Potent Pot

[B00ne]

I said braindamage - I am not a MD - some psychological condition making those kids unfit for normal life. I am not saying that this is the inevitable course for every kid smoking pot - but bad things can happen to your brain (when you are young that is) Also consider those kids were smoking in the order of 1-several grams per day - bong and here it is usually mixed with tabacco (dunno if the tabacco has an added effect)and mostly Hashish and not just Marihuana.

Sry no link - saw this on a documentary some weeks ago - but I search...

 

[SirStev0]

i have never heard of anyone ever being hospitalized from the effects of pot... ever...

maybe from getting fd up and crashing their car... but not from smoking it...

they even disproved that "pot causes cancer" study...

fact is that it is one of the lesser drugs you can use... nicotene and alcohol are both much worse then pot...

(proof... alcohol withdrawl = deadliest form of withdrawl ... one of the few that can actually kill you... its worse then herion...
pot = no known form of addiction, except for psych... no known symptoms of withdrawl)

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Sorry but this is not true. Maybe in the US but not here in Europe. The pot from the 60-70s had 2-5% THC the professional bred high grade stuff from Holland (which is like THE pot engineering place) nowadays reaches up to 30% THC content.

First of all can you link to your source for the potency of pot in the 60's? How did the source determine the potency of pot from the 60's? Was pot even tested for THC% back then? Or are those numbers based on recent tests of old samples of pot from the 60's? Also what pot did they test? Pot from mexico, from nepal, from california, from afghanistan? Was the pot sinsemilla or not? Was the "pot" actual female buds, or was it just leafs? There are many types/variations of marijuana and it is foolish to state that all pot from the 60's was 5% thc. People who think of pot in the same way as man-made chemical drugs often make this mistake. Try to think of pot like grapes. There are many types with different characteristics.

The belief that all pot from the 60's was low potency is just not true. My point is that potency has a lot to do with the attention given to the growth cycle (providing the right nutrients, amount of light, etc). Genetics plays a role but you can't overlook nurture. The knowledge of how to grow potent buds has been around since the 60's but today it is more widespread and technology makes it easier to grow high quality pot.

The pot varieties from holland are not super engineered plants. They are doing the same thing the people in nepal/afghanistan/etc. have been doing for a long time; selective breeding. All the dutch hybrids are derived from work that was started mostly in california also.

Now tell me again it is the same as it has always been.

I'm not arguing that improvements in potency haven't been made. My point is that there were strains in the 60's that rival todays hybrids in potency. They were not as common though, but they existed. Also as far as effects go, pot is the same as it always was. If a certain strain is very potent it just means the user smokes less to get the desired effect. A weaker strain still gives the same effect but requires the user smoke more of it. So instead of smoking 2 joints you only smoke half of a joint.

Potency is determined by three things: genetics, environment, and technique. I think the average increase in potency is based more on improving the environment and technique used to grow than improving genetics.

BTW every year more kids are hospitalized with some "brain damage" (figurative), which could even be permanent in cases. I used to think pot aint dangerous too but not with the stuff getting ever stronger and the users getting younger and younger. Also recently there have been new studies about the effects of pot and they also suggest that it actually is quite dangerous to adolescents especially in regards to learning abilities and brain development.

Link to source?


I agree that pot is probably detrimental to children and their learning ability due to the fact that it impairs memory. This does not justify making it illegal for adults though.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: B00ne
I said braindamage - I am not a MD - some psychological condition making those kids unfit for normal life. I am not saying that this is the inevitable course for every kid smoking pot - but bad things can happen to your brain (when you are young that is) Also consider those kids were smoking in the order of 1-several grams per day - bong and here it is usually mixed with tabacco (dunno if the tabacco has an added effect)and mostly Hashish and not just Marihuana.

Sry no link - saw this on a documentary some weeks ago - but I search...

This makes sense.

I've heard studies that showed higher rates of schizophrenia and other psychological diseases among young pot-smokers, and this is really worrying -- but not quite as worrying as what I thought you were saying.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Interesting read:
New trends in illicit cannabis cultivation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Text

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Tabb
First of all

1)Prove to me weed is not as bad as alcholol.

2)Any statistics relating to weed related deaths are irrevalent, find me a active MJ smoker who doesn't activily smoke tobacco.

Weed WILL NEVER be legalized, its just as bad as tabacco which IMHO tabacco is the worst thing in the world today.

Bjorn, my buddy here in London, Ont. Canada. Scott. Tasha used to, but quit. (Last names withheld for privacy) What kind of tight-assed town do you live in where pot isn't "mainstream?" I went to a party at one of my sister's friend's houses. This is in a suburb of Toronto. Some one pulled out a J and half the party went outside to smoke it. They were all schoolteachers. Friends from my sister's work.

If the harm of tobacco is comparable to alcohol, why should it be illegal? Count how many years people spend in prison for weed-related charges. How much damage does that do to society? Even just in terms of taxation. Also note how much damage alcohol does to society.

All my friends smoked or smoke pot. It's not weed we struggle with in terms of addiction problems, it's alcohol and cigarrettes. Those things can ruin you. Weed can too, I know of one person who screwed up his life because of it. But in my personal experience, alcohol and tobbacco are much more dangerous.

Note regarding the OP, if pot were legalized, the THC content could be regulated in the exact same way alcohol is. And, the supply could to a limited extent be controlled by the gov't. IOW, the increase in consumption could be partly mitigated in the long term through an increase in taxation and regulation. Sorta the way that smoking is being beaten. In my province, with workplace smoking bans and huge taxes, the smoking rate among teenagers has dropped down to 18%, the first time that percentage has been lower than the general population in years. Note that I don't think that these kinds of laws will do much to alter the behaviour of addicts, but I do think that inconvenience dissuades teenagers from smoking.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: B00ne

Sorry but this is not true. Maybe in the US but not here in Europe. The pot from the 60-70s had 2-5% THC the professional bred high grade stuff from Holland (which is like THE pot engineering place) nowadays reaches up to 30% THC content.

First of all can you link to your source for the potency of pot in the 60's? How did the source determine the potency of pot from the 60's? Was pot even tested for THC% back then? Or are those numbers based on recent tests of old samples of pot from the 60's? Also what pot did they test? Pot from mexico, from nepal, from california, from afghanistan? Was the pot sinsemilla or not? Was the "pot" actual female buds, or was it just leafs? There are many types/variations of marijuana and it is foolish to state that all pot from the 60's was 5% thc. People who think of pot in the same way as man-made chemical drugs often make this mistake. Try to think of pot like grapes. There are many types with different characteristics.

The belief that all pot from the 60's was low potency is just not true. My point is that potency has a lot to do with the attention given to the growth cycle (providing the right nutrients, amount of light, etc). Genetics plays a role but you can't overlook nurture. The knowledge of how to grow potent buds has been around since the 60's but today it is more widespread and technology makes it easier to grow high quality pot.

The pot varieties from holland are not super engineered plants. They are doing the same thing the people in nepal/afghanistan/etc. have been doing for a long time; selective breeding. All the dutch hybrids are derived from work that was started mostly in california also.

Now tell me again it is the same as it has always been.

I'm not arguing that improvements in potency haven't been made. My point is that there were strains in the 60's that rival todays hybrids in potency. They were not as common though, but they existed. Also as far as effects go, pot is the same as it always was. If a certain strain is very potent it just means the user smokes less to get the desired effect. A weaker strain still gives the same effect but requires the user smoke more of it. So instead of smoking 2 joints you only smoke half of a joint.

Potency is determined by three things: genetics, environment, and technique. I think the average increase in potency is based more on improving the environment and technique used to grow than improving genetics.

BTW every year more kids are hospitalized with some "brain damage" (figurative), which could even be permanent in cases. I used to think pot aint dangerous too but not with the stuff getting ever stronger and the users getting younger and younger. Also recently there have been new studies about the effects of pot and they also suggest that it actually is quite dangerous to adolescents especially in regards to learning abilities and brain development.

Link to source?


I agree that pot is probably detrimental to children and their learning ability due to the fact that it impairs memory. This does not justify making it illegal for adults though.

This might all be true and well but it doesnt change the fact that the average potency of the pot increasing by the year. You can search for links on the potency easily on google. Those analyses usually come from confiscated police samples. Also the theory, that the user just smokes less of the more potent stuff might work for the responsible user. But it does not work for kids. Especially not for young kids where the rule usually is: the more your are smoking the cooler you are. I understand that adults could/can use cannabis products in a "responsible" way. But I still think that downplaying the detrimental effects or even just focussing on the comparatively low medical implications of cannabis use would still make it more apealing to kids and increase the use there. It cant be good when a majority of below high school aged students already had experience with cannabis. (same with Tabacco and Alcohol btw)

 

[Kibbo]

In my high school it was easier to get ungerulated pot then regulated alcohol.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
In my high school it was easier to get ungerulated pot then regulated alcohol.

Same here.
The problem is that people who sell pot don't have to follow any regulations and can sell to anyone they want. If it were legal and regulated it would actually be more difficult to fall into the hands of minors. Cafes/pot stores would have to be licensed and if they were caught selling to minors they would lose the license. Just like alcohol.

Street level dealers would not be able to compete with licensed dealers. Think about it, how many drug dealers sell alcohol? None because the risks of selling alcohol unlicensed outweigh the profits.

Why anti-marijuana people can't make this connection puzzles me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Some facts about potency.

As is so often the case, the government is inflating facts and figures regarding pot, using FUD and scare tactics to get its message across.

 

[Moonbeam]

Pot makes people socialistic, not capitalistic. It is therefore the greatest evil. Competition just doesn't work where people care about each other. That is why capitalism and fear go hand in hand. Fear helps a person slit his neighbor's throat.

 

[skace]

You people realize riprorin posted this and hasn't come back to reply since his original post, right? He doesn't care what you think or whether he is wrong. He only cares that people read his sources.

 

[BBond]

Yep. I realize that. I just like talking about pot.

 

[bamacre]

As someone who has smoked cigarettes for 9 years, consumed alcohol for 10, pot for 8, I will tell you I have NEVER in my life done anything more addictive than Peanut M&M's.

Seriously, dogs kill more poeple every year than pot. Medications prescribed by doctors kill more people every year.

I do think, and strongly, that we need to get the pot out of childrens' hands, and I still believe the best way to prevent pot from getting into the hands of our children is by legalizing it.

Rip, I don't know what you are arguing? Do you? It's illegal now, has been for many a decades. What do you want us to do? Keep the system in place now, keep things the way they are? Make it even more illegal?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

from what ive read, pot would serve no purpose if legalized. very few uses and none of those are proven.
at the same time...i see no reason not to legalize it ala liquor.

From what's I've read, alcohol, tobacco, Twinkies, Oreos, etc. serve no purpose, so why are they legal? They is no current doctrine to simply outlaw everything that is "not healthy," so why is MJ illegal? Politics, nothing more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Legalizing marijuana will only increase the number of people using it. It has no benefit to anyone and probably should stay illegal (especially since it is not widely used in the mainstream populace).

Even more important than that, it seems that Rip lives only a few miles away from me. What town do you live in (or are you in the city)?

No offense, but you are niave on the subject. Many more people than you would expect smoke pot. In fact, most of the people I know (young and old) smoke pot. And I'm not just hanging around stoners.

It is a benefit to people. It is relaxing and enjoyable, just like a glass of wine (except less harmful than alcohol).

This article is absurd because the only reason the treatment centers have more people is because they are ordered there by the courts. Nobody goes to rehab for marijuana on their own accord unless they have other drug problems along with it.

As far as legalization increasing use, that is also absurd. As a teenager I first smoked pot in middle school. I didn't get drunk until I was a sophomore in high school. Making it illegal simply gives the government less control over who gets it and who doesn't. A dealer isn't going to check ID, but the liquor store is.

I agree and it is also obvious that the majority of those that smoke pot are smokers.

Nicotine and THC, both drugs and both should either be legal or illegal.

The money spent on the supoosed "War on Drugs" is a total waste.

Legalize and spend the money better on management for those that will abuse the drugs.

You are going to have abusers whether the drugs are legal or not.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

"In the beginning, I didn't pay for it at all, and I would only use around certain people," Mitch said.

Cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana . . . I wonder which of these three doesn't belong as a seriously dangerous drug to the general population?

Another study from Columbia University said "...the drug's increased potency appears to be sending more teens into treatment facilities."

More pseudoscience . . . it's far more likely that having more access to treatment facilities over the past decade is allowing more teens into treatment facilities.

However, Colleen Berg who counsels teens at a Brighton facility said, "The quality is better, the THC content is higher and therefore teens can get hooked quicker."

Theoretically possible but not even in the ballpark of PROVEN examples such as cigarettes.

 

[MiniDoom]

When it?s stronger you just end up smoking less.

 

[DealMonkey]

No one ever OD'd while using marijuana. 'Nuff said.

 

[nakedfrog]

The kid was spending $45 per DAY on the stuff? I call BS.
Based on that, he was spending about $1200 per month on it. And this, when he was 14-15? Even full-time, do you even make that much in a month at McDonalds?

 

[Sassy]

I?m in the middle as far a legalizing or not legalizing pot. My first thought is not to legalize. Does society really need another mind-altering drug that is easily accessible at our nearby liquor store? Yet, if we look at this realistically the system we have in place has failed. Our prisons are full, our judicial system is crammed with these cases, and we spend billions of our tax dollars fighting this crime.

If legal, the government can minimize, or eliminate, the crap that is currently being mixed with pot. I would think the purer the drug, the fewer side effects. If need be, the gov. can reduce the potency by adding a safe ingredient. Although legalization of pot will bring down the number of drug dealers on the streets, it will not eliminate them entirely. My feeling is that many dealers will simply shift their business from pot to selling and pushing the harder drugs. These harder drugs then become more easily accessible to our kids.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: kissnup
I?m in the middle as far a legalizing or not legalizing pot. My first thought is not to legalize. Does society really need another mind-altering drug that is easily accessible at our nearby liquor store? Yet, if we look at this realistically the system we have in place has failed. Our prisons are full, our judicial system is crammed with these cases, and we spend billions of our tax dollars fighting this crime.

If legal, the government can minimize, or eliminate, the crap that is currently being mixed with pot. I would think the purer the drug, the fewer side effects. If need be, the gov. can reduce the potency by adding a safe ingredient. Although legalization of pot will bring down the number of drug dealers on the streets, it will not eliminate them entirely. My feeling is that many dealers will simply shift their business from pot to selling and pushing the harder drugs. These harder drugs then become more easily accessible to our kids.

Why not legalize it all? What possible reason does the goverment of a Free state have to tell a legal, of-age, citizen that he/she cannot purchase a product then go home and use that product in the confines of said home?

 

[Moonbeam]

It would be insane to legalize something you can enjoy that you can grow at home. Who's going to make any money off that. And who's going to collect any taxes. Only people who earn and sweat and make others money should be allow to have any fun.

 

[Sassy]

Why not legalize it all? What possible reason does the goverment of a Free state have to tell a legal, of-age, citizen that he/she cannot purchase a product then go home and use that product in the confines of said home?

Your talking about heroin, cocaine etc. etc. I don't know.... If we leave it on the streets the kids will have access. If we legalize these more addicting drugs...Do you have some control measure in mind?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be insane to legalize something you can enjoy that you can grow at home. Who's going to make any money off that. And who's going to collect any taxes. Only people who earn and sweat and make others money should be allow to have any fun.

Well one can grow cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, herbs, spices, ect. at home as well, yet few people do that.