|
Marijuana Potency, ONCDP data doubts |
According to press reports a study undertaken at the University of Mississippi, has found the average potency of marijuana in the US has continued to increase to a 30 year high. The study reports that in 2007, the average amount of THC in marijuana was 9.6 percent, nearly a percentage increase from 2006, and more than double since 1983.
| Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, John Walters, claims the high levels of THC in today's weed has "serious implications for young people." Including, he claims, respiratory problems, and "potential for users to become dependent on drugs such as cocaine and heroin." But as is becoming a regular occurrence with regard to ONDCP announcements, doctors have cast doubts over the veracity of the US drug czar's claims. | 
John Walters - this dude tells lies
|
Dr. Mitch Earleywine, professor of psychology at State University of New York at Albany says, "stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke." Earleywine points out that there is no data showing higher marijuana potency leads to more addiction. He described the withdrawal symptoms of marijuana as mild at best. "Mild irritability, craving for marijuana, and decreased appetite -- I mean those are laughable when you talk about withdrawal from a drug. Caffeine is worse."
Psychiatrist professor Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School agrees, when he says ""Marijuana is one of the least toxic substances in the whole pharmacopoeia, which is yet to account for a single death in over 5000 years of use".
With more and more doubts cast on John Walters theories regarding cannabis, how is it more than 600,000 Americans have been arrested for possession of marijuana each year since 1995?
The federal government spent almost $20 billion in 2003 alone on the "war on drugs," a number that continues to rise.
In the meantime an estimated 30,000,000 (30 million) Americans smoke cannabis at least once a week, and a quote from Judge James Grey, of the Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana sums up the marijuana situation perfectly.
According to Judge Grey,"If we continue as we have for the past 20 years in California, in the year 2020, everybody in the State will either be in prison, or running one".
For possession of a substance which is inherently safe for 99.99% of its users? | | http://cannazine.co.uk | |
Trackback(0)
 |
Letter burner is Postman Pot
Infant ate cannabis oil, court told
Cannabis Science to file patent for its cannabis processing & drug delivery systems
Cannabis seizures in Algeria up sharply
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
What a surprise.
These figures suggest a doubling in average potency, which is the guesstimate I've always used.
Nonetheless, this 'new' finding is presented with the same dark overtones as when cannabis was reported to be a million-billion times stronger than in the Sixties -
"posing greater health risks to people who may view the drug as harmless"
" baby boomer parents who might have misguided notions that the drug contains the weaker potency levels of the 1970s"
The bottom line is that the best cannabis is about as good as it's always been. The main difference is that the best is more easily available (especially to those who grow it themselves).
A much better report from a European drug policy organisation stated that increases in cannabis potency in the west are not due to any 'new' strains of cannabis, but can mostly be traced to an increase in the popularity of home-growing. Places where home-growing is common have higher quality cannabis. Another huge surprise. Knock me down with a feather, etc.
I'm always in two minds about these reports, they remind me of the 'half-lie' technique used by compulsive bullshitters - when caught in a lie, admit half the truth, and stick to your guns about the more important fabrication.
Here, it's acknowledged that the claims driving anti-cannabis propaganda for the last five to ten years - genuinely claiming a 10x or 20x increase in potency - are lies, but the new, possibly accurate figure, though a fraction of the previous claim, carries all the same dark dangers as the previous fantastical claim.
Is it a sign of desperation on the part of the prohibitionists, or simply proof that the story and the justifications can change freely and no-one even notices?
Another bit of cognitive dissonance regarding 'new, super potent cannabis' is that many prohibitionists are happy to state that 'the toxic skunk of today' really IS as bad as Reefer Madness and Randolph Hearst claimed, that it's nothing like the sweet, mild, well-meaning 'backyard home-grown' of the past.
What no-one seems to mention is that the same reefer madness lies were told about good ol' 'backyard' cannabis in past. So, is this an admission that the first 60 years of cannabis prohibition were an unsupportable attack on basic freedoms? That cannabis has only just caught up with the forward-thinking propaganda of the Thirties and Fifties?
Are they going to compensate the people who were locked up or had their lives otherwise legally destroyed for growing good ol' non-toxic pre-skunk cannabis?
Or is it all just an endless tissue of lies?
"Pay no attention to last week's story about WMD this week it's freedom for the Iraqi people!" etcetera ad infinitum/nauseum