Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The latest bit of anti-drug hysteria in this country is - cue the scary music - Super Pot! We're suddenly seeing breathless reports of this allegedly evil weed and how dangerous it is and now one legislator wants federal legislation to mandate a sentence of 25 years in prison for a first offense of selling it:
U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk will call for legislation Monday that would toughen drug trafficking laws regarding a highly-potent form of marijuana, with penalties of up to 25 years in prison for a 1st-time offense.The law would target offenders who sell or distribute marijuana that has a THC content exceeding 15 percent, which is between 5 and 10 percent higher than average marijuana, according to Kirk's office. THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main active ingredient in marijuana.
Wow, 15% THC. That's SUPER pot. And once again, Europe laughs at us. What he wants made a capitol crime is a requirement in the Netherlands:
To put this in perspective, the average potency of marijuana that has fueled this fire is seven percent THC. This is the marijuana that White House Drug Czar John Walters warns is horribly dangerous because of its super-strength. In contrast, Dutch government standards require medical marijuana sold in pharmacies in the Netherlands to be more than twice that strong. So a country where teens are actually less likely to use cocaine and heroin than in the U.S. wouldn't even use our marijuana to heal their sick. A recent report from the European Union noted that "a slight upward trend" in potency means little because the potency of U.S. marijuana "was very low by European standards."
And the swindle continues:
Third, unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less - the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer - and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.Official warnings about "super pot" often accompany claims that huge numbers of teens are in treatment for marijuana "dependence and abuse," and that those numbers have risen dramatically. Such claims are utterly misleading. According to the U.S. government's own statistics, most teens in marijuana treatment are there because they were arrested, not because of actual evidence of abuse or dependence. Virtually all of the vaunted increase in marijuana treatment admissions stems from these arrests.
So, we arrest kids for smoking marijuana, force them into treatment and then use those treatment admissions as "proof" that marijuana is addictive. Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.
This wave of marijuana treatment has nothing to do with actual dependence. According to the latest government report on drug treatment, called the Treatment Episode Data Set, more than a third of these marijuana "abusers" did not use marijuana at all in the month prior to admission. Another 16.1 percent used it three times or less.
So more than half of marijuana "abusers" used marijuana three times or less in the month prior to entering treatment - and this, we are told, is proof that we must be fearful of highly addictive "super pot"!
All of this would be laughable if it wasn't used as a pretense for violating our liberties, costing us a fortune and ruining lives by throwing people in prison for doing nothing to harm anyone else.
Politics
Comments
According to Wikipedia, the fastest-spinning pulsar completes 716 rotations in just one second. Someone should check on George Orwell's corpse, because I imagine that at this point he's turning over in his grave at similar speeds.
Posted by: Imrryr | June 19, 2009 9:49 AM
Wouldn't the testing of such marijuana lead to a police lab bottleneck, which then would lead to a prosecution bottleneck? Just from the logistical standpoint, it's an incredibly dumb idea.
Posted by: wheatdogg | June 19, 2009 9:58 AM
We laugh at you doubly... Not only is our weed stronger, but many of us tend to smoke hashish, which is even stronger. And yet we do not have dogs and cats mating in the streets, nor fire and brimstone failing from the skies.
The other thing that's wrong with the whole "pot is much stronger than it used to be" argument is that it's always been highly variable. You can still get "pot" with less than 2% THC, and I know a bloke who spent part of the '60s importing Mexican red oil at 98% THC. All these claims really prove is that their authors were getting burned, not blazed.
Posted by: Dunc | June 19, 2009 10:00 AM
You know your Congressional Representative has gone to pot when...
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 19, 2009 10:13 AM
My frustration with the criminal justice system comes from its desire to prosecute non-violent, victimless crimes. I don't understand why the government spends so much money on prosecuting instances of marijuana use. Can't we use that money to, you know, actually do something that's going to have a positive impact on society, instead of locking up huge portions of the 18-30 year old population because there are things more pleasant to smoke than tobacco.
Personally, I'd love to see someone in Congress stand up with some support from a major political organization and say "this is ridiculous." Because, lets face it, it is.
The scare tactics attached to marijuana use are ridiculous. This is a drug that can be used to treat glaucoma and nausea and pain in cancer patients. We should be touting it as a huge medical technology, as well as something that, because it has no serious health risks and mild side-effects, should be available to the public because, lets face it, it's healthier than alcohol or cigarettes.
Anyway, Ed, I'm glad you're talking about Super-Pot. It's all part of the Cannabis Society's agenda, to be sure, but it's all good.
Posted by: JStein | June 19, 2009 10:22 AM
Dunc - Is this a case of the pot calling the hash black? ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 19, 2009 10:24 AM
I look forward to the day when, having eradicated the scourge of REEEFER, our elected representatives can turn their energies to once again, outlawing intoxicating liquors or all sorts and, hopefully, break america of it's addiction to democracy.
Posted by: democommie | June 19, 2009 10:25 AM
As much I'm for legalization, I'm glad my younger brother no longer lives with his pot smoking girlfriend.
Posted by: MarkusR | June 19, 2009 10:27 AM
Dunc: I am certain you have no fire and brimstone, but I am dubious of your claim about dogs and cats not mating in the streets.
Unless you meant "cross-species" and even then, the likelyhood is only reduced.
Posted by: rpsms | June 19, 2009 10:41 AM
Steady on there - I like a toke as much as the next hippy, but let's not pretend it's all puppies and rainbows. That would make us as deluded as the other side (and cause DrugMonkey to throw a fit). It carries a number of risks, some quite serious, and further research is required.
The far stronger argument is that criminalisation is, at best, ineffective in managing those risks, and in many cases is actively counter-productive.
Posted by: Dunc | June 19, 2009 10:46 AM
Another wave of hysteria about stronger weed? We heard all this in the '80s when 'sinsemilla' hit the streets. Yes, it was stronger, therefore it cost more, therefore we bought it in smaller quantities (but not smaller prices), therefore we smoked less of it to get more or less the same effect, therefore we didn't really end up getting more stoned than before. File under "D" for "DUH."
If all this hysterics had any basis in reality, then today's stoners would be completely disengaged from reality by now: abandoning fiscal responsibility, spending ourselves into oblivion, blowing off reason and science, going crazy with fear of imagined and poorly-understood enemies, and sending our armies off to invade non-hostile countries based on imagined threats and hallucinations...oh wait, that's all being done by the ANTI-drug loonies, while the stoners just shake their heads and say "What the fuck?" What the fuck?!
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2009 10:51 AM
@wheatdogg
The drugs need to be tested anyway to establish the accused isn't selling oregano in convenient pocket sized baggies for the chef on the go. So this shouldn't really add to the number of tests being performed. Those tests already give the THC level.
Even if there is an uptick for some reason, most government run drug testing labs use chemistry analyzers with a max throughput of around 300-400 tests per hour. Rarely do they get anywhere close to maxing out even that low-end machine. Jurisdictions that do not have their own lab typically farm out the work to a private reference lab, same as company that drug tests its employees. They have capacity for several thousand tests per hour. Even those labs rarely max out. More often they are struggling to get enough volume to stay profitable. That's probably more than you ever wanted to know. But my point is there's a lot of excess capacity in the system right now.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 19, 2009 10:58 AM
I am not surprised at this exaggerated fear and hyperbolic description of Pot Smoking in general. Its pretty dumb. I am more worried about kids using perscription drugs than pot. Of course American Government pretends to be so afraid of Pot, that we cannot even grow Hemp for food or cloth or animal feed. Right now America, even though we have a somewhat progressive administration is still waking up out of it's Reich Wing Coma, which is nothing but a cult-driven, fear-based world view that believes aggression is the answer to all problems, and barring that, lying and propaganda.
This is a sign of our times. We have a long way to go on this and many other things. This feels like America's long and painful adolescence.
Posted by: seeing eye chick | June 19, 2009 11:00 AM
So, where DO European dogs and cats mate?
Around hookahs in the living room? Is this one of the 'quite serious' side effects of pot smoking? Woof!
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 19, 2009 11:07 AM
Face it, the only reason for outlawing pot is this: IT COMPETES WITH ALCOHOL!
Posted by: Rodney | June 19, 2009 11:21 AM
Rep. Kirk's effort is nothing less than the latest salvo in strengthening the Police, Prison and DEA Full Employment Act. The more extensive and far reaching the anti-drug laws, the more policemen, Narc's, and prisons we need. The concerns for citizens' health and the morality of the population is a mere smoke screen.
Posted by: Keanus | June 19, 2009 11:26 AM
Abby Normal:
"More often they are struggling to get enough volume to stay profitable."
I think you have cited the major reason for ALL WoD strategies.
I live in Oswego, NY. Oswego is about at the mid-point along the U.S. shore of Lake Ontario. There is currently a plan to start bringing container ships into the harbor here as it will save vessels having to transit to other ports, farther inland. To that end, the new, improved BCE (Border, Customs Enforcement) Agency of DHS has built a nice, shiny compound and is putting boats and agents on the water. They are not at present doing anything except scaring the shit out of the fearful and credulous boobs and annoying the hell out of the sportsfisherman, recreational boaters and folks who are going north or south using the Oswego Canal to get to the Great Lakes or the Hudson River. Many, many republicans are hunters and fishermen. They are all pissed about this--the Minutelypenisedmen of the SBVP (Southern Border Vigilante Posse) ? not so much.
I just read that a former Olympic athlete was busted not too far from here--with about 400 pounds of pot. Why, that's enough to supply all of the East Coast for--what--two hours?
Posted by: democommie | June 19, 2009 11:34 AM
Meanwhile, here in eugene they are cutting funding to schools to afford more prison beds. "Won't somebody think of the children?"
Posted by: ethanol | June 19, 2009 11:35 AM
@Rodney
By way of hemp and hemp oil it also competes with timber (paper, press board, etc.), textiles (particularly cotton and nylon), and with oil as a base for plastics. The pharmaceutical industry is probably less than keen competing with pot as well. The liquor industry is far from from the only one interested in keeping pot from gaining acceptance.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 19, 2009 11:42 AM
NEWS FLASH: New "Super Pot" three times as likely to make you sit on the couch watching Thundercats!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 19, 2009 12:11 PM
The internet is causing the world to realize the truth about marijuana, and the conservatives are TERRIFIED by this fact.
Posted by: Dugglebogey | June 19, 2009 12:14 PM
Are you suggesting that the drug testing reference labs are a major factor in the WoD hype and buildup? Or are you just saying that the WoD is primarily about economics? If it's the latter than I would tend to agree. But to the former, in my experience the private drug labs are highly individualistic, often little more than Mom & Pop operations. As such they don't often have much political influence.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 19, 2009 12:18 PM
"content exceeding 15 percent, which is between 5 and 10 percent higher"
Such a very small increase, less than 1.5 --- Oh! The writer actually meant that modern marijuana has THC amounts between 5 and 10 percent and that the stronger stuff is up to 200% higher...mathidiots.
Whose been smoking what?
Posted by: JimNorth | June 19, 2009 12:34 PM
Simple solution, step by step:
Legalize --> Regulate: Establish quality and safety guidelines --> License and authorize selling --> Collect revenue and eliminate cost
We do it with tobacco, we do it with alcohol and pharmaceuticals, why is it so difficult with marijuana?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 19, 2009 12:58 PM
Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul have introduced bills to stop DEA enforcement of pot laws against medical marijuana AND to decriminalize up to 3.5 oz.
See this from WND . The first half is straight reporting , then descends into Farah and Corsi going nutty.
And sensimilla has been around since about 1970.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 19, 2009 1:05 PM
They're all idiots. Why do we have to put up with these morons in Congress?
Posted by: Owen | June 19, 2009 1:19 PM
NEWS FLASH: New "Super Pot" three times as likely to make you sit on the couch watching Thundercats!
Rowr! What was the question?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2009 1:24 PM
Abby Normal:
The latter. Of course there is always a chance that one of the larger HMO's is going to become a subsidiary of Hallibushroveco-Blackwater and then become THE clearinghouse for all drug testing. I know it could never happen...
Posted by: democommie | June 19, 2009 1:31 PM
They're all idiots. Why do we have to put up with these morons in Congress?
That's because all of your congressmen are idiots, my idiot is a congressman. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 19, 2009 1:33 PM
Leave it to Congress to screw up something that effectively encourages people to buy American, drive less and shop locally.
Why don't any of them speak out against ubiquitous phamaceutical advertising on TV? Nobody's making Big Pharma add that to the cost of marketing, and there can be no reason to advertise those drugs to the general public other than to encourage doctor-shopping.
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 19, 2009 3:34 PM
Other places do it better.
Posted by: chris y | June 19, 2009 3:35 PM
LOL 15% that would get you reported to the cops here in the Kootenays for being a rip off :)
Posted by: Doug Alder | June 19, 2009 3:35 PM
NEWS FLASH: New "Super Pot" three times as likely to make you sit on the couch watching Thundercats!
Maybe if this was 1985.
Modern stoners watch Avatar the Last Airbender.
Posted by: rob | June 19, 2009 3:43 PM
I support Rep. Kirk 110%! But before anyone flames me let me explain. I grew up in an Iowa that had absurdly antiquated liquor laws. Gov. Harold Hughes, a recovering alcoholic, asked the legislature to reform the laws. They, like most cowardly politicians, refused. Gov. Hughes then started enforcing those laws. Some upstanding citizens were arrested and suddenly the legislature caved and Iowa passed modern liquor laws.
Kirk's bill would put white suburban teenagers in prison for 25 years. Anyone want to guess how long our marijuana laws would survive once white suburban teens started getting dumped into our Gulag Americano for 25 years and longer?
Call Kirk's bluff. Pass this bill and then turn in your neighbor's kids. Seriously. We won't have sane drug laws until the insanity is exposed for what it really is: laws passed solely for the purpose of suppressing racial and cultural minorities masquerading as being in the interest of public health.
Posted by: Mark Gisleson | June 19, 2009 4:23 PM
Um, I just thought I'd point out that "penalties of up to 25 years in prison" does not equal "mandate a sentence of 25 years in prison".
Besides that it's a good analysis.
Posted by: Andre | June 19, 2009 5:16 PM
I love Avatar! I've got the entire series on DVD. You don't have to be a stoner to enjoy it. (Which I know isn't what you said. I'm just sayin', Aang rocks.)
Incidentally, M. Night Shyamalan is filming a live action version for the big screen. I'm not a big fan of M. Night. But a friend of mine on the crew says it's looking good from his vantage point. So I'm reservedly optimistic.
Sorry for tangent, but you know, not enough to hit delete instead of Post.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 19, 2009 5:17 PM
democommie:
Oswego? I live in Saranac Lake, about 2 and a half hours east of there -- there are a fair amount of drug arrests in my area (it makes crossing the border a frigging nightmare -- even before 9/11 it took an ungodly amount of time) but I rarely hear about arrests for harder drugs.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | June 19, 2009 5:39 PM
Avatar sucks.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 19, 2009 6:05 PM
"
Marijuanasuperpot is MY anti-drug."Posted by: skyotter | June 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Dunc, my point wasn't that the drug is going to cure everything, but that it has medical uses. Why are we refusing to use a medical treatment with minimal side effects? Anti-weed puritanism?
We prescribe opiates (which are way riskier, though I believe we should legalize them recreationally on principle). Why is weed worse than morphine? It's not.
Anyway, I'm glad we're getting better stuff in the U.S. I don't smoke very often, but I have friends who will be making good use of this new shipment of Super-Pot.
BTW, there should be a superhero based on Super-Pot. I'm thinking Supa-Rasta.
Posted by: JStein | June 19, 2009 10:32 PM
Dunc said: "Steady on there - I like a toke as much as the next hippy, but let's not pretend it's all puppies and rainbows. That would make us as deluded as the other side (and cause DrugMonkey to throw a fit). It carries a number of risks, some quite serious, and further research is required."
Hypothetical Drugmonkey fits notwithstanding, there's no good data I've ever seen that shows even remotely serious risks of marijuana use. There have been tons of greatly hyped studies using laughable methods and measures, but nothing that you'd hold up as an example of how you do science. To what risks are you referring?
Granted, I wouldn't want someone very stoned operating heavy equipment, or doing any of the other activities marked "for sober people only". The intoxication levels can be very potent and should be treated with respect, and I think use by children should remain illegal and be strongly discouraged, even more so than alcohol. Too much maturity needed.
But compared to the benefits it seems a giant slam dunk.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 20, 2009 12:36 AM
Avatar rocks. It's the live-action movie that's going to suck, and not only because the cast is (thus far) majority white.
Posted by: Laurel | June 20, 2009 9:22 AM
At least this provision in the law will never have to be enforced - "If death or serious bodily injury occurs, sentencing would be 20 years to life in prison."
This yahoo actually has that written into the bill!
Posted by: soboco | June 20, 2009 11:31 AM
I wouldn't be too sure about that, soboco.
It may be the good congressman's attempt to put in something that is equivalent to "dram shop" laws that, in some states, make the person who sold the last drink to someone who is subsequently involved--and at fault--in a traffic accident liable for civil and criminal penalties. Perhaps it will be referred to as the "Bong Hit Law".
Posted by: democommie | June 20, 2009 12:01 PM
soboco -
I would totally support a measure that made the penalties for causing serious injury or death, while driving fucked up, or operating dangerous machinery fucked up, along the lines of voluntary manslaughter. Put motherfuckers in prison for attempted voluntary manslaughter if they get caught driving or operating dangerous machinery while fucked up - might actually make thickheaded fucking morons think, before they decide to get fucked up and drive or work.
I am also a firm believer in legalizing all currently illicit drugs. There are a couple of exceptions I would consider (PCP for one), but aside from those, I believe absolutely that we need to legalize it all.
ScienceAvenger -
You know, for someone who claims to be into science, at least given your chosen title, you seem to be pretty good at denying it sometimes.
Cannabis is addictive. No question and no fucking bullshit in the studies that have shown that it is. Not everyone gets addicted - indeed most people probably don't. But that doesn't change the fact that it causes significant harm to people who are addicts.
Cannabis also causes fairly significant damage to the lungs of those who smoke a lot of it. Smoking anything is bad for your lungs - period. That can be mitigated considerably by vaporizing it, but there is nothing that would show that it does anything but reduce carcinogen intake and the mount of crap that gets deposited on the lungs. As yet, I have never seen a reasonable study of vaporizing that would claim otherwise. Ingesting it is the only way to know you are avoiding deposits on the lungs.
And finally, like many drugs, it has deleterious effects on the neural networks. No different than many other drugs - including many prescription drugs, but it causes problems nonetheless.
Pretending that cannabis is some benevolent, wonderfuckingdrug, is fucking denialist bullshit and will do absolutely nothing to help actually get it legalized. Let fucking morons like Kirk own the motherfucking hyperbole and sink themselves in it.
Bullshit is so fucking deep on his side of things, that we are moving inexorably closer to legalized weed. All your fucking denialist bullshit does is cross cut a fucking trench of bullshit for theirs to flow into.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 20, 2009 9:24 PM
The potency of today's marijuana is very scary. According to government claims since the 60's, weed has increased in potency so much (70's weed was so many times stronger than in the 60's; 80's weed was so many times stronger than in the 70's etc.) that we can see today's weed actually has more THC in it than the weight of the plant itself - anywhere between a 3000 and 10000 times increase in strength over 40 years. Frightening. How many people believe it, that is.
Posted by: happysmoker | June 20, 2009 10:12 PM
While on the subject of drugs, I saw a Daily Show Episode a few weeks ago, in which both Stewart and his female guest (I forget her name) were decrying the large amounts of cash that the Taliban generates from the Opium trade - a large proportion of which is sold as heroine in the US. What to do??? they both said.
Is everyone who thinks about these things just slightly retarded? Given that criminalisation for elimination of use has never worked for any drug EVAR, the best way to stop the Taliban from profiting on the addictions of Americans is to remove their virtual monopoly on opium. Grow it in the US! It could be made safer, at least in terms of toxicity to the user, as well as diverting all of that money back into the local industry. The ultimate benefit would of course be the depletion a source of funds currently used to fight whoever the Taliban doesn't like. At the moment, that's mostly the USA.
So, all you people who want drugs to be kept illegal, why do hate America?
So, to all you folks who want to keep forcing people to buy Afghanistan
Posted by: John S | June 20, 2009 11:49 PM
Duwayne,
Odd, I normally admire your postings, but this latest one sounds like mere regurgitation of drug-war propoganda. You accuse me of ignoring science and then repeat the same old anti-marijuana propoganda I've seen for years, and with nary a site in the literature for all these supposed nonbullshit studies. How droll, and typical.
Where are the studies that show cannibis is addictive? Cite them. You give yourself away when you claim it is addictive, but then say most people don't get addicted. Well how addictive can it be then? Nothing has a nonzero rate, not even chocolate. Personally I'm addicted to caffeine. Where are the studies that show neural and lung damage?
What's the definition of a lot? Let me guess, an amount that less than 1% of users smoke, which would make it intellectually dishonest to present as if that were remotely near the norm.
One doesn't have to think marijuana is a wonder drug (I certainly don't), or be any kind of denier to recognize all these scare claims for what they are. There are something like 40 million marijuana users in this country, and most of the are completely anonymous to those around them because there are virtually no effects of their use. If it were as damaging as the drug war loons like Kirk claimed, and how some of your claims could be interpreted, we wouldn't need drug tests, we could just go pick up the poor bastards by the truckload just from casual visual inspection. The reality is light yeas away.
Don't be so fixated on the exceptions to the norm that you give ammunition to those who deny it.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 21, 2009 12:38 AM
When I am done playing with my boys, I will be happy to link evidence and the evidence shows far more than a one percent rate of addiction. And there is also plenty of evidence that marijuana causes memory loss with sustained use - which puts it in great company with most benzoes and antipsychotics. And yes, when smoked, it causes lung problems. Anything a person smokes causes lung problems - it's the nature of smoke inhalation.
I'll write a post on my blog tomorrow, when I get home from TN that will link plenty of evidence. However, if you can't wait, there are plenty of links in my sidebar that discuss marijuana addiction. Harm reduction coalition and Tatarsky's harm reduction web site both will provide you with discussions about cannabis addiction. The MAPS database links to evidence of addiction and neurological and lung damage - Lycaeum and Erowid will as well.
And I should note that all of the aforementioned links are to organizations and people who support legalization.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 21, 2009 8:31 AM
hah, Britain is way ahead of the USA anyway....OH NO THE SKUNK WEED! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDEREN!?!?!
Posted by: Lucas | June 21, 2009 9:44 AM
I have a brother who is probably "addicted" to marijuana--which "addiction", btw, is much, much easier for the rest of the world to deal with than when he was boozing it up back in the bad, old days.
I have no doubt that some people are marijuana dependent-- addicted, if you prefer that term--but I think the rate of addiction is vanishingly small, when compared to alcoholism. Alcohol is not only legal, it is ubiquitous and generates billions of dollars in revenues, taxes and healthcare costs as well as leading to lots of crime and automobile deaths.
The amount of money that is spent to curb excessive drinking is much, much less than what is spent to demonize marijuana.
I would say that marijuana is, for a small %age of americans, a major problem. I would also posit that its contribution to social problems is dwarfed by that of both alcohol and illegally used prescription drugs.
Posted by: democommie | June 21, 2009 9:48 AM
While I agree with the author of this article that the government is being misleading regarding marijuana, I have to point out that while complaining about the government's misleading statistics, you yourself provided misleading statistics. If the majority of people in treatment for marijuana were arrested just prior to being placed in treatment, then of course there will be a large number of people in treatment who didn't use marijuana in the month prior to treatment due to imprisonment and/or probation. I just thought I'd point that out. Other than that, though, I think this article makes some really strong points against marijuana laws.
Posted by: Mat W | June 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Duwayne,
I will check out your sidebars, thanks for the references. Perhaps the review will make a good blog post of its own. Please forgive my extreme skepticism. In the past, every study I've been similarly directed to had horrific methodological flaws: poor/no controls, ridiculously expansive definitions of "addicted" (See demmiecommie's post above as a perfect example. Addicted > a hard-to-break habit), and correlation=causality errors of reasoning (all that "gatway drug" nonsense). I've also seen several studies over the years (thus no links, sorry) that showed no harm to lungs or memory from marijuana use, and you guessed it, that is all consistent with extensive personal experience.
But far more influencial on my view is that I have considerable experience helping methamphetamine addicts break the habit. Now THAT'S as addictive and destructive a substance as I have ever seen, and compared to that, marijuana is chocolate.
I've always found you to be a substantive intelligent poster, so I'll go through your links, and perhaps common ground can be established. And if you ever see something that qualifies as "you seem to be pretty good at denying [science] sometimes", do bring it to my attention. I may be unaware of the science, but I'll never deny it. Ask Zuska.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 21, 2009 10:55 AM
You know why we have stronger weed? BECAUSE YOU FUCKING DROVE GROWERS UNDERGROUND! which in turn they found better more innovative ways to spread happiness and joy right under big brothers very nose.
Posted by: rukiddingme | June 21, 2009 11:39 AM
sorry duwayne but I have been smoking pot non stop all day long for about seven years now and I am in great health I rarely get sick and have no respiratory problems to speak of so what ever studies you were reading are not good enough to convince me seeing as how I am my on guinea pig. I will not deny that some people are affected differently but so far most people I associate with smoke like I do and the only lung problems they have are from smoking cigs the few people I know that don't smoke cigs but do smoke pot are very healthy and most of all happy which is what it all boils down to so even if it is harmful which I have seen little(I have read studies that show that lack of oxygen from holding your smoke in is the only damage they could prove that actually caused harm to pot smokers and people use theses results and blow them out of honesty to prove there point) to NO physical evidence of isn't America supposed to be a free country you pursuit of life liberty and HAPPINESS so if it does kill me in the long run at the very least I was Happy thanks PS I will probably out live you all cause of my super pot infused immune system if you have ever researched hemp it kills lots of Bactria naturally so it stands to reason the female plant will too Peace Love and Duties
Posted by: Lucas R | June 21, 2009 2:12 PM
Why yes Lucas, it is quite apparent that the herb hasn't harmed you at all - like your ability to spell or even form a coherent sentence.
Everyone else -
Of course there are hella lot worse addictions out there. I've personally pushed people to quit drinking or quit using far worse drugs, using cannabis to help. I got a friend who happened to be a heroin junkie to get clean, using clonidine to treat the symptoms of withdrawal and smoking pot so he could still get the high.
The fact that there are far worse addictive drugs, doesn't detract from the fact that cannabis is also addictive. Just like it's true that speed, heroin, cocaine and crack don't turn everyone who uses them into an addict. Sure, the majority of users become addicts, but that doesn't change the fact that many people don't.
I have used all of those drugs, some of them regularly. Yet the only drugs I've been addicted to are cannabis, tobacco, coffee, alcohol and hallucinogens (mostly acid).
And there are a lot of people who have suffered and caused others a great deal of harm through their pervasive use of cannabis - that being the best reasonable definition of addiction, though the degree of harm must be fairly egregious. More than a negligible amount.
Consider it this way.
How many people do you know, who regularly missed classes, work or other important events in their lives, because they were smoking pot? How many people do you know who went to work high, because it just didn't seem like a big deal? How many people do you know who drive stoned? How many people do you know who have spent money on dope, that should have gone to rent, utilities, child support, buying their kids essentials, food, etc.? How many people do you know who have been arrested, put on probation and were required to piss in a cup, who smoked anyways?
Take just a few from that list - some of them can stand alone - and you are talking about a fucking addict.
And for the few of you with reading comprehension issues - I fully and completely support legalization. Not just of pot, but of absolutely all of it.
And for the record Lucas, I spent a large percentage of my adult life just as stoned as you. Also, your personal anecdote counts for absolutely nothing. Less than nothing, given your apparent inability to structure a sentence or spell...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 21, 2009 8:52 PM
What difference does it make if its addictive? why is that even an issue? I own my body. I own my mind. I should be able to do with each what I please.
Posted by: uncletbags | June 21, 2009 10:38 PM
Yes unclebags you should, which is why I believe that all drugs should be legal. The difference it makes, is not the harm it does, it's the fact that many people who advocate for legalization want to pretend that weed's totally fucking benign. The other side should have the monopoly on hyperbole and outright fucking bullshit.
Being honest doesn't give them ammunition, it makes us look honest and them look like fucking morons.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 21, 2009 10:46 PM
What difference does it make if its addictive? why is that even an issue? I own my body. I own my mind. I should be able to do with each what I please.
Yeah but people should still know if something is addictive or harmful. An people should know if people telling them that something isn't addictive or harmful are full of baloney.
Ummmm, thanks for the input Lucas R.
Posted by: 386sx | June 21, 2009 10:46 PM
its odd this report of super pot comes out as the government is starting to see more and more talk about legalizing. then the older generations who vote more and use less see this and vote based on this, not the truth. at the very least i wish they would present all the information, completely unbiased, and say 'decide'. but then it wouldn't be the government doing it, because you can't escape the bias there.
Posted by: chad | June 21, 2009 11:08 PM
Oh right. And what new government agency will be responsible for testing the potency of marijuana at considerable cost to taxpayers? Kirk, you disappoint me. I thought republicans were against the growth of government.
Posted by: dguy | June 21, 2009 11:51 PM
The "Super Pot" scare is hardly new. I'd take it as good news if anything though ;). Hooray for pot getting even better!
Posted by: johnbrown | June 22, 2009 2:24 AM
Perhaps this 'super pot'* is grown in "John Brown" brand aged organic fertiliser^. :) - DJ
_________________________
*Say it like Wiley Coyote would.
^Guaranteed to have been left 'amouldering in the grave'.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 3:46 AM
Yeh i agree with DuWayne. I smoked pot from about 16y/o to 22 and anyone that thinks pot doesn't cause problems is retarted. Of course it hurts your fucking lungs! haha I have lots of friends who smoked and after big sessions you would wake up in the morning with sore lungs, as in if you breathed deep you could tell it wasn't right. Also Ive seen people rip huge bongs and caugh for 10 mins, painful caughing, you cant tell me thats all fine.
Also the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that you can have a glass or two of wine and it helps you relax but your still essentially preety with it. Marijuanna gets you fucked up, you cant compare it to alcohol in terms of legalization because when consumed in moderation alcohol is much more acceptable.
I'm not against pot either, as i said i smoked for years, not anymore but i'd still smoke some if the chance arrose. Just makes me laugh at all the people who defend it.
At the end of the day most the poeple on here have to either grow up or deal with there problems and life in general.
Posted by: Warfrin | June 22, 2009 4:45 AM
Wow, no offence, but even the things Americans who defend marijuana believe about it are crazy.
No-one has ever died, gotten ill, or gone crazy from it. No one.
Ever.
And a marijuana addict is just someone who likes it, for it to be an addiction requires it to have physical withdrawal symptoms,and it doesn't.
The Portuguese government describes decriminalization as a "huge success" use among under 18's has dropped by a huge amount, and they would go the whole hog with legalisation, but they're restricted by international treaties.
Everything about marijuana being detrimental is just nonsense.
And there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to smoke it, if it damages your lungs (and there's no evidence it does) make some brownies.
The idea that it can be compared to alcohol or tobacco in terms of detrimental effects is nonsense, alcohol and tobacco cause more illness and death than all other recreational drugs combined.
Posted by: danny | June 22, 2009 7:02 AM
Danny -
You are making the mistake of conflating acute chemical dependence with addiction - they are two different things. And anyone who believes that it isn't harmful is flat fucking ignorant. That it causes less harm than a lot of other things is absolutely true. There are plenty of pharmaceuticals that cause more harm. But that doesn't change the fact that it does cause harm.
And please people, get over this idiotic notion that smoking doesn't hurt your lungs. I don't give a shit what smoke is being talked about here - smoke is bad for the lungs. Period. Smoking anything resinous and not water soluble - anything, causes buildup in your lungs.
And finally - It does not fucking matter if alcohol is worse - do any of you see me saying it isn't? No you don't and there's a reason - drinking is much worse for you. That doesn't mean that cannabis is benign.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 22, 2009 8:22 AM
I'm not a psychopharmacologist, but I've gotten stoned in a few motel rooms.
Addiction is a very amorphous concept, these days, in both the press and the medical community. Therefor, saying someone is "addicted" can mean a level of dependence (either psychological or physical) along a pretty broad continuum. I 5hink it's safe to say that most people who have otherwise "normal" lives, but just happen to like to smoke a lot of pot, are not addicted. Likewise people who drink, even those who drink a lot, are not "addicted". Using that definition as a basis, addiction to marijuana (that's what we're talking about, here) probably occurs in a far smaller percentage of americans than does addiction to either alcohol or prescription drugs (not including those presription drugs like, Oxylimbaugh, which are obtained and used illegally).
As far as lung damage. Yes that is a concern. But, if the marijuana were to be subjected to processing and having various molds and funguses removed before it was made into a smokable form, some, if not much, of that lung damage would most likely be prevented. Also, having smoke pot for about 20 years (not heavily for about 19 of those 20) and cigarettes for about the same period--very heavily I would say that I never tried to smoke a half a gram of tobacco in one lung searing hit. Nobody I ever met would smoke tobacco in the same way that they smoked pot. Try it some time. The amount of pain and suffering from smoking tobacco the way one smokes pot is disproportionate to the pleasure derived therefrom.
I will prophesy that on the day that pot smoking is legalized that the major tobacco companies will have product ready for market. An enterprising fellow might consider making a deal with R. Crumb for the "Mr. Natural" brand and logo, in anticipation of that event.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 9:00 AM
Demo - I have actually smoked tobacco through a bong*. My advice boys & girls: "DON'T". It's fucking horrible. Imagine smoking a few pounds of dope as quickly as humanly possible, it's that kinda pain.
BTW the danger of bong smoking is not only the tar-load introduced into the lungs, it's the tiny tears in pleura (?) that results in tiny pnuemo-thoraxes (giving a popping or crunching sound when inhaling deeply) these can lead to serious complications. Suddenly and strongly drawing air into the lungs for any reason can cause it, from punching a bong to siphoning off petrol^. Be careful. - DJ
__________________________________
*I had run out of papers 'cause my idiot flat-mates had rolled enormous joints (half the dope ended up crushed into the carpet) then used the rest to create hilarious cigarette paper animals. Laugh, I didn't even start! :(
^It's also common amongst skin-divers and the like. Something to do with air with pressures well below 1 atms.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 10:55 AM
Mark Kirk should be shot.
Posted by: Chelsea | June 22, 2009 11:01 AM
The government needs to have some kind of moral panic (or a war on something) so that people won't care about the real problems. People tend to care less about losing rights when there's some big, scary danger that is thisclose to ruining all of our precious children.
Also, the war on drugs is a very convenient excuse to lock up and hide away poor people, minorities, and people with mental illness.
Posted by: catgirl | June 22, 2009 11:03 AM
Marijuana use should be legal with the same restrictions that other drugs have. The addiction rate is completely irrelevant. Addiction is a disease, and people need help for it, not punishment. Marijuana needs to be legal so that people who are addicted can get the help they need. I think we can all agree on that. Of course marijuana is not all rainbows and puppies, as Lucas R clearly demonstrates. He has apparently forgotten how to use a period, and he fails to realize that the plural of anecdote is not data. There are some risks involved with marijuana. Regardless of whether or not those risks are worse than with alcohol, we can address these risks better if marijuana is legal. Anyone who claims that marijuana is completely harmless is just delusional.
Posted by: catgirl | June 22, 2009 11:37 AM
"Mark Kirk should be "shotgunned"."
There, Chelsea, fixed that for ya!
DingoJack:
My brother, a dope smoker for about 38 years now, also smoked tobacco but he quit that at least ten years ago. He's got a smoker's hack that is truly nasty. Bonghits, by the thousands.
catgirl:
"and he fails to realize that the plural of anecdote is not data..."
Yeah, any moron knows that it's "anecdota"
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 11:45 AM
Demo - And I once had a cat that died of melanoma, so? -DJ
__________________________________
PS: Being really anal, I would have thought the plural of 'anecdote' is 'anecdotes' because the word has been in the English language long enough to lose it's 'Greekness'. The actual plural would probably something like 'anékdota' in the original.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 12:00 PM
sorry duwayne but I have been smoking pot non stop all day long for about seven years now and I am in great health I rarely get sick and have no respiratory problems to speak of so what ever studies you were reading are not good enough to convince me seeing as how I am my on guinea pig.
Well, I can see seven years of daily toking hasn't done shit for your writing. Oh, and I smoked it every day for FOURTEEN years, and my lungs, and respiratory health in general, were a LOT worse for it, and got better almost as soon as I quit. When I was smoking weed every day, every cold I got went straight down to my lungs, lasted longer, and in one case grew to walking pneumonia.
And yes, it is addictive, as is ANYTHING that gives you a short-term rush of good feeling without affecting your thinking as radically as, say, LSD. It's just not addictive to the point where large numbers of pot-smokers end up turning tricks or robbing people to afford the next fix.
The worst effect of weed is similar to that of all other mind-altering substances: it tends to undermine motivation and sap energy, so even if all of your abilities are undiminished, you're still less motivated to actually use them to finish a task.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 22, 2009 12:10 PM
This guy needs to be out of Congress. We're in the face of the worst economy since the Great Depression and he wants to spend more money on sending pot smokers to prison. Someone pass the bong to him, he needs to chill the hell out.
Posted by: Brittany | June 22, 2009 12:19 PM
Hasn't history learned us that when the peeps go at war it's because they really want something done (it's not the government type of war which most people reject), i say let's go to war and make a statement
Posted by: Treasonplotter | June 22, 2009 12:25 PM
DingoJack:
I was funnin' about the "anecdota" thing.
As far as my brother's cough. I suspect that it has much to do with his bong smoking. One of the other things about smoking a bong is that bong water is some pretty vile shit and harbors who knows what sort of nasties.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 12:39 PM
Demo - Sorry if I sounded callous about your brother, I didn't actually mean it to sound as brusque as it does. I was just wondering if your post logically followed from mine (#68)?
As to the anekdota thingy - I wasn't entirely serious either ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 12:45 PM
I tried posting this once before, but it never made it to print. Trying again in pieces:
Duwayne, I've spent the hour I have for this today on your sight, and granted I'm not the best site navigator, but I went to 4 or 5 of them and the only reference to the effects of Marijuana I could find was this from Drugpolicy.org, which had the following to say:
"Over the past century, numerous reports from independent, government-sponsored commissions have documented the drug's relative harmlessness..."
...and this from their "myths and facts" section:
"Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.
"Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults."
""Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits."
"Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild."
I have seen personally at least three heavy, daily, smokers of the kind of potency marijuana Mr. Kirk worries about, find themselves in life situations where they had great motivation to stop (pending drug tests, and family issues), and did so, cold turkey, with no apparent difficulty or any withdrawal signs of any kind that anyone around them could notice aside from a little less patience with boring social functions. Run with that if you like.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 22, 2009 1:16 PM
Part II to Duwayne:
And finally, from the same site:
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema."
"Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
One of the problems most marijuana studies have that gets them tossed into file 13 pretty quickly is lack of control for people also smoke cigarettes. This covers many, possibly most, people who smoke marijuana, and they invariably give marijuana the blame for nicotine's sins. It's no small coincidence to me that of the three cold turkeys I mentioned above, two used no tobacco products of any kind, and the other used snuff. I've seen heavy marijuana smokers keep up intense cardiovascular exercise regimes that would kill your average cigarette smoker. It's going to take a lot of science to tell me their lungs are damaged.
These are the sights that were intended to persuade me that there is a ton of science out there showing marijuana is way more dangerous than I thought? Please direct me to the ones that do.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 22, 2009 1:23 PM
Anytime you have to ask WHY something that seems illogical is being done, you need only simply follow the bouncing dollar.
Money is the 'WHY' to everything.
Posted by: Mike- USA | June 22, 2009 2:03 PM
DingoJack:
I didn't take it as callousness. I don't think casual use of marijauna causes anything worse than the munchies, laziness (during use) and the possibilty of getting buttfucked in prison for some number of years after being convicted of simple possession. You would have to know my brother to appreciate his situation, he will quit smoking when he dies.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 3:49 PM
Mark Kirk you are an ignorant prick. Worry about not being a completely ignorant fool, not the outbreak of marijuana creating an "epidemic like crack". I read an article this clown was in and he is actually comparing this "epidemic" to crack cocaine addictions. Get a grip maybe if you hit a joint once in your life you would have not been such an uptight prick and gotten laid. You are nothing, stop trying to hurt the people you work for, thanks.
Posted by: Benny G | June 22, 2009 7:13 PM
Science Avenger,
You need to be careful with what you state is fact. When you state things that are false it makes you less credible and your beliefs about legalization less significant. The reason you aren't finding any evidence for the damage that marijuana causes is because you haven't been searching for it. There are 1000's of scholarly scientific studies that demonstrate memory loss in correlation with smoking marijuana, as well as the obvious degradation in cognitive tasks. Do your homework before you argue false facts. And for the record, pro marijuana websites found via google or other random sites on the internet are not credible sources. Go to a library or pay for access to Science Direct journal search browsers or PubMed or some other journal search engines.
Posted by: Random dude | June 22, 2009 8:06 PM
Random dude:
Ummm. Howazabout linking to say a 10% sample of those "thousands" of scholarly scientific studies. Otherwise it would appear that your shilling for a couple of pay-to-play websites, which would be pretty cheesy.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 8:16 PM
Got home from TN way later than I intended and will get to a substantive (i.e. evidence heavy) post when I can.
democommie -
You're preaching to the choir on defining addiction - I have spent thousands of words on the topic and when I get to my grad thesis someday, I will be spending tens of thousands more. But there are guidelines that can give you a pretty good idea, the list in my last comment being a start. It is absolutely a continuum - here are my two papers on the topic and my blog tag "addiction" has a whole lot more on the topic.
That doesn't change the fact that there are some guidelines that can be used to determine if someone is clinically addicted to something. Acute chemical dependence, btw, is not one of them. But the list I posted above provides some great determiners. Even within that there is a lot of room for interpretation, but there are a whole lot of people who fit several of those criterea - the more one fits, the more likely it is they're an addict and some of them are pretty strong on their own - such as being on probation and piss tests and choosing to continue to use.
And please - all of you - stop with the whole "there are so many things that are worse" fucking bullshit. Of course there are, that doesn't change the fact that cannabis causes harm. I mean christ, huffing spray cans of - anything is worse for you than shooting heroin - doesn't mean heroin is fucking good for you. Do any of you understand what a fucking logical fallacy is? Because that is pretty much what everyfucking one of you is engaging here. Tobacco compared to pot, is exponentially worse for the lungs - did I fucking say otherwise - ANYFUCKINGWHERE?!? No. I said that smoking pot is bad for your fucking lungs!! That doesn't mean that other things aren't worse.
Here's a little tip - try cleaning a fucking pipe sometime. Kind of a bitch to get them clean, isn't it? Can't get them clean with just water, unless the water's fucking boiling can you? I know this, because I have cleaned a lot of motherfucking pipes in my day.
What do you think that resin passing through your fucking lungs does? Do you think it fucking magically disappears, because it's fucking weed resin, instead of tobacco tar?
And btw, any fucking smoke inhalation asphyxiates braincells. Any. And on top of that, THC causes memory loss. We're talking about possibly the most studied drug ever and there have been consistent results that indicate that cannabis causes short term memory loss. Not one or two, but tens, probably hundreds of studies have indicated this. When I get a chance I will post on this at my blog and link studies - as many as I can that aren't paywalled and of the ones that are paywalled, I will link the abstracts and post the pertinent parts.
But there is a pretty solid consensus in drug research, indicating that cannabinoids cause short term memory loss. And it doesn't really matter - my fucking Xanax also causes short term memory loss. Valium does too. There are a host of prescription medications that cause all manner of harm. And as several people have indicated, alcohol and tobacco are fucking worse for you too.
But pretending that the weed is fucking benign is engaging in the same - the absolute same fucking bullshit that the drug warriors are engaging in - the kind of bullshit that has gone a long ways towards turning the tide of public opinion about the war on motherfucking cannabis. So lets be fucking honest about this, so we don't look like the same sort of fucking morons that they do.
catgirl -
Addiction isn't irrelevant. It is important that people be entirely cognizant of what they are engaging in, before they engage. I support legalization and because I support it, I want people to understand that there are dangers to using cannabis, like there are dangers to anything else.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 22, 2009 10:42 PM
Ach, now I'm engaging in hyperbole...That should read cannabis is possibly the most researched illicit drug. Alcohol has probably been the subject of considerably more reasearch...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 22, 2009 11:04 PM
I would agree anecdotal situations are of little value. But with so many users claiming a long term habit with no noticeable affects, that has to mean something. Of course I'm making the assumption people on the internet are honest, lol. But seriously most of the claims people make seem very reasonable based on my experiences and what I know about my many pot smoking associates.
Speaking of experiences, I've been smoking pretty regularly since junior year in high school. Which just happened to be the same year I made the all-state cross-country team. As I did the next year as well. Occasionally I even run high. I am now in my junior year of college, still running, but for the last 5 months I've started to notice a loss of lung power. Coincidently I picked up smoking cigarettes about 6 months ago.
And the only reason I smoke cigarettes is because I like to hold something in my hand and smoke but rolling joints is too wasteful and expensive for a me. Maybe if I could grow my own...
p.s. If anyone wants proof the best I can do is a pic of me receiving the medal and a pic of me toking up. but that ain't much
Posted by: Dabnasty | June 23, 2009 3:30 AM
Insanity... anything for a scapegoat, eh?
Posted by: David Claiborne | June 23, 2009 3:37 AM
DuWayne:
I will take you at your word that marijuana has deleterious effects on the lungs, brains and oreo supplies of those who smoke it.
I think the real problem with the "debate" is that the people who have ALL of the information, the U.S. government, only release that which is supportive of their position on marijuana. The other major problem with legalization, of course, is that it would affect the budgets of law enforcement agencies in a negative fashion--and cause a dip in profits for the prison industry.
Posted by: democommie | June 23, 2009 8:17 AM
If this ‘Super-pot’ scare follows the same path in the USA as the hysteria over skunk in the UK, be ready for the next claim - “Super-pot causes schizophrenia!”
Posted by: Aj | June 23, 2009 8:19 AM
Man, I fucking love it when these rinky-dink little college pot heads try and lay down what it's all about. "I've been smoking pot for, like, 20 whole minutes and I'm totally fine, so neeeer!" When you've been smoking it every fucking day for 20 years, come speak to me.
Once more, with feeling.
Posted by: Dunc | June 23, 2009 8:29 AM
democommie -
I think the real problem with the "debate" is that the people who have ALL of the information, the U.S. government, only release that which is supportive of their position on marijuana.
Paranoid and mistaken, but even if it were true - the U.S. is hardly alone in researching cannabis.
Your last sentence is actually pretty much true though. Drug interdiction is a huge fucking industry. However, it is not the other major problem and this is why I am so damned insistent that people be honest about this.
The scare tactic assertions of the state are having a negative affect on public support for the war on drugs. It's becoming apparent to all but the die hard drug warriors that the government propaganda is bullshit - in part because of the hard evidence, but mostly because it's pretty fucking obvious.
But pretending that it has no negative affects is the same sort of bullshit that has been effectively turning public opinion against the war on weed. I am not saying that it's horrible - it's not. I'm not saying that it makes everyone or even most people addicts - it's not. All I am saying is that pretending it is harmless is going to make it harder to convince the public that it should be legal.
Every drug has negative side effects - all of them. Some are far worse than others, but they still have negative effects. Pretending that they don't exist or are negligible is dishonest and/or ignorant. And when you read the propaganda of the pro-weed side, you can easily pick apart the disingenuous bullshit. A great example is in one of the links I posted this morning (not the studies, I just spent five minutes looking through some of my sidebar links for science avenger) wherein the assertion is that cannabis addiction affects only one percent of the U.S. population or less. Because it would look worse to mention the percentage of actual pot smokers who are addicted, they just throw it out in the aggregate of the total population.
How is that any different than the propaganda tactics used by the drug warriors?
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 8:58 AM
When you've been smoking it every fucking day for 20 years, come speak to me.
Well, Dunc, like I said above, I smoked it every day for fourteen years, and I can report the following:
1) It did compromise my lung capacity (a little) and resistance to respiratory infections (significantly). That effect pretty much vanished when I quit; and now the colds I get stay in my sinuses.
2) It did compromise my short-term memory; but again, that effect pretty much vanished after I quit (as far as I can remember anyway), and was never that serious while I was toking. What was the question?
2.5) It did not impair my driving nearly as much as alcohol, probably because alcohol is a downer and impairs both self-control and muscle coordination (including the muscles that focus the eyes) and weed is not. I discovered by mistake that being high during my in-car training greatly improved my handling of the clutch (I used a VW bug), without imparing any other skill necessary for safe driving.
3) As I said above, like any other mind-altering substance, it did compromise my motivation; and may have exacerbated any emotional/mental health issues I had, simply by depriving me of the motivation and perseverance I needed to deal effectively with my issues. Again, this effect pretty much went away as soon as I quit and got into a regular daily routine that didn't include drugs.
4) The most damaging effect of regular pot smoking didn't come from the drug itself; it came from the fact that I smoked it during my teen years, when I should have been studying interesting subjects, writing the Great American Science Fiction Novel, and chasing girls. Weed is not dangerous enough to ban by force of law; but it IS dangerous enough to keep out of the hands of minors; which means we should legalize it and force vendors to sell it only according to the same laws the govern the sale of booze. (This is, in fact, why it was easier for high-schoolers to get weed than to get beer.)
PS: DuWayne, you're not so much wrong, as overreacting; the number of people who say weed is TOTALLY safe is pretty small. Most of us only say it's safe enough to treat like other common dangerous substances such as alcohol and tobacco. Which of course says more about those other substances than it does about weed. We all know it's not really safe, but the dangers kind of blend into the overall dangers of everyday life, to the point where we can treat them like the air we breathe.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 9:30 AM
One more note about the dangers of weed: from what I've heard from the medical community, they're pretty conclusively outweighed by the benefits derived by, among others, cancer patients, who find it most effective in managing their pain, increasing their appetites, and helping them keep down what they eat. As for addictiveness, well, those patients are pretty much stuck with it for the rest of their lives anyway. Oh yeah, it might give them cancer, if they manage, despite their already existing terminal cancer, to live to, say, 140.
Not only that, but I recently heard of a study (which I discuss here) indicating that the relationship between weed and cancer is a bit more complex than was once thought. Here's a sample quote from a rather inconclusive set fo findings:
The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 9:49 AM
There appear to me to be trade-offs in the risks from marijuana use as potency and/or method of administration change.
Just like with higher-potency alcoholic beverages, if one isn't attentive to dosing then it's easier to overdose (to take more than intended) with higher-potency marijuana. That doesn't mean people won't attempt to be more judicious with higher-potency marijuana (especially today, when the drug's cost is approximately proportional to its potency), but it does mean a likely increase in the overall rate of overdosing. So it can be assumed that there would be an increase in the likelihood of negative consequences due to the drug's primary effects, however big or small they really are.
On the other hand, the dangers associated with smoking (and let's remember that "doesn't cause lung cancer" is not the same thing as "isn't bad for lung health", etc.), would be lessened with increasing potency. These dangers can also be lessened by vaporizing instead of smoking.
Ingesting can eliminate risks to lung health entirely, but ingesting also carries an increased likelihood of overdose due to the greater difficulty in dose titration compared to smoking and vaporizing (much greater length of time before effects begin, so it's harder to judge how much to take). Combine that with the increased likelihood of overdose from higher-potency marijuana, and the likelihood of overdose becomes more significant.
Posted by: Edmund | June 23, 2009 11:40 AM
So why are DuWayne and myself getting so much flak here? All we're saying is that it's not TOTALLY safe, and that to pretend otherwise is absurd. Neither of us are in favour of prohibition.
Has the debate really become so hopelessly polarised that people are unable to recognise any position in-between "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" and "smoking dope is totally harmless, cures all known ills, and gives you superpowers?"
There seem to be a number of people in this thread who would disagree.
Posted by: Dunc | June 23, 2009 12:03 PM
As usual it's ridiculous religious taboos combined with complete ignorance. Nowadays, except for very antiques mechanical or electro-mechanical oldies, in all current home control system, it is *never* the "human agency" that does the job but a program that detects events.
Ed characterized it perfectly: angels on a pin redux. I'll add by people completely clueless about technology.
Clever marketing people could get advantage of such cluelessness. AMX could argue that their event loop is kosher while Crestron's little boxes "desecrate" sabbath. That's actually quite funny: analyzing modern tech with bronze age thought processes :-)
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | June 23, 2009 1:02 PM
Dunc,
I must admit I was pretty blazed last night when I posted and didn't really get my point across. What I'm hitting at is the fact that cigarettes are so much more harmful to the lungs and so much more addictive than marijuana that those factors shouldn't even be considered in the legalization issue.
Also, even my situation where I've only smoked for 4 years now could change the minds of some severely misguided adults. I think its sad that some of the strongest supporters of criminalization base their opinions on government produced fact sheets that would leave you to believe someone with my habits would be a brain damaged addict by now.
Posted by: Dabnasty | June 23, 2009 3:09 PM
Bee -
Actually, quite a few people are arguing that the harm is negligible. It's not and shouldn't be treated as though it is. Harm is always relative and it's important to recognize that as well, but when you read back over this thread, you will see several claims that there isn't a level of harm or potential harm that's worth considering.
And you're preaching to the choir when it comes to benefit/risk ratio in regards to medical cannabis. But this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of harm. I take Xanax on occasion, which carries some of the same risks as cannabis. I do so because the benefit outweighs the harm. The fact that it provides an important - sometimes critical benefit to me, doesn't change the fact that it is going to take a tole on my short term memory, if I take it too often - something I factor into my decisions about when to take it. The important thing is that I am making that decision informed by what the evidence says about the harm of taking Xanax.
Edmund -
The only problem I have with your statement, is that "overdose" is a totally relative term here. It would be impossible to ingest enough cannabis to actually kill you or even make you particularly ill (unless one is allergic). Basically the only effect of a "overdose" is to get higher than you originally planned - and you would have to eat a lot of it, to get fucked up to the point that it would be prohibitive over more than eight to twelve hours (I have in fact managed that, but I was trying to). Depending on what exactly you're smoking (like highly refined hash oil) you can "overdose" by your definition more easily that way, than ingesting or vaporizing it.
Dabnasty -
Honestly, none of this should be considered when talking about legalization. I don't care if taking it once, will turn ninety percent of those who try it into addicts and end up destroying their health.
My body, my decision. That's all that really matters in regards to legalization.
That and the fucking mountains of money we waste on every aspect of the war on drugs, coupled with the mountains of money we don't put into the tax coffers, because we don't fucking tax it.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 4:46 PM
Just curious DuWayne, have you ever heard of anyone overdosing on any product containing THC? Even with hash oil, I question whether it's possible to overdose on THC via smoking. A stat from wiki, which I've also read elsewhere, is that you'd have to smoke 100 pounds of weed every minute for 15 minutes to die of an overdose. Even if that's off by 50%, and even if the hash oil was 100% THC which is 20 times greater than crappy weed, you're still talking about smoking pounds of oil every minute. You'll die from asphyxiation before you overdose. It would appear that it's more dangerous to drink that much water in that amount of time than to smoke that much THC.
Which is not to disagree at all with your main point that it's certainly not without some negative effects. But as you say it's all relative; I wouldn't be surprised if eating a cheeseburger every day is worse for you than smoking a joint every day.
Posted by: Spartan | June 23, 2009 6:32 PM
It is absolutely true that you would die of asphyxia, before you could die of THC overdose smoking. And you couldn't plausibly ingest enough to kill you, because your body would metabolize some of it before you got that far. I am pretty sure that short of being allergic, it is impossible to die from THC. But it could plausibly make you sick - however that is not a standard reaction to it, so I tend to consider persons who get sick from it, to be in the same category as allergic.
No, I was assuming Edmund's definition for overdose - i.e. getting higher than intended. And I have to concede that that is possible, but rather unlikely. I have gotten so stoned that I was high for a few days, but that was ingesting highly refined hash oil, as well as smoking a "real" blunt (made with pot-leaf wrap (from good weed), good bud, a hash center and some of the highly refined hash oil to boot:) and I can assure you - I got more than I hoped for, but I was definitely happy to get there...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 7:01 PM
I should note, my friend, that I only ingested about four, maybe five drops and managed to get about three hits off the blunt - and trust me, I was not a lite-weight. I was high for about three days...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 7:08 PM
I wrote this brilliant, polite--yet firm--rebuttal of Dunc and DuWayne's stated positions. I mean, really, it was suuuweeeeet. And then, just as I was ready to hit post, my computer got a hairball and it was gone!
But, forget all that. If you were to tell me, "Dude, I just smoked, like, 2 pounds of hash oil, to see how high I could get--I'd kill you myself!
IF addiction means getting higher than you intended to, well, I'm a fucking addict for sure.
Posted by: democommie | June 23, 2009 8:08 PM
Not addiction, in Edmund's words, overdose...Big fucking difference.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 8:21 PM
Actually, I take it all back.
Obviously cannabis is fucking magical. The resin is magical and can't stick to your lungs. The smoke is magical and doesn't burn the cilia. And it can't possibly be addictive it's so fucking magical - doesn't matter if you're on drops, will go to jail if you piss dirty and still choose to smoke - not a fucking addict. Doesn't matter if you could lose your job - not a fucking addict. Doesn't matter if you tank classes because you're too high to go - couldn't possibly be a fucking addict, because the cannabis is fucking magic. And it cures cancer, AIDS, malaria and the bubonic fucking plague, it's so magical.
Cannabis is, in point of fact, the absolute polar opposite of what the gubbermint been tellin us for years...Because obviously cannabis is motherfucking magic!!!
Got it now. Thanks for setting me straight.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 8:37 PM
All right, I posted my apology for not realizing that the weed is magical here.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 24, 2009 12:07 AM
Duwayne,
I'm not trying to say it's completely harmless to the lungs, I was merely trying to make the point that A)It isn't nearly as bad as tobacco and B)It isn't nearly as bad as anti-drug commercials and the like would have you believe.
However, I must admit I had not taken the time to read all of the previous posts and therefore did not realize this wasn't pertinent information for the people still in this discussion.
I suppose my information was intended for slightly more ignorant individuals.
Posted by: Dabnasty | June 24, 2009 2:08 AM
By overdose, I simply meant what I wrote and nothing more: taking more than was intended.
Here's what I'm talking about. Imagine a scenario where a person goes to a party and drinks three 9% beers instead of three 4.5% beers. They had planned to be driving home in good shape after about 3 or 4 hours (three drinks, about an hour per drink), but it looks like that's not going to be happening so soon after all. That's an overdose. It's not a lethal overdose. But it certainly has consequences for that person's schedule, productivity, etc.
It's fair to say that things could work in a similar way with marijuana. Something like: "Doooood... I didn't mean to get so stoned... now I'm going to have to wait another hour or so before I can concentrate on the tasks I had been planning to do, and this really screws up my schedule. I only meant to catch a light buzz to make the tasks less boring, but now my memory is so shot that I can't focus enough to do even a mediocre job..."
That's what I mean by overdose.
Posted by: Edmund | June 24, 2009 2:49 AM
Truth is you shouldn't have to spell it out. Nowhere in any definition of overdose I have seen does it say anything about death. Before people can argue about the possibilities of overdose or addiction, these definitions need to be cleared up. Something as simple as that would make most of these sorts of discussions much more meaningful.
Posted by: Dabnasty | June 25, 2009 1:00 AM
Yes, actually you should. Common use of the word overdose is not "oh shit, I got too high." Overdose is enough of a given drug to cause a dangerous adverse reaction. While in the strictest sense, getting considerably higher than intended can be considered an adverse reaction, use of the word overdose implies a particularly dangerous reaction.
When you use a word outside it's common vernacular, it behooves you to be very specific.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 25, 2009 9:22 AM
If you ask me, debating the meaning or definition of the word overdose is pointless. If there are people out there that want marijuana to be legalized they should start with the "medical benefits" argument (such as the people who actually need it for medical purposes), and then the argument that marijuana is less harmful then cigarettes and tobacco.
Also, Democommie: I apologize for not being able to send you any links to what i consider scholarly and credible sources. This is solely because my sources come from paid for online scientific journal and publication search engines that my school library provides. However, if you are curious and would like to read about the negative effects of marijuana, then you should definitely take the time to go to the library and check out some books. Other than that, my "shilling to pay-to-play websites" isn't that cheesy because i haven't seen any rebuttal of the apparent facts about the health hazards of marijuana. If you don't believe me i insist you take the time to search for credible sources on your own time.
Posted by: Random dude | July 2, 2009 7:02 PM
Children, children: prohibition does not work.
End of issue.
Posted by: jws | July 2, 2009 8:49 PM
Keep your eyes on this idiot, I,m sure that he will be a candidate for a "Darwin Award" in the near future.
Posted by: EWOKDUNG | July 17, 2009 10:13 AM
mhm. well all i have to say is im 16 ive been smoking for 2yrs n weed is the best thing thats ever happened to me. it should b leagal.
the sky is the limit.
Posted by: aj coble | October 5, 2009 12:39 PM