"I was really baked when I wrote this
article. BC Bud is
the best."
Posted on 08/06/2006 6:04:24 AM PDT by Wolfie
Reefer is Worth Getting Mad About
Vienna -- Supporters of the legalization of cannabis would have us believe that it is a gentle, harmless substance that gives you little more than a sense of mellow euphoria.
Sellers of the world's most popular illicit drug know better. Trawl through websites offering cannabis seeds for sale and you will find brand names such as Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow. "This will put you in pieces, then reduce you to rubble -- maybe quicksand if you go too far," one seller boasts. This is much closer to the truth.
In Canada, as in most parts of the world, cannabis is by far the drug of choice. An estimated 4 per cent of the world's adult population -- that's about 162 million people -- consume cannabis at least once a year, more than all other illicit drugs combined.
Does that matter? I firmly believe it does, because the cannabis now in circulation (like Canada's BC Bud) is many times more powerful than the weed that today's aging baby boomers smoked in college. The characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.
Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use -- from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis -- is mounting and cannot be ignored. Emergency room admissions involving cannabis are rising, as is demand for rehabilitation treatment. These health problems are increasingly being seen in young people.
North America is the world's largest cannabis market and most of its cannabis is homegrown. The U.S. market alone has been valued at more than $10-billion. As Canadians are starting to discover, a market that size inevitably attracts organized crime. So cannabis is a security threat as well as a health risk.
Amid all the libertarian talk about the right of the individual to engage in dangerous practices, provided no one else gets hurt, certain key facts are easily forgotten.
Firstly, cannabis is a dangerous drug, not just to the individuals who use it. People who drive under the influence of cannabis put others at risk. Would even the most ardent supporter of legalization want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?
Secondly, drug control works. More than a century of universally accepted restrictions on heroin and cocaine have prevented what would otherwise have been a pandemic. Global levels of drug addiction -- think of the opium dens of the 19th century -- have dropped dramatically in the past 100 years. In the past 10 years or so, they have remained stable.
Cannabis is the weakest link in the international effort to contain the global drugs problem. In theory, it's a controlled substance. In practice, it's running rampant. It grows under the most varied conditions in many countries, a high-yielding plant that can be grown indoors. This makes supply control difficult.
But we can tackle demand, particularly among the young. That need not mean sending them to jail. Young people caught in possession of cannabis could be treated in much the same way as those arrested for drunk driving: fined, required to attend classes on the dangers of drug use and threatened with loss of their driving licence for repeat offences. Prison would be a last resort. Schools and universities should apply zero tolerance.
National policies on cannabis vary and sometimes change from one year to the next. The experience of countries that were more tolerant of cannabis use is ambiguous and not persuasive. The distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs is, at best, artificial, especially with such a damaging psycho-active substance as modern-day cannabis. Even some advocates of cannabis as a "soft" drug are now reconsidering as they observe the devastating health consequences of abuse.
Canada was a pioneer in introducing systematic anti-smoking policies, which are now being copied around the world. Their success demonstrates that preventive measures can help to change attitudes. Similar policies are needed to prevent cannabis use getting completely out of control.
Let's draw the right conclusions. Cannabis is dangerous. We ignore it at our peril.
Antonio Maria Costa is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
No you purposely misconstrued what I said.
"I was really baked By "cannabis", you mean hashish, skunk, Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know precisely what you are talking about. I'll explain this in two parts-
1 - getting intoxicated on cannabis is like a plateau - One gets only so high on cannabis and consuming more of it does not get one higher. Actually coming down on the back side of the plateau is pleasant in it's own way.
2 - The majority of cannabis users do not "stay high all day". It is quite normal for cannabis users to be "straight" the majority of the time. It is recognizable that being intoxicated is not the condition to be in while carrying out the many ordinary tasks in life.
Armageddon, AK-47, White Widow.
By "cannabis", you mean hashish, skunk, Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right - BTW - Don't you prefer "high performance" products? Most people do. Little dab'l do ya.
If you held two subjects down and forced them to smoke an entire reefer, the White Widow subject would be more stoned than your back yard pot subject. But that isn't the typical use. The typical use is to smoke the reefer until satisfied. It's hype like the commercial hype of Extra Strength Tylenol versus the piddly ordinary tablets, of which three are virtually the same as two Extra Strength.
Didn't you just finish claiming that "One gets only so high on cannabis"?
Not hobbled by consistency, I see.
The author talks like only NOW is the stuff real powerful.
I'm 41 and there was some "good $h!t" back in my teens.
I recall feeling like I was flying a spaceship as I drove home.
And for those wondering, no I haven't done any of that in years.
I don't consider the stuff "harmless," but I also don't consider it to be nearly as bad as heroine, acid, meth, crack, etc. I know a LOT of people who smoked a LOT of weed in their young adult lives and don't touch it now. I think "addiction" is more about weak individuals who are going to have some type of addiction anyway.
Until over their growing tolerance levels and loaded.
If you hanker for a sugar fix, would you rather drink 12 oz. of grape soda or 24 oz. of Gatorade?
You're kind of comic.
Availability of enough pot at one time to achieve satisfaction is usually not a problem for any particular user.
Didn't you just finish claiming that "One gets only so high on cannabis"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't I include the old sales slogan from "Brylcreem" - "a little dab will do ya"? (Maybe you're not old enough to remember that ad.) Which means that with potent cannabis - getting high can be done with only a few hits on the bong instead of the old cliche - "This $#!+ wouldn't get a fly high!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not hobbled by consistency, I see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let all those with eyes judge me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again - Don't you prefer "high performance" products? (grin)
Hmmmm. My wife told me the same thing this morning, and we both had Diet Cokes last night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The not so subtle difference here is that - I'm not advocating a multi billion dollar war against what you do in the privacy of your home - as you seem to indicate you wish for our governments to do to my household.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true.
Until over their growing tolerance levels and loaded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not true.
I know from personal experience of 34 years that one does not have a significant increased "tolerance level" of cannabis over time. I can have 3 or 4 hits of cannabis now and get the same level of high as 34 years ago.
Trust me - I tell the truth.
Opiates are notorious for this kind of tolerance response, but pot?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have zero experience or knowledge on the topic of "opiates". I have read that many substances do present the phenomena of - "increased tolerance" and that's enough reason to not venture to that territory for me.
Yes but has anyone ever died from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of the strongest marijuana? Be honest! Thousands have over the years
Have any facts to support this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.