The truth about marijuana.

Me

[april15Bendovr]

What are you trying to say anyway? If the THC doesn't fit you must acquit. I must say I am a little troubled by your argument even though my point should of sounded a little more like what I have already conceded in my past post.

This was the original Hazelden info combined with the DEA report on BC Bud.

http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_alive_and_free.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25446

Increased potency. Marijuana today is much stronger. The average potency of marijuana, or the THC content (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) that produces the "high," has increased from an average of 1 percent in the 1960s to 3 percent today. Greater availability of even more potent marijuana, up to 15 percent THC, increases the risk of intoxication.

With the DEA report BC Bud and Canadian marijuana being smuggled across the border in large amounts how would either one of us now know what the accurate average is today?

If you are a lawyer then maybe you should develop a conscience and look at the overall content of my article.

I welcome criticism and without it the other freeper's wouldn't learn anything from the information "right or wrong."

You did a wonderful job using the average THC level and made that the focus of discrediting my entire outlook on the side effects and harm marijuana causes.

What other parts of my article did you find incorrect besides the THC?

You tell me you are not a marijuana advocate but you do seem to have a hair across your ass with one point that you seem not able to pass? You yourself have stated that the THC content is 5 times greater in your past posts? What gives if those days are over for you?

[april15Bendovr]

Correction you haven't stated it but you posted a % that represents it 5%.

Like to remind you of a previous post

I know people who still smoke pot who are very successful hard working people. I also know losers who smoke it, but I imagine most of them would have been losers whether they smoked pot or not. Overall, I think people would all be better off if they left things like pot and booze alone. But I don't really care if people use either as long as they don't cause big problems for me or our community through their use. The vast majority of those who use these substances in moderation don't cause us any problems, and if it makes them happy to smoke a couple of hits off a joint or drink a couple of beers, I say let them do it.

A lot of my posts show that there are big problems in communities already. Who has defined what moderate use is for marijuana anyway today? Have you any studies on how much use isn't harmful? Why don't you post it for me if you can find any please?

[tacticalogic]

I welcome criticism and without it the other freeper's wouldn't learn anything from the information "right or wrong."

Did you question or research the veracity and accuracy of the information you based this article on at all? For instance, the claims of research done at Tulane showing brain damage appears to be a reference to the work of Dr. Heath. If it is, then that research failed peer review miserably.

[Ken H]

I was hoping to get an answer to a couple of questions I asked previously.

1. Are you for or against the following position from the public policy section of Hazelden.org:

Medical professionals must make screening for alcohol and other drug problems a routine part of every primary care and emergency room visit.

2. Are you for or against the proposal by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to screen all public school kids for mental health?

[TKDietz]

"Is Sinsemilla pot or is it a loaf of bread. Looks like to me that Sinsemilla has a much higher THC content than 5%?"

"Marijuana potency as characterized by THC content is rising. According to data from the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of samples of all cannabis types increased from 3% in 1991 to 5.2% in 2001. The potency of commercial-grade marijuana increased from 3.1% to 5% during the same period. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, commercial-grade marijuana THC levels were under 2%. The concentration of THC in sinsemilla was about 6% in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and averaged more than 9% in 2001."

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/index.html

Note that the average of all types is 5.2%, including sinsemilla. Sinsemilla averaged around 9.% that year. Commercial grade was 5% or 4.72% that year according to the DEA link we looked at earlier. The reason the average for all types is so low is because for the most part what is out there on the street is plain old commercial grade marijuana. Even sinsemilla in this country though has never averaged 15% THC.

The potency doesn't matter that much anyway because people don't tend to smoke as much of the stronger stuff when they smoke, both because the stronger stuff is a lot more expensive and because it just doesn't take as much to reach the desired effect.

[Xenalyte]

Participants in the video report resorting to acts of desperation, such as scraping bongs and pot pipes and pulling their bedroom dresser out from the wall, to retrieve just enough marijuana to give them their next high.

This guy has watched WAY too much Reefer Madness. Those aren't acts of desperation . . . those are acts of laziness. It's a lot easier to scrape the resin than it is to get in the car, go to the ATM, drive to your dealer's house, pick up the . . .

But I've said too much.

[Xenalyte]

Anecdotally, I can tell you that your conclusions are not borne out in the real world.

You may see some sickos, but I would posit that smokin' tha reefer is NOT why they're sickos.

If it were, all potheads would be sickos. Since not all potheads are in jail or treatment, and in fact the majority are gainfully employed, perhaps there's another common factor across your sicko set.

[AlGone2001]

The truth about marijuana is that as long as the libertarians continue to use its legalization as political fodder... they will still be the 1% party.

I hope they never figure it out.

[Xenalyte]

Liberaltarian? Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! It's like you combined "liberal" and "libertarian." Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference that before. What a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. God, you're so funny!

[TKDietz]

"You tell me you are not a marijuana advocate but you do seem to have a hair across your ass with one point that you seem not able to pass?"

If you had have just checked out what I was saying and admitted you were wrong when it became apparent that you were, This would have all been over a long time ago. As for being a marijuana advocate, I do not advocate the use of marijuana. I do advocate legalizing it and regulating the marijuana trade.

"You yourself have stated that the THC content is 5 times greater in your past posts?"

I don't know what you are talking about.

[TKDietz]

"A lot of my posts show that there are big problems in communities already."

Personally, I don't see marijuana use causing big problems in my community. For instance, I've probably handled somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand criminal cases and except for the occasional DWI, I don't see marijuana behind a lot of crime that doesn't involve marijuana's legal status. Alcohol, the hard drugs and some of the addictive prescription drugs are behind an incredible amount of crime.

Now, it does cause problems, no doubt about that. It would be better if people didn't smoke it. But compared to alcohol and some of the other drugs it's not that big of a deal.

"Who has defined what moderate use is for marijuana anyway today?"

I don't know. I guess I would define it as use that doesn't interfere in a negative way with people's lives. I suppose occasional use, or use once a month or once a week or even using just a little bit every evening could be moderate use. Personally I don't care how much people use as long as they don't hurt other people or put other people at risk of serious harm through their use.

"Have you any studies on how much use isn't harmful? Why don't you post it for me if you can find any please?"

I don't know that any amount of use isn't harmful. I would imagine that the more people use the more harmful it could be for them. As far as the nature and degree of the harm, that's one of those areas where the research really is all over the place. Most people who smoke it though do not seemed to be harmed by it.

[april15Bendovr]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/WhatsNew/

Go to this NIDA URL and look up Marijuana Research and Dissemination Update - March 2004 [PDF format - 248 Kb] - posted March 12, 2004

You have to download it in PDF format

It has all the current research available you will ever need if you choose to read it.

[tacticalogic]

I'm familiar with the site, but thank you anyway. Unforunately that does not address my question.

I am also familiar with the RWJF, and frankly getting the "truth about marijuana" from an organization funded by them is about as likely as getting the "truth about nuclear energy" from an organization funded by Greenpeace.

[vin-one]

you need to stop drinking prior to posting such a lame argument.
One point you had right MJ versus booze there is no comparison,
Pot is less addictive, and less damaging to the body, as well the effects don't last as long.

comparing pot use to other crimes such as rape, murder, and theft is like comparing underage drinking to those same crimes.
It just doesn't compare

As far as government intervention, it would be on the same scale as what the ABC does now.

The kids of today, of course can get booze, but pot is usually easier to get. I never said they had a problem getting booze, just that pot is much easier to get because it is not regualted by the gov't.

[GLDNGUN]

Sorry, but I don't drink either. I stick to the stone cold sober facts. You should try it sometime.

My comparison is 100% valid. Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll break it down for you. Things are illegal because they are WRONG, not because making them illegal stops the activity. You try to apprehend and punish the wrong-doers, but you will never stop crime completely. Think of any illegal activity you want and ask yourself if that activity would increase or decrease if it were made legal. The answer should be obvious.

Yes, kids can get their hands on pot. And crack. And heroin. Etc., etc., etc. I suppose we should just make these drugs legal and easily available. And watch youth drug usage plunge? Gimme a break.

[donh]

It has all the current research available you will ever need if you choose to read it.

A NIDA site is your unimpeachable reference? What will happen to NIDA's staff if the naturally occuring recreational drugs are all legalized?

The DEA's own Young commission, in 1988, like NIXON's (NOT the democrats) 1972 commission on Marijuana, when they actually did head to head comparisons of scientific studies, (with the deck ludicrously stacked in favor of marijuana prohibition) were forced to conclude that marijuana, on it's track record, does less harm than almost everything on the grocery shelf.

the DEA's own numbers refute the gateway argument. The DEA places the number of marijuana users in the country at about 30 million. The DEA puts the combined number of heroin and cocaine addicts is about a million. For those paying attention, that's not even correlation, much less causality. This is a problem with much of your argument here. Correlation is not causality, and anecdotal evidence without statistics makes a feeble case, even if you are so convinced that you are willing to hold your breath until you turn blue. This is a common problem with cops and health workers--they see all the people too stupid to cope with their addictions crash and burn in public, and assume what they perceive is gospel about how the universe works.

These commisions were big news in their time, because they were headline-grabbers staffed by conservatives with the charter to put the kibosh on the anti-prohibition argument for all time. They drew on all the available evidence, and because they were adult scientists who know the difference between coorelation and causality, and because they were under public scrutiny, were forced to make a weighted, objective valuation of the available evidence. Squibs from NIDA, or any other special interest group are farting into a hurricane, unless they are willing to address the arguments and evidence of the Nixon and Young commissions.

Which, of course, no one ever does, because they are unanswerable. That's why civil authorities never call them to public attention. Prohibitionists like to take the stance that they are the responsible parties in this argument. They are sadly mistaken. They carefully avoid looking at the strongest arguments of their opponents, secure in the knowledge that ultimately, they win this argument at gunpoint.

Marijuana's harmfulness, as a matter of statistically verifiable evidence, is pitiful compared to hundreds of things we tolerate without notice. Putting children, or their parents, for that matter, in jail over it is like setting grandma on fire to clean a stain on her apron.

[donh]

Yes, kids can get their hands on pot. And crack. And heroin. Etc., etc., etc. I suppose we should just make these drugs legal and easily available. And watch youth drug usage plunge?

Marijuana is de-criminalized in Holland, and their statistics are better than ours. Odd, don't you think?

[GLDNGUN]

Marijuana is de-criminalized in Holland, and their statistics are better than ours. Odd, don't you think?

It's been a disaster there.

[donh]

It's been a disaster there.

...according to the DEA...not according to Holland's health ministry, (and her teachers) who, unlike the DEA, has statistics to back up their claim. If it was disaster, you would think there would have been a change in the last 40 or so years, wouldn't you?

[Liberal Classic]

This might be a little off topic, but FYI Narconon is a $cientologist front organization.