Comments for Marijuana Potency, ONCDP data doubts at http://cannazine.co.uk , comment 0 to 1 out of 1 comments http://cannazine.co.uk Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:32:31 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://cannazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4413&Itemid=1585#pc_94 Wow, it turns out that cannabis is not FIFTY TIMES AS POTENT AS IT USED TO BE! 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 - PrimarySauce Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:09 +0100