UN report says potent pot is no soft drug

The Vancouver Sun ^ | June 27, 2006 | Chad Skelton

[headsonpikes]

The increasing potency of marijuana -- spurred on by hydroponic growers in places such as B.C. -- means the world should no longer consider pot a "soft" drug, according to a report released Monday by the United Nations.

"Today, the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin," Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crimes, said in a written statement.

Each year, the UN produces a World Drug Report that surveys drug production and consumption worldwide.

While this year's report covers everything from opium production in Afghanistan to cocaine consumption in Europe, it takes specific aim at marijuana in a section titled, "Cannabis: Why We Should Care."

The report argues that marijuana is by far the most popular drug in the world, with about 162 million users every year compared to just 16 million for opiates and 13 million for cocaine.

And the number of marijuana users worldwide has jumped by more than 10 per cent since the late 1990s -- a larger increase than for any other illicit drug....

[Cementjungle]

People can readily buy the supplies they need for winemaking (grapes) or for pot-growing (fertilizer). Your argument is like saying people won't grow their own pot because they can't make their own fertilizer.

I was just trying to say that one person can easily grow enough pot for the whole neighborhood, while a person can not very easily grow/produce enough wine for one person.

The government's never going to starve for lack of alcohol taxes, but with pot I think if it became legal it would be much harder for the government to capture a large percentage of the market. In fact, I think if they were to legalize pot it may actually cut into sales of eithor booze and/or some prescription drugs. This would offer no benefit the the tax hungry government(s).

[Know your rights]

I was just trying to say that one person can easily grow enough pot for the whole neighborhood

If they did so without paying taxes they'd be violating the tax laws. Why would they risk it, since the profits to be had would no longer be inflated by anti-pot laws?

The government's never going to starve for lack of alcohol taxes, but with pot I think if it became legal it would be much harder for the government to capture a large percentage of the market.

There might be somewhat more home growing than home brewing, but I know of no reason to predict a drastic difference.

In fact, I think if they were to legalize pot it may actually cut into sales of eithor booze and/or some prescription drugs.

Another argument in favor of legalizing pot; I'd rather deal with a stoner than a drunk any day of the week, and many law enforcement officers agree.

[Cementjungle]

If they did so without paying taxes they'd be violating the tax laws. Why would they risk it, since the profits to be had would no longer be inflated by anti-pot laws?

People who make money babysitting, mowing lawns, housecleaning, etc. technically should be paying taxes too, but how many do you suppose actually are?

[Know your rights]

The off-the-books dealer making no more than a babysitter ... him I'm not worried about.