Posted on 06/26/2008 5:46:41 PM PDT by Ron Jeremy
According to federal drug czar John Walters, the marijuana available in the United States is better than ever. Well, that's not quite the way he put it, but it's closer to the truth.
Last week, as part of its ongoing effort to convince baby boomers that today's "Pot 2.0" is much more dangerous than the stuff they smoked when they were young, Walters' Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) announced that "levels of THC—the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana—have reached the highest-ever amounts since scientific analysis of the drug began in the late 1970s." The University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project reports that the average THC content of the seized marijuana it tests was 8.1 percent last year, up from 3.2 percent in 1983.
That increase is much less dramatic than the one Walters alleged a few years ago. In a 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed piece, he asserted that "the potency of available marijuana has not merely 'doubled,' but increased as much as 30 times" since 1974, when "the average THC content of marijuana was less than 1 percent."
Since 1 percent is the threshold at which experimental subjects can detect a psychoactive effect, if Walters were right it would mean that people who smoked pot in the mid-'70s, when marijuana was even more popular than it is today, typically did not get high as a result. This rather implausible claim is based on a small, nonrepresentative sample of low-quality marijuana that probably degraded in storage.
Worse, to get his impressive 30-to-1 ratio, Walters compared the weakest pot of the '70s to the strongest pot of this decade. As a review of research on marijuana potency in the July 2008 issue of the journal Addiction notes, "There is enormous variation in potency, within a given year, from sample to sample," such that "cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation of cannabis potency in a single year...than over years or decades."
Even when the ONDCP is comparing annual averages, it's not clear that the government's samples, which depend on whose marijuana law enforcement agencies happen to seize, are comparable from year to year or representative of the U.S. market. Still, it's likely that average THC content has increased significantly during the last couple of decades as growers have become more adept at meeting the demands of increasingly discriminating consumers. The question is why Walters thinks that's a bad thing.
With stronger pot, people can smoke less to achieve the same effect, thereby reducing their exposure to combustion products, the most serious health risk associated with marijuana consumption. Yet the ONDCP inexplicably warns that higher THC levels could mean "an increased risk" of "respiratory problems."
It also trots out warnings about reefer madness reminiscent of anti-drug propaganda from the 1930s, conflating correlation (between heavy pot smoking and depression, for example) with causation. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, worries that stronger pot might be more addictive, although she concedes that "more research is needed to establish this link between higher THC potency and higher addiction risk."
By contrast, the Australian scientists who wrote the Addiction article say "more research is needed to determine whether increased potency...translates to harm for users." Unlike our government, they are open to the possibility that the link Volkow seeks to establish does not in fact exist.
To bolster the idea that marijuana is more addictive today, the ONDCP notes that "16.1% of drug treatment admissions [in 2006] were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse," compared to "6% in 1992." But referrals from the criminal justice system account for three-fifths of these treatment admissions, and marijuana arrests have increased by more than 150 percent since 1990.
By arresting people for marijuana possession and forcing them into treatment, the government shows why it has to arrest people for marijuana possession. That's our self-justifying drug policy in a nutshell.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Well that explains the jump in prices...
Actually, this weed (called Krypto or other names) is very expensive, but the old weed (called Schwag) is still available and it’s what most people smoke.
I remember that facility at Ole Miss (I’m a grad). It was surrounded by a high fence with full lighting, guards and reportedly dogs. It was definitely a topic of discussion among the student body.
Yes, it bothers me tremendously that someone in the privacy of their own house, not out on the streets driving, might use drugs recreationally. NOT.
It’s really pretty easy. You just take one hit. Not that I would know of course ;>)
make it legal and tax it...empty the jails...
High on Hyperbole...
|
Stories that NewPot[tm] is basically different from OldPot[tm] keep surfacing every few years. Their purpose is to attempt to maintain official pravda against the next generation’s personal knowledge that pot smoking simply isn’t as dangerous as the government claims.
|
Ron
Its good to see you are still around
Inhalator.
That makes far too much sense for our government to try.
When I was young in Texas ...(long ago)I got high and drove my car into a light pole. I was arrested by the Texas police and thrown into an isolation cell before they bothered to take me to a hospital and sew me up.
I went to court and got off on a technicality. (the police used the wrong words in the citation)Had I not gotten off I believe I would have spent at least 10 years in our prison systems.It would not have done me or the society any good.
I survived my trip to the wild side and have become a somewhat constructive member of society for the last 38 years.
Moral of the story ?
Some people survive drugs, some dont
Pot produces Leftists.
A Mencken here, a Mencken there and before you know it you're indulging stereotypes. It might be better to stick to the merits of the thing.
Tee-hee. Can I say it? "It's not your Grandfather's pot."
I don’t understand the argument at all. I seem to remember that those who partook usually par-toked until they forgot to keep it lit, so how can the new stuff be worse for you if you actually smoke less?
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.