On one end of the spectrum, we have the legalization advocates calling marijuana "a gentle, harmless substance that gives you little more than a sense of mellow euphoria." On the other end of the spectrum, we have advertisements calling their strain of marijuana capable of "reduc(ing) you to rubble".
Now, obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between. Years ago, perhaps it was closer to the "gentle" side. Today, the author is claiming it's closer to the "rubble side". Using BC Bud as the example, I don't see this as BS.
But you'll prolly be HAPPY rubble, unless something else has been added, always a major worry because this stuff exists out of the oversight of regulators who can keep that from happening to, say, coffee or tobacco.
Weed is pretty much self limiting. When was the last time you heard of somebody chain smoking pot.
As I see things...
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.
The point of the article is calling for more "preventive measures" ("preventive measures" and "policies" translates to even more restrictive, punishing laws) similar to the current anti-smoking laws, which she mentioned as an example.
Canada was a pioneer in introducing systematic anti-smoking policies laws, which are now being copied around the world. Their success demonstrates that preventive measures even more restrictive, punishing laws can help to change attitudes. (HUZZAH! The threat of incarceration and or fines brings 'em right into line every time) Similar policies laws are needed to prevent cannabis use getting completely out of control. (so by omission you admit cannabis use is out of your {the UN's} "control" and you want to do something to prevent "the situation" from getting "completely" out of control...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)
Let's draw the right conclusions.
Oh, yes, let's.