Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

'Pot 2.0': Where Can I Get Some?

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 20, 2007.


The feds have started issuing dire warnings about the potency of today's marijuana, calling it "Pot 2.0." Will it backfire and tempt more to toke?
Advertisement

Heard the latest from the Feds regarding their multi-billion dollar war on weed? According to warnings posted on the DEA's new website JustThinkTwice.com, today's cannabis is nearly twice as strong as the pot available in the 1970s and 80s. Sounds like its time for the Drug Enforcement Administration to don some new duds. How about t-shirts saying: "I've arrested millions, and all I got was stronger pot?"

Naturally, law enforcement and federal bureaucrats have little sense of humor when it comes to these matters. "We're no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s," Drug Czar John Walters told Reuters News Wire. (The Czar failed to explain why if previous decades' pot was innocuous police still arrested you for it.) "This is Pot 2.0."

Speaking recently to the Associated Press, DEA chief Mark R. Trouville, who heads the agency's Miami office, took an even more dire tone. "This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana," he said. "This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."

For our friends at the DEA, here's a news flash. Unlike booze, sleeping pills, or even aspirin, pot poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of its THC content. (In fact, my physician can prescribe me a pill called Marinol that's 100 percent THC and nobody at the Drug Czar's office seems to mind.) Moreover, cannabis consumers readily distinguish between low potency and high potency marijuana and moderate their use accordingly -- taking smaller and fewer puffs of the "good stuff" than they do the "shwag."

Besides, isn't variety the spice of life? Last time I visited my local, state-sanctioned liquor store I had my choice of a head-spinning variety of alcoholic beverages, all of various strengths and sizes. I passed on the Bacardi 151, picked up a pint of vodka (80 proof) and then went next door to the supermarket to buy a six-pack of beer (7 percent alcohol by volume). Other customers made similar purchases. Nobody from the White House seemed terribly concerned.

But what the suggestion that today's pot is so addictive that just one puff is a one-way ticket to drug rehab? In this case, the devil is in the details.

According to the latest data from federal Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS), more individuals are, in fact, 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 than ever before. (For example, a new study published in the online journal BMC Public Health reports among the 27,000+ 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 offenders -- not surprisingly -- choose treatment, whether they need it (most don't) or not.

So let's review, shall we? Our federal government wants Americans to get off the pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then go out and inadvertently give America's pot farmers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that their weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent pot they've been hearing about on TV.

Perhaps it's time for the DEA to heed their own advice and "just think twice."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, potency, "pot 2.0", ondcp

Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. He may be contacted via e-mail at: paul@norml.org.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hippies...
Posted by: TT18 on Oct 20, 2007 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
die YOUNG:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stereotypes are gone Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Stereotypes are gone Posted by: donl51
» RE: Stereotypes are gone Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Stereotypes are gone Posted by: donl51
» RE: Stereotypes are gone Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: batteredup
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: babs
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: Bibsi
» This old hippie Posted by: harpy
» RE: This old hippie Posted by: littlemanintheboat
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: I'm still here Posted by: solrev
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: donl51
» Mmmm...perhaps, but... Posted by: Suz
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Hippies... Posted by: allthingslucid
» RE: Hippies...It doesn't matter Posted by: sasquuatch55
Yet more lies from Prohibition Central
Posted by: syberberg on Oct 20, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shall we put a few things in perspective here? Good, glad you agreed.

Firstly, "back in the day" the whole plant (leaves and flowers), male or female was smoked.

Male plants contain less THC than female plants.

Flowers contain higher concentrations of the total amount of THC in a plant.

I don't know about the US, but certainly here in the UK no one smokes male plants anymore, and leaves from a female plant are mainly used for cooking with, if at all. I assume it's the same in the US.

All this BS about "Pot 2.0" is exactly that, bull. The majority of strains now are grown for their increased yield. So, if you have a higher yield, ie more/bigger flowers per plant, then you end up with a higher THC content per plant, not per bud. Yet another case of lies, damn lies and statistics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uh, no... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Wrong Posted by: harpy
» Potency monitoring Posted by: Skiermom
» Syberberg is right Posted by: Phenix
» Back up... Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Back up... Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Syberberg is right Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Syberberg is right Posted by: jroth420
» RE: Syberberg is right Posted by: jroth420
» Laced Pot Posted by: Skiermom
» That's nothing new. Posted by: Artkansas
» Sorry ole' man Posted by: donl51
Let The People Grow...
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Oct 20, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The DEA should concentrate on getting the big guys, the real criminals (along with the warmongers), and leave the little people alone. Not everyone wants to unwind with a beer.... which, more often than not, results in a thumping sore head in the morning.

The suppression of weed, I believe, is also linked to the deliberate suppression of the hemp industry, which makes the strongest rope in the world and clothing which is hard wearing and durable. I had a fine hemp shirt that lasted for years. Sections of industry, nylon, rope, etc., regard the hemp industry as a serious and major competitor.

The laws on cannabis, in the US and the UK, reek of utter hypocrisy and downright political cowardice. Government power is based on scapegoating sections of our communities. Internationally, it is Muslims and left-wing Latin Americans who refuse to knuckle down to the evolving New World Order. Domestically, it is weed smokers and growers, immigrants (legal or otherwise), asylium seekers, and so-called welfare "cheats", etc.

Economically growers actually contribute to the local economy by keeping finance spent on weed within the national borders. Buying imported hash or weed (which is usually of an inferior quality) results in finance going abroad, into the coffers of big crime syndicates... and corrupt politicians.

I don't know about the social situation in the US, but binge drinking in Scotland and England has reached epidemic proportions amongst the younger generation. Cirrhosis of the liver is now common amonst young adults in their twenties which was unheard of two or three decades ago. Government does nothing to combat this due to the fact that the big breweries give huge financial donations to the main political parties... a similar situation to the lobbies in the US.

Free the Weed !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let The People Grow... Posted by: opheim73
» RE: Let The People Grow... Posted by: donl51
» RE: the color of money Posted by: solrev
» RE: Let The People Grow... Posted by: kalifornia
ANYTHING FOR BIG BUSINESS
Posted by: davy on Oct 20, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ahh how our "elected" officials cozy up to the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Want a REAL war on drugs?
Posted by: willymack on Oct 20, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's start with the opium crop in Afghanistan. We already have troops there, right? Instead of pretending to look for Osama bin Laden, they could do something USEFUL. Wonder why that's not happening?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Want a REAL war on drugs? Posted by: wishninja
Credibility
Posted by: Intellect on Oct 20, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did they break out that old scare movie, Marijuana Madness again?

All announcements like this do is lose credibility for the government. If you "overdose" on pot all that happens is you go to sleep, and every pot smoker knows that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Credibility Posted by: clvngodess
» Look at the headlines Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Look at the headlines Posted by: solrev
It is not stronger!
Posted by: harpy on Oct 20, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a B.S. myth. In the 60's and 70's, pot used to be imported from Columbia, Mexico, Cambodia, Panama and Viet Nam. It would make you hallucinate. Everybody even smoked leaves then. Nowadays, you get only buds and they don't even compare. It's all a propaganda sell so they can scare people who don't have a clue and justify their dirty war. After all, they don't have a problem selling prescription poison that will kill you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is not stronger! Posted by: donl51
» RE: It is not stronger! Posted by: solrev
» RE: It is not stronger! Posted by: matti
» RE: It is not stronger! Posted by: aonghus36
DARE Programs are the Gateway to...___________!!!
Posted by: picket on Oct 20, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "kids" know where to buy '2.0' Cannabis, MOST adults do not.

Cannabis is the largest cash crop in many USA States it is time for our elected officials to face reality. I may be wrong but I understand that alcohol prohibition stopped because the GOV needed the funds that taxes on alcohol would generate.

Our "so-called" leaders now spend Billions on Prohibition, while at the same time , millions of our citizens do not have adequate housing and a standard of living that will drag us all down.

Just what is the average IQ of those running the Office of Drug Control Policy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Marijuana," gateway drug to...political oppression.
Posted by: sausage on Oct 20, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One would think in a society operating under the Friedmanian principle of a "free market economy," recreational drugs would be legal. But as I've noted before, there are too many people, both within governments, of all levels, and without, making too much money from the continued prohibition on marijuana.

Yet as noted by the author of this essay, more Americans are being arrested for pot than ever before and many, as noted in an essay by Silja J.A. Talvi on this Web site earlier this year, are disenfranchised, denyed the right to vote. This is not coincidence.

The only way, or at least easiest method, of sustaining a so-called "free market economy" is by repressing and silencing the "losers," i.e. the non-rich, meaning everbody in the country not making $300,000 per year or more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't forget work rules Posted by: Phenix
Throwing the baby food out with...
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Oct 20, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the bong water.

Cannabis seed is the most nutritious food on the planet, yet because of 'marijuana' prohibition we can't (legally) farm it here in the US, and most people are unaware of its incomparable healing benefits.

Google 'hemp seed nutrition, essential fatty acids, protein' to learn what the "drug war dinosaurs" don't want you to know.

The greatest harm of prohibition is to induce scarcity of an unique and essential agricultural resource, without which our species will not survive much longer. Sequestering atmospheric carbon, while producing atmospheric aerosols called monoterpenes, the "green herb" Cannabis is our best chance for climate change mitigation.

It doesn't matter if pot is stronger now or not (except that if it's true, then people don't have to smoke as much to get the same effect). People are always going to smoke it, eat it, make tea, footbaths and poultices with it, and continue to use it for all of the things that people have been doing with it since time immemorial.

Simplistic comparisons between 'marijuana' then & now only decreases the potency of government credibility. Criminal penalties for perpetuating a policy so blatantly destructive to environment, economics, and social evolution ought to be brought to bare on the "drug war dinosaurs" dragging us all down with extinctionistic misinformation.

Can't we all wake up to the fact that problems are profitable for people who sell "solutions" that don't work?

The chemical-industrial war generating machine is in power and running full-tilt boogie. It thrives on our ignorance.

As soon as the true value of Cannabis is recognized, prohibition will continue.

For more info, please consider information at
http://californiacannabisministry.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Throwing the baby food out with...
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Oct 20, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the bong water.

Cannabis seed is the most nutritious food on the planet, yet because of 'marijuana' prohibition we can't (legally) farm it here in the US, and most people are unaware of its incomparable healing benefits.

Google 'hemp seed nutrition, essential fatty acids, protein' to learn what the "drug war dinosaurs" don't want you to know.

The greatest harm of prohibition is to induce scarcity of an unique and essential agricultural resource, without which our species will not survive much longer. Sequestering atmospheric carbon, while producing atmospheric aerosols called monoterpenes, the "green herb" Cannabis is our best chance for climate change mitigation.

It doesn't matter if pot is stronger now or not (except that if it's true, then people don't have to smoke as much to get the same effect). People are always going to smoke it, eat it, make tea, footbaths and poultices with it, and continue to use it for all of the things that people have been doing with it since time immemorial.

Simplistic comparisons between 'marijuana' then & now only decreases the potency of government credibility. Criminal penalties for perpetuating a policy so blatantly destructive to environment, economics, and social evolution ought to be brought to bare on the "drug war dinosaurs" dragging us all down with extinctionistic misinformation.

Can't we all wake up to the fact that problems are profitable for people who sell "solutions" that don't work?

The chemical-industrial war generating machine is in power and running full-tilt boogie. It thrives on our ignorance.

As soon as the true value of Cannabis is recognized, prohibition will end.

For more info, please consider information at
http://californiacannabisministry.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Soy is still King or well Queen Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
If you want accurate data on cannabis, the federal government is not the place to look
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 20, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face it: the government lies to the public on a routine basis. They lied about WMDs in IRaq, they lie about the situation on the ground in Iraq, they cook up bogus economic statistics all the time - and the cannabis issue is the same.

It is true that criminalization of drugs tends to lead to an increase in potentcy - this is particularly true in the case of alcohol, cocaine and heroin, due to the shipping and transport issue. During Prohibition days, it was easier to ship a barrel of pure ethanol and water it down later at the bar - and the same goes for cocaine from South America and heroin from Burma and Afghanistan.

The really potent cannabis strains are the medical strains, which are appropriate for people with serious pain, cancer victims, AIDS patients and so on. The DEA and the federal government simply looks for the most potent cannabis they can find, and then make exaggerated claims like the ones reported in this article.

If cannabis was legal, you'd probably find that many people preferred the lighter, less potent strains - just as many people today prefer beer and wine to hard liquor.

Prohibition will end, sooner or later - but who is opposed to this? The DEA, the totalitarian-minded federal government, and the private prison complexes, for one. The bigtime drug kingpins are also opposed to it, because they know that it will cut into their profits (yes, that means the Colombian and Afghani-based illegal drug cartels, but it also means the CEOs and shareholders of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. - Pfizer, GSK, Merck, etc.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

strong.pot
Posted by: brbjdl on Oct 20, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
brbjdl
Posted by: brbjdl on Oct 20, 2007 8:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

in1970.coloumbian.pot.was.so.stickey.you. /> almost.couldn't.smoke.it,, /> was.as.strong.as.anything.our.UNCLE.is.towting.today..
..its.just.annother.smoke.screen... /> They.will.latch.on.to.this.like.the.WMD's.in.Bagdad....
....Just.annother.war.to.lie.about!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stronger means less
Posted by: donl51 on Oct 20, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stronger the pot the less you need to get there the police for the most part are stupid,this I know for certain ,however they are forcefull,uncaring and haveguns and blindly follow wrongly created laws ,I once asked one if he felt all laws were rightful ,his answer was simple,,why yes of course they are well thought out by very inteligent [ iq above 91 ]men,so I said ,,so the law that kept black people at the back of the bus was well thought out ,just and fair,?or the other one about the whites only drinking fountain!,could have gone on but the poor fellow was stumbling w/his words then I could see he was upset...now heres an idea, that shit from mex. loaded w/seeds I say we collect them by the thousands spread them around to all your buddies and in the spring ''johnny appleseed'' the land! at least 50% would sprout ,do it everywhere uncut fields ,peoples lawns near apt buildings most anyplace that a lawn service doesn't cut regularily ,a municiple halls garden is good,they use mexicans and those folk have a good sence of humor and can feign ignorance real easy!Its not for our smoking it ,pots a weed its prolific ,it'll keep 'em busy and upset.....!oh by the way,the stronger means you only need to smokeless,don't smoke it all goddam day thinking you'get more stoned,itdoesn't work that way w/pot only w/the legal stuff like beer, hard liquor etc. I'm not really a pot smoker ,smoked it some in college latter 60's into'70s then didnt touch until I used it for helping last through chemo for cancer at 61-62, got nailed for self-medicating, Big Pharms fake thc makes you sick, law could care less about you,''to serve and protect'' for the most part is gone, good lawyers got us out of the hard shit,when its over we're moving to mexico where the fascism isn't taking root yet! This is an uphill fight ,big corp. big lobbies lots of money,and its not just in the so called war on drugs its on every thing! Bush is the puppet we see now, there will be more ,and it doesn't matter who you vote for either,they'll get that ''ultimatum,'' kennedy didn't play the game of the time,they killed him,then found their scapegoat ,worlds full of scapegoats! Be wise use your heads don't be a stereotype,cops love them use them against eve ryone else

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stronger means less Posted by: solrev
An Argument...
Posted by: Bbear41 on Oct 20, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...In favor of ligalization and standerdization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Argument... Posted by: donl51
Out of the Closet
Posted by: harvestmeister on Oct 20, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the millions of responsible, tax-paying, family-raising, job-holding, marijuana smokers would simply choose to come out of the "closet", so to speak, and head to the polls en mass, marijuana would be legal for recreational use today.

And if the medical marijuana proponents get their way, recreational users will never get to legally have a puff or two at the end of a hard days work... as I personally can't think of a single prescription drug that is legal to use recreationally as well (and don't bother bringing up alcohol, I've never heard of a doctor writing a prescription for a six-pack of beer for an ailment).

Please don't accuse me of not having compassion, as I have plenty. It just makes more sense to me that if it is legalized for all adults, then those who do need it for medical reasons wouldn't have to worry about id cards, doctors, prescriptions, pharmacies, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Out of the Closet Posted by: Talon
» RE: Out of the Closet Posted by: donl51
A fascist State
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert on Oct 20, 2007 3:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can only support taxable drug use.

Sorry Americans, the Defense Dept. takes up half the Federal Budget. We simply can't afford to let our peasants have a cheap high.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A fascist State Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
Memories gone? Are we all high?
Posted by: kenhymes on Oct 20, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This crap is retailed by the feds every five years or so. I remember the first time I saw an article saying more or less the same thing... in 1979!!!

They lie habitually. They lie to protect their jobs, their budgets, their status. Systemically, the lies serve the interests of the legal drug pushers.

Just stop paying attention. Buy pot it if you must, grow it if you can safely, roll it up and light it, and enjoy your evening. It's the safest drug going. Only psychiatrists (not usually psychologists), drug companies, law enforcement, and craven politicians believe or say otherwise. The rest fo su knwo much better.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beating up Medical Marijuana Patients
Posted by: macdon1 on Oct 20, 2007 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In California MM patients are being beaten shot and robbed more than ever before and police are doing nothing. In fact, their favorite mantra is that these pot heads deserve everything they get. Little old ladies are walking with canes and their sons have brain damage after being attacked and beaten by home invaders. Police can't manage to catch any of the perpetrators but they don't hesitate to prosecute the victim patients, even when they are in the hospital recovering from bullet wounds. Patients are facing murder charges because they have defended herself from armed home invaders. Seems that if the Feds can't kill the MM laws legislatively, they will do it with thuggery and terror. For them, that's nothing new...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Idiots live forever!
Posted by: StPeteRican on Oct 20, 2007 5:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've known 60, 70,80 year old marijuana smoking hippies. Greed, Hate and Envy rot the spirit and age the soul, not toking God's herb. I disagree marijuana today is more potent. There may be some kinds of marijuana that are stronger nowadays, but they are not to be found in most parts of the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Idiots live forever! Posted by: donl51
Treatment?!
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 20, 2007 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The treatment concept is even more laughable: treatment for a non-addictive compound... hmm, kinda like "treatment" for kids who... oh no, dare we say it, like each other and do nasty things like dancing dating and kissing.... ooooohhhhhh.

DARE, Lifeskills, "pot" treatment programs, abstinence only, pray-away-the-gay, it's all 100% Xtian fundie bullshit. The nation needs a 12 step program from stoopidity and Xtianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Treatment?! Posted by: donl51
Pot is dangerous
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Oct 20, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In exactly what way?

Addiction? Don't make me laugh!

Auto safety? The only study done on the subject was done way back in the seventies by the National Safety Council. Never got wide publicity because the results were counterintuitive and non supportive of the propaganda war. (I read about it in Playboy.)

Straights and habitual users were tested on a standard driving course before and after they had smoked a joint. Turns out both groups (despite a slight but measurable dimunition of reaction time in the stoned) were safer drivers when they were high! Turns out that both groups were much more careful when high. The first timers were a bit erratic however - so I AM NOT recommending that you smoke your first joint and get behind the wheel.

Anecdotes about a couple of accidents that occurred by drivers that failed blood tests for THC are meaningless (the only actual "danger" cited by anyone in this thread - or the article) for several reasons:

First: there is NO evidence - statistical or otherwise - that marijuana users are less safe behind the wheel. The one study I referred to is the reason for that. When the results came out the "wrong" way, no more studies were done.

Second: traces of marijuana can be found in a blood test up to 28 days after pot use - long after the high has worn off. A blood test is no evidence of intoxication.

Third: the cases cited made no reference to other drugs (including alcohol) tested for. Often in these cases a whole list of drugs is found - and pot is blamed.

Fourth: there are 40,000 traffic fatalities on our roads every year. Statistically, some of em are bound to involve pot users. Did they test for caffeine? Nicotine? The fact that a drug is in someone's system does not indicate that their driving was impaired by that drug. False assumptions, phony statistics and bad logic are a mark of antipot propaganda. I'll bet that 3/4 of drivers involved in crashes have caffeine in their systems - so what?

I haven't smoked pot in years - because I am subject to #%#@#@$ piss tests. When I am not, I will happily smoke it again. The irony is that I am in severe and constant pain and could legally get enough really dangerous drugs to become a first class junkie. Weed would make it so much more easily bearable - and I could function. God DAMN the fascist bastards who are subjecting me to this unrelenting pain.

The only reason I bother to post on these threads is on the off-chance that it will impel an open-minded individual to some skepticism where the propaganda war is concerned. Most of the individuals who post here have made up their minds up one way or another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot is dangerous Posted by: donl51
» RE: Pot is dangerous Posted by: aonghus36
POT - AND THE DEBATE - NOW JUST MAKES ME TIRED
Posted by: Ullern on Oct 20, 2007 10:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot, after a short hyper-activity in some mental muscels, just makes me tired. It leaves me drained in some subtle registers of mind for too long to be worth it.

As does the debate for or against, lately. Pot is neither as interesting nor as dangerous as the 'ayes' or 'nays' will have it.

Pot's just another plant with some psychoactive properties. Plenty of them out there (go to Erowid.org and be enlightened). Why the fuss over pot? Whether anyone likes it or not, its going to remain.

Clearly, this is a vicarous debate, over something entirely different. Freedom to think and feel as one prefers, within a well and inconsistently regulated society, methinks. Maybe about why and how one should learn to regulate those thoughts and feelings in oneself, and when and why to let them roam. Thought-control, but by whom? Oneself, or the surroundings? Why the contrived dichotomy?

With a responsible, trust-worthy society around, some aid in controlling and directing thought or feelings would not be against my liking. Indeed, I would welcome mature guidance toward harmonious living. But with a hypocritical society at large, even urging the madness of nuclear war, anyone has to defend one’s inner life from manipulation directed at external political-commercial exploitation. That defence, and the attacks, manifests themselves in all kinds of silly debates and issues. Pot a case in point.

Of course intoxicants are harmful when used unwisely. Of course intoxicants are beneficent learning-tools when used wisely. And of course learning-tools deteriorate when they’re used mostly for pleasure-seeking. A life limited to specific, well-known pleasures becomes uninteresting. Whereas curiousity maintained keeps life flowing. For that the intoxication of sobriety is craved. Whether or not temporarily augmented with other intoxications.

Lately, pot and the potty debates just make me tired, as the real issues behind the “pot or not” rarely gets formulated or talked about directly.

Of course the loud public repression of drugs promote them. How obvious needs it be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until the Left stands up and fights to ABOLISH the DEA,
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 21, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America will continue to be POISONED to DEATH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Firstly....
Posted by: FedUp on Oct 21, 2007 3:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm happy to live in a city where weed is readily available, just like gourmet items.
I walk my dogs past my neighborhood pot club everyday, and the traffic in and out of the club is a mundane crowd of people of many generations and from all walks of life. Its existence doesn't raise an eyebrow, and there certainly isn't a dangerous element or sinister air to it.
If the AmeriKKKan gub'mint had gone about taxing pot six or seven decades ago, this would be a non-topic. Morbidly obese shoppers in stretch pants would simply waddle up and down the aisles of their local "Wal-Mark" looking to see what pot was on sale.
But the gub'mint didn't get it together back then, and respectable fortunes were made by the hooch and tobacco peddlers.
I guess we'll have to wait for another generation to die and go be with their sky-god.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Common Sense
Posted by: magistre on Oct 21, 2007 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this day and age where you agree with "der Fuerer' or you're Un-American and the Vice-President can shoot someone in the face and his victim claims it was his fault it makes a great deal of "sense" that any kind of Marijuanna is illegal. Marajuanna is against the law even thogh it is harmless-cigarettes on the other hand are addictive and kill at an alarming rate but are O.K.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we take all of the growers
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Oct 21, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that increased the THC yield to such a degree in so short a time and, instead of sending them to prison, send them to work for Monsanto? Just think of what they could do for the nutritional yield of grains, veggies, etc.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Potency monitoring
Posted by: Skiermom on Oct 22, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Potency Monitoring Project at U. Miss has been monitoring the potency of seized marijuana for decades. Often the "not your daddy's pot" claim comes from comparing today's THC levels to the first siezed marijuana back in the 70s, but that wouldn't be an accurate comparison. Some of that pot from the 70s sat around in evidence rooms for weeks, months, even years before it was tested for THC content.

Bottom line is they have determined that there are various types of marijuana that can be purchased now that have significantly more THC, but the average weed that average Joe buys is pretty much the same as it ever was.

This whole "potent pot" anti-drug message is aimed at kids, and the kids I work with can't afford the good stuff. In most cases they're growing their own in the backyard or buying the cheapest weed they can find.

Now that the feds are rekindling this 'potent pot' myth I'm certain to get a wave of kids coming in to ask about it because while they were never interested before, NOW they will be. This current media campaign is the antithesis to drug prevention, that's for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pot 1.0
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Oct 22, 2007 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
part of the problem here is that the cannabis the feds stored in the 70s and 80s was improperly stored and has since lost its potency, therefore making "new" cannabis look as if it is more potent when really it isn't. if you know anything about cannabis you know that its potency degrades overtime...this is one of the reasons big pharma has never been able to create a viable cannabis medication and helps to keep it illegal...read "drug crazy" by mike gray for a good primer on the drug war...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its time to put money and science to work to end the drug war