Posted on 03/29/2007 3:37:53 PM PDT by JTN
The more I see of the world the more it strikes me that people want more science, rather than less, and that they want to use it in odd ways: to abrogate responsibility, validate a hunch, or render a political or cultural prejudice in deceptively objective terms. As long as you cherry pick the data and keep one eye half closed, you can prove anything with science.
Last week's Independent on Sunday splashed with the headline: Cannabis - An Apology. It went on: "In 1997 this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today ... record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago."
Twice in this story cannabis is said to be 25 times stronger than it was a decade ago. For Rosie Boycott, in her melodramatic recantation, skunk is "30 times stronger". In one inside feature the strength issue is briefly downgraded to a "can". It's even referenced. "The Forensic Science Service says that in the early nineties cannabis would contain around 1% tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), the mind-altering compound, but can now have up to 25%."
Well I've got the Forensic Science Service data right here, and the earlier data from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the UN Drug Control Programme, and the EU's Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. I think that people are well able to make their own minds up when given true facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Ping
Propaganda
The Big Lie
Marijuana
Makes you die
I've never understood that whole "it's 20 times stronger" argument. First, I highly question the data. They are probably comaparing some skunk weed from 30 years ago that has been rotting in someones attic to the best stuff that a NORML guy grows in his closet.
But most importantly, who cares? So you only need 2 hits to get stoned where before you need to smoke 5 joints. That's a good thing. Same effect, less tar,etc. in your lungs.
Wow. Imagine that. Libertarians on a pot thread.
Nearly all the potheads I have known have been eff ups in some way or another. And selfish about their need for weed they nearly define themselves by it and not caring much about its impact on others.
And no, I am not thrilled about alcohols impact on society either.
Too late on that. Probably too late for many things now.
This thread needs popcorn..
and maybe twinkies..
and some ice cream...
There's a bunch of UN bureaucrats peddling a "crisis". That's a clue, people.
It's real easy for them to advocate legalization when they know that rehab and other safety nets will never be taken away, despite their promises not to burden society with such expenses.
Drug users should make a pledge to die in the gutter if it comes to that, and never ask a judge or pester relatives for a second chance.
Easy pledge to make... those things will never happen.
"The Forensic Science Service says that in the early nineties cannabis would contain around 1% tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), the mind-altering compound, but can now have up to 25%."
Just one of the flat out lies. 1% THC would only give you a raging headache. It takes at least 3% to create a buzz. 1% is called HEMP.
Another thing to remember that the drug warriors are clueless about: Potency is 99.9% GENETIC.
"This thread needs popcorn.."
With garlic powder and lots of butter?
"Nearly all the potheads I have known have been eff ups in some way or another"
In college, we called them "pre-med".
Right! And on gun rights threads, and on fourth amendment threads, and on property rights threads, and on threads discussing the War on Some Fats, and on threads discussing our Founders and the Constitution...
and some ... Cap'n Crunch
Chips .. YES ... Chips ...
and ... uh ...
you wanna make a run to Taco Bell?
Well, that is how the originators of the language spell programme.
Circular reasoning. Potheads by definition are f-ups who define themselves by it. The productive citizens who occasionally partake are not likely to share that fact with people they suspect will disapprove.
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.