COMMENTS: 118
'Pot 2.0': Where Can I Get Some?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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."
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
» 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
» Doctor that did BS study.
Posted by: TKO
» RE: Doctor that did BS study.
Posted by: odom79
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: syberberg on Oct 20, 2007 3:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Yet more lies from Prohibition Central
Posted by: John Annis
» Uh, no...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» And, John, you make no more sense than the DEA shills.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Wrong
Posted by: harpy
» More potent = less volume = easier to conceal
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Yet more lies from Prohibition Central
Posted by: syberberg
» Potency monitoring
Posted by: Skiermom
» RE: Yet more lies from Prohibition Central
Posted by: rsteeb
» 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
» RE: depends on where you have been
Posted by: solrev
» RE: Yet more lies from Prohibition Central
Posted by: jroth420
» You don't know what you are talking about!
Posted by: LeeAnnG
» Sorry ole' man
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Oct 20, 2007 3:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on Oct 20, 2007 4:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 20, 2007 4:42 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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: donl51
» RE: Want a REAL war on drugs?
Posted by: wishninja
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Intellect on Oct 20, 2007 5:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Look at the headlines
Posted by: Shey
» I think you mean "Reefer Madness"
Posted by: madaha
» RE: I think you mean "Reefer Madness"
Posted by: jroth420
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Oct 20, 2007 7:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Oct 20, 2007 7:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: DARE Programs are the Gateway to...___________!!!
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Oct 20, 2007 8:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Oct 20, 2007 8:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Please excuse the double posting, due to a failure to properly edit.
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Oct 20, 2007 8:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Soy is still King or well Queen
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Soy is still King or well Queen
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo
» RE: Soy is still King or well Queen
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Soy is still King or well Queen
Posted by: rsteeb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 20, 2007 8:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: If you want accurate data on cannabis, the federal government is not the place to look
Posted by: odom79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brbjdl on Oct 20, 2007 8:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: donl51 on Oct 20, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stronger means less
Posted by: solrev
» Have you never heard of the paragraph?
Posted by: Amy27605
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bbear41 on Oct 20, 2007 9:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An Argument...
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harvestmeister on Oct 20, 2007 9:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» Patients still need monitoring
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Patients still need monitoring
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Out of the Closet
Posted by: donl51
» RE: Out of the Closet - Couple of problems with that post
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» It might suck but, WAIT 10-20 Years
Posted by: matti
» RE: Out of the Closet/no recreational Rx drugs? really?
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert on Oct 20, 2007 3:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Oct 20, 2007 4:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Memories gone? Are we all high?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Oct 20, 2007 4:26 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Beating up Medical Marijuana Patients
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: StPeteRican on Oct 20, 2007 5:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Idiots live forever!
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 20, 2007 8:21 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Oct 20, 2007 9:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ullern on Oct 20, 2007 10:40 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 21, 2007 2:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FedUp on Oct 21, 2007 3:49 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magistre on Oct 21, 2007 5:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Oct 21, 2007 7:28 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
plur
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Skiermom on Oct 22, 2007 9:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Oct 22, 2007 12:44 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wishninja on Oct 22, 2007 2:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw an article a while back about a genetic scientist that claimed to be selling orange tree seeds that contained the gene that makes THC. It was a complete hoax but made Janette Reno crap her pants. There has to be someone in the world that can give this gift to the world and end the drug war.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This is probably being done now..It is technically feasible
Posted by: drblack
» RE: Its time to put money and science to work to end the drug war
Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: GE Weed maybe "Roundup "ready coming to a corner near you soon!
Posted by: Johnny Hempseed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Oct 24, 2007 1:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The latest propaganda to support the current policy which still doesn't make sense...
Whats the matter with these people...
Don't they realize that hashish was probably most popular back in the Hippy Dippy days
along with Columbian Gold and Thai-stick... we don't get much hash these days [imported] as we now have our own made in US flavors! [domestic]
The government controlled media should stop wasting taxpayers money on the prohibition argument and stop supporting obvious lies, misinformation and propaganda while the true FREE Media should call this misinformation for what it is!
Propaganda lies and misinformation!
I can remember the US sponsored policy that tried to eradicate pot by using a poison called Paraquat back in the sixties & seventies, killing and maiming untold thousands of users while at the same time killing and poisoning untold thousands of peasants in Central and South America!
This same policy was again popular during the late 80's and 90's... but was only deployed [i think] stateside!
I'm guessing that pretty soon they'll have a PARAQUAT 2.0 to solve the problem yet again which will end up killing and maiming thousands more!
JUST HOW STUPID DO THESE POLICY PEOPLE THINK THE VOTING PUBLIC IS?
WILL IT BACKFIRE?... YES BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO TRY POT TO FIND OUT WHAT ELSE THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO THEM ABOUT, YET AGAIN....
TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES AND FIND OUT WHAT ALL THE HYPE IS ABOUT.
WE'VE BEEN LIED TOO & MISLEAD FOR OVER 70 YEARS... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN...
THIS JUST GOES TO PROVE IT ONCE MORE,
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT LIES, PEOPLE DIE!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




