Well, I'd agree with both judges' observations entirely. But obviously they're not advocating a marijuana free-for-all - they're saying we need more study and discussion on how to control and regulate it. I welcome the debate. To that end, while I appreciate the advice, I do hope the level of discourse rises above the note I got from a stoner who instructed me to "remove the pickle." Peace, everyone. Contact: editor sunpub.comAddress: 333 King St. E., Toronto, Ontario M5A 3X5 CanadaFax: (416) 947-3228Forum: http://www.canoe.ca/Chat/newsgroups.htmlPublished: August 13, 2000 Copyright © 2000, Canoe Limited Partnership. Related Article:Going Up in Smokehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6632.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Gary Storck on August 24, 2000 at 20:53:15 PT
My PUB LTE regarding this
When I read this, I was moved to write an LTE. I quickly dashed off one and it got published!Linda Williamson's attempt to explain her harmful screed, "Reefer madness?" (Aug. 13), is just a continuation of her earlier rant. Her cliche-ridden backtracking still plays fast and loose with the facts, and it reflects negatively on her credibility and that of the Toronto Sun.Marijuana prohibition is not a trivial matter, as her comments seem to imply, but instead an extremely harmful malaise that has resulted in millions of arrests and jailings in North America alone.The cruel and immoral suppression of medical use has caused untold human suffering.Marijuana prohibition is a counterproductive fraud that will never work. It's time to get past it, and to get past the ignorant ponderings of reporters like Williamson, who unwittingly play into the hands of prohibitionist lies by propagating the myths used to justify this cruel attack on fellow humans who choose to employ this beneficial herb. 
CN ON: PUB LTE: Williamson Fast And Loose With The Facts
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by dddd on August 15, 2000 at 23:38:35 PT
tasteless
my apologies for the tasteless attempt at humor
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by dddd on August 14, 2000 at 00:29:09 PT
pickle butt
 This was a futile attempt to dislodge the kosher dill,,there might even be an old gerkin up there. Even though she has attempted to politely worm out of an obviously garbage article,,she remains somewhere in the realm of the chronicly brainwashed proctolically retentive person in denial. Quite frankly,I'm amazed that the pickle ended up successfully inserted there in the first place..........dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by observer on August 13, 2000 at 12:49:17 PT
Toronto Sun / Calgary Sun
. Well, I'll say this for marijuana smokers, they're able to react faster and more forcefully than I gave them credit for.One more thing that I forgot to mention earier. Notice how this prohibitionist, so typical of others, immediately resorts to calling those who disagree with her "marijuana smokers." We've seen this presumption so many times before, especially in the Sun and sister paper. The editor loves to append a parenthetical comment to every letter published: the editor's comments attempt to undercut the letter writer's points (when letters are speaking against imprisoning cannabis smokers, that is) very frequently The Sun's editor insinuates that the letter writer's only motivation in writing (about not wanting to see people thrown in prison) is because the letter writer is a pothead. Williamson's lead-in, which makes the same "you're a marijuana-smoker if you disagree with me" insinuation, is par for the course.Here are some typical Toronto Sun parenthetical comments appended to letters that suggest a need for changing the cannabis laws: "(We can't stop murder either, do you want that legalized too?) . . . (...Try using logic, not insults) . . . (When [the government official] says you can, we'd like to analyze [your urine], please) . . . (We'll never win until we decide it really is a war) . . . (Giving up by giving in isn't good parenting either) . . . (But we didn't inhale) . . .(We'd ask what you're smoking, but we already know)"The "sister paper" Canoe Partnership Ltd's other paper, the Calgary Sun takes an equally prohibitionist editorial line in the sarcastic comments that pro-freedom letters have appended to them all:"(Legalization and decriminalization are two different things.) . . . (Linda's [Williamson] in favour of marijuana being available medically. She's opposed to it being legalized.). . . (That number was a typo. It should have read 2,500%.) . . . (Her figures come from an RCMP report.) . . .[A letter thanking Soros:] (By druggies maybe.)"Right on, baby ... "chill."(To read them yourself, you can search for source = Toronto Sun or Calgary Sun in http://www.mapinc.org/find )
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by r.earing on August 13, 2000 at 09:50:49 PT:
They were right about the pickle!
I mean it's gotta be uncomfortable having an undigested pickle stuck in a sphincter.That sort of thing would eventually drive ya nuts.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by observer on August 13, 2000 at 09:44:50 PT
Comparing Sea-water vs. Salt
Coming from this stable of frothing prohibitionism, even a bit of crow on the Sun's menu is delightful to behold. At least they corrected themselves ... unlike ol' Pinocchio McCaffrey over here http://www.csdp.org/ads/pinocchio.htm who's motto seems to be, "Never admit to a lie."Still, they might have been a lot less equivocal, the Sun. Comparing "hash oil" with ditchweed? Come-on. (Even then, 2,500% is way off) Hashish and "hash oil" have been around since before the 60's of course. (The boomers' "Anarchist Cookbook", 1971, has recipes. So such "boomers" comparisons are bogus from any number of points of view.) This type of dishonest (at best) "comparison" is entirely typical for prohibitionists to make. But the "2,500 times" was pushing it, quantitatively, even for the more foaming prohibitionists as are found at the Sun (and yes, in vast concentrations south of the border in the United Police States of A.). The "Sun" probably got so much email on that obvious and rank "typo" that they knew even hard-core prohibitionists would choke on that. Look at the dishonesty of that ditchweed vs oil comparison. For the sake of argument, let's grant them the accuracy of even this highly dubious claim (oil 2,500% stronger than 60's ditchweed).  It is just like saying during the roaring 20's, that the average potency of liquor went from 6% before prohibition (when more beer and wine were consumed) to over 40% (when moonshine, bathtub gin, etc. took over for underground distribution). The Right Standing Prohibitionist of the 20's could stand up and say, "But the Evil Demon Liquor is so much stronger nowdays than the weak stuff we tippled in our youthful indiscretions."Really just the tiny tip of an iceberg of falsehoods, as most of us well realize. It points out once more the feeding-chain of disinformation: from lying, career building, power tripping police, government attorneys and politicians, to pliant media lackeys who shamelessly enhance the falsity of already outrageous lies. Standard operating procedure; situation normal. see also:Canadian Police (RCMP) Report: "The average THC content of all samples analysed since 1995 is about 6%." http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=187And check out this Swedish, rabidly prohibitionist "news" organization site's own cannabis potency report, quoting an abstract from a US government paper:TITLE: Potency trends of delta9-THC and other cannabinoids in confiscated marijuana from 1980-1997.J Forensic Sci 2000 Jan;45(1):24-30  (ISSN: 0022-1198)El Sohly MA, National Center for The Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Departments of Pharmaceutics, University of Mississippi, University 38677, USA.The analysis of 35,312 cannabis preparations confiscated in the USA over a period of 18 years for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC) and other major cannabinoids is reported. Samples were identified as cannabis, hashish, or hash oil. Cannabis samples were further subdivided into marijuana (loose material, kilobricks and buds), sinsemilla, Thai sticks and ditchweed. The data showed that more than 82% of all confiscated samples were in the marijuana category for every year except 1980 (61%) and 1981 (75%). The potency (concentration of delta9-THC) of marijuana samples rose from less than 1.5% in 1980 to approximately 3.3% in 1983 and 1984, then fluctuated around 3% till 1992. Since 1992, the potency of confiscated marijuana samples has continuously risen, going from 3.1% in 1992 to 4.2% in 1997.The average concentration of delta9-THC in all cannabis samples showed a gradual rise from 3% in 1991 to 4.47% in 1997. Hashish and hash oil, on the other hand, showed no specific potency trends. [i.e. same today as was used by "boomers". This destroys what was left of Williamson's weak "2,500%" point. -obs.] Other major cannabinoids [cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), and cannabichromene (CBC)] showed no significant change in their concentration over the years.http://www.hnnsweden.com/external/cannabis.htm This propaganda slogan, false in its entirity: "pot is X times more potents today" (where X is some big, scary number) is an absolute staple of modern prohibitionist propaganda.Even more disturbing, today's cannabis is very different from that smoked in the 1960's. Its new forms of "skunk" and "Nederweed" have a THC potency up to 40 times that enjoyed by the "hippy" generation. Reader's Digest: Cannabis - The Truthhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n765/a07.html (Notice the propaganda theme tie-in with the 60's "boomers" or, less PC, "hippy generation." Propaganda and bunk from start to finish.) 
Truth: the first Drug-War Casualty
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on August 13, 2000 at 09:33:19 PT:
Sounds like we hit a nerve...eh?
Ah, the sweet sound of an anti whose professional pride has been wounded. Really warms my heart.Ms. Williamson's reaction to the (apparently) stinging criticism she received for parroting the bilge she did is very gratifying. Because it shows in a small way that, despite her professations that she really wasn't all that hurt by it, she was caught with her journalistic pants down.And got whupped for her cavalier attitude with the facts. Which she *still* has hard time with:...Marijuana potency levels have dramatically increased. This new marijuana is now, on average, up to 700% stronger. This does not include the omnipotent sensimilla brand of marijuana ... or hashish oil, which on average, is up to 2,500% stronger than the 1960s marijuana cigarette." Oh, really? Since most Hash oil is extracted through using low level solvents in the soxhletling process, the yields are very low...and the potency is perhaps 25X what you could expect from raw leaf. Nowhere near the factor of 2500X that she still parrots. Someone should have a word with her editor about such lapses. Look down, Ms. Williamson, you didn't pull your pants up after all. And that hickory switch is about to make contact again.Notice how she tries to make light of her gaffe:"What evidence do you have of this 10-minute delay in reaction time?" one writer demanded. Oh, lighten up. 'Lighten up'? When she is regurgitating BS as fact, and is called to produce the studies upon which she bases her remarks - and obviously cannot? People's *lives* are being destroyed by the very same BS touted as factual information and used to justify the laws under which cannabis use is punished. If she and her sources cannot produce a single shred of evidence besides another layman's (was the cop she was quoting a biochemist? I think not) *opinion*, then she is no journalist, but a hack. A mouthpiece and nothing more.I sincerely hope that she receives more critical mail regarding her latest goof. In earlier posts, I had said that the antis like making examples of us to the rest of the population. To make the sheep think twice about defying them openly. Never forget, people, that they KILLED Peter McWilliams to do just that. It's long past time that we made some examples of our own regarding the soft underbelly of the antis, namely their playing fast and loose with the facts regarding MJ.Ms. Williamson's column is just as good a place to start as any. In a phrase, it's either put up or shut up.A situation that all antis are terrified of, because, just as they would in an open debate, they would suffer an ego-crushing loss.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by hempity on August 13, 2000 at 07:37:38 PT
No thc in marijuana until it is heated
Hiya all,This is not typical of canadian writers, most make an effort to get the facts right. This parrot is wrong, cannabis is the least studied of all the currently used entheogens.We know almost nothing about it, why and what cannabinoid levels effect what. We know from the liquid Chromatography that it has high Cannabiolic acid levels and low thc levels until it is heated. Out of all the cannabis we have tested, and we have tested more than any other lab in the americas, the highest thc level was 15%, (M17 from the British Columbia Compassion Club Society).I like the remark about the pickle.Mitaoyate,hempity
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: