Forget Politics 2.0, What About Pot 2.0?

The main reason that marijuana would increase in THC seems to me would be because the growers are more specific about what they grow?in the sense of breeding. Thus if the plants were chosen on the basis of what offers higher levels of THC then we would see higher levels of THC. Probably knowing the plants sex?are they diploid (female), haploid (male), or polyploidy and what conditions will affect this?soil, light, temp., and perhaps the discovery that polypoidy yields higher THC concentrations

As a teenager, and to appear "radical and intelligent" I remember getting hold of a book "The Politics of Heroin" (highly recommended) to use in an obligatory assignment in Political Science (I almost got expelled this was 1973), and that book combined with Watergate, and congressional activities like Senate Bill One?the re-codification a of federal penal system, dramatically altered my youthful view on our government, and I guess that this made me into a skeptic. Still the main problem surrounding marijuana strikes me as the same kind of mentality that ruled the US in the 20's with prohibition. No doubt alcoholism is culturally damaging, but prohibition was obviously a flawed means of combating this. There is a benefit of the illegality of dope that revolves around its price?it goes up. The relationship of the US government and its covert activities abroad are perhaps best understood as seeking means to finance such activities by untraceable funds?here the concept of follow the money becomes difficult, thus follow the drug to its source and examine our political relationship to the country producing the drug might be revealing. Tidbits like the CIA's historical relationship to the Mafia, the CIA's relationship to the drug producing nations can be enlightening. The survival of a state's power is not always a mere matter of "good", survival can entail the use of some "evil" as well.

Partially legalizing the drugs weakens the pricing because they get cheaper?weakening the more subversive interests. I would guess that control over certain countries that produce illegal drugs might be a lucrative means to black-money for the large repertoire of dark lord activities our country is known for out in the world?for example blackmail, bribes, assassinations, counterinsurgency (supporting rebels) illegal weapons, illegal wire tapping, secret prisons, kidnapping and other such goodies. This of course says something about the government?but considering that we invaded Afghanistan?as opposed to merely going there hitting the rebel camps, get Ibn laden and leave?we've planted our feet there "to bring them democracy", but our presence has destabilized Pakistan and thus threatens the stability of a Muslim nuclear armed power (foreign policy at its best) Still I would not trust our government when it comes to Afghanistan in terms of the drugs,?especially given that the wars are going poorly?bribes are most likely a political necessity. Still I look at what happened in Haiti?the coup and the first thing that popped into my head is drugs?To create a safe house for distribution of Afghan opium and hashish, merely consider our involvement in Columbia and the failure to reduce in any notable way the flow of drugs. In 35 years nothing has changed and there are no grounds to trust the government in Columbia much less Afghanistan. (this merely suspicion and has no basis in fact?but has the price of heroin gone down in the US? Has the number of users gone up in that last 5 years? Such data might give indications. Some one should check it out)

Marijuana has proven medicinal benefits and there is no doubt that it is less damaging on average than say alcohol, especially in terms of physical addition, even if the TCH is at 8%. Another thing to consider is the competition marijuana creates for the pharmaceutical industry or even alcohol industries, maybe tobacco which have lobbying power. Perhaps if marijuana were analyzed from a different perspective, where the object was to accept that societies use "drugs" and that these drugs serve a real purpose?culturally, psychologically, etc and if viewed from this perspective the negative effects of marijuana might be shown in terms of its negative costs to society to be cheaper than say alcohol, or certain kinds of prescription drugs (for depression, or other things) where marijuana might function as an alternative. Alcohol is a killer (car accidents), a home wrecker, and so on?here it might be possible to make a macro cost-benefit analysis. What do barbiturates cost the society, amphetamines, alcoholism, etc and then compare this with an Expected cost of legalized marijuana would do to the country. I'm sure that marijuana would come out of such a study as having greater benefit?because its destructive costs to society as a whole would be lower than the "competition" and because it is not physically addicting, marijuana will most like show lower negative medical costs in terms of abuse. Thus if one simply analyzed the number of deaths, the number accidents, frequency of household violence etc, where marijuana is found in the blood and compare this to other substances that are "legal" then the justification statistically for the "danger" of marijuana could be determined by use of existing actuary models and compared?so that its actual risks could be assessed. I seriously doubt marijuana would look "evil", meaning the cost and risk of its presence in society might be shown scientifically to be greater as an "illegal substance" and than as a legal one, meaning its illegality is built on ignorant bias not fact.

This is an interesting tidbit and refreshing story from the rest of the filler on the blog. Kudos!

There really is no debate about the potency between different strains but I've yet to encounter weed so strong you could overdose on it and kill you. Are the Drug War people trying to scare or entice potheads by saying it's more potent now? I think it also depends on how you go about consuming it. Eating a potent pot brownie is a much different feel than smoking a joint, so I've heard, I mean I won't know first hand or anything. It's joke pot gets this much attention but you don't hear meth or coke getting as much negative publicity- those are the drugs that are really screwing people up. I'm okay with the war on drugs as long as it excludes weed and other somewhat harmless drugs. Devote resources to fighting the really gnarly, bad drugs. Don't harsh the mellow, man..

"Nor do I trust NORMAL et al, even, and perhaps especially, when, having gotten nowhere on legalization per se, they reframe the issue as a balm for the sick and dying."

Far from getting nowhere, since NORML (not "NORMAL") began its campaigns marijuana has been decriminalized in many states and penalties reduced in almost every state. I'd call that a lot of progress. Complete legalization was a ballot issue in Colorado and Nevada last year. They didn't win, but they didn't lose by that much.

The major problem for the pro-legalization organizations is lack of funding. If cannabis users contributed 1% of what they spend on weed and paraphernalia to the legalization movement, it would have $400,000,000 a year to spend on public education and lobbying. As it is, they have less than $18,000,000. By contrast, the ONDCP spends upwards of $120,000,000 a year on those useless television PSAs alone. It's a miracle that the legalization organizations have made any progress on their shoestring budgets. There are an estimated 24,000,000 cannabis users in the US. The combined membership of the three largest pro-legalization organizations is around 60,000. It amazes me that 99.8% of us can be so apathetic about something that so negatively impacts our lives.

NORML hasn't abandoned its efforts to get marijuana legalized for recreational purposes. It has simply added campaigns to get it legalized for medicinal purposes. They are two legitimately separate issues and NORML is pursuing both of them.

I have been hearing this argument thrown around for awhile now, and it has always seemed logically unsound to me, at least in as far as its use as a scare tactic. First off, the amount of THC one would need to overdose being absurdly large, marijuna could be one hundred times more powerful than it is now, and it would still be nowhere near as dangerous to the user as many of the other recreational drugs that we allow society to freely consume eg; alcohal, over the counter pain killers and cough suppresrants, and yes, everyone's favorite, caffeine. Secondly, if there is more THC in modern marijuana, this simply means that a person needs to consume less marijuana to reach their desired level of "high". It seems to me that from a viewpoint of health and safety, this would actually be a good thing, leding to less incidences of lung, throat and mouth cancers stemming from smoke inhalation. While there have been studies showing that marijuana can be damaging mentally to some inviduals with prior psychological problems such as depression and schizophrenia, there are also plenty of folks who have allergies to many easily available over the counter medicines. Some of these allergies can be deadly. Yet we still allow these products to be sold without restriction, letting consumers rely on their judgement. I beleive I heard something about individual choice being one of those essential cornerstones of liberty. Who knows, maybe I was just high high and heard it wrong.

"I just think it's a little unseemly when perfectly healthy pot-positive types hide behind AIDS and cancer patients."

As long as we have a War on Drugs, should we not be working to remove the sick and dying from the battlefield?

The main reason that marijuana would increase in THC seems to me would be because the growers are more specific about what they grow—in the sense of breeding. Thus if the plants were chosen on the basis of what offers higher levels of THC then we would see higher levels of THC. Probably knowing the plants sex—are they diploid (female), haploid (male), or polyploidy and what conditions will affect this—soil, light, temp., and perhaps the discovery that polypoidy yields higher THC concentrations

As a teenager, and to appear "radical and intelligent" I remember getting hold of a book "The Politics of Heroin" (highly recommended) to use in an obligatory assignment in Political Science (I almost got expelled this was 1973), and that book combined with Watergate, and congressional activities like Senate Bill One—the re-codification a of federal penal system, dramatically altered my youthful view on our government, and I guess that this made me into a skeptic. Still the main problem surrounding marijuana strikes me as the same kind of mentality that ruled the US in the 20's with prohibition. No doubt alcoholism is culturally damaging, but prohibition was obviously a flawed means of combating this. There is a benefit of the illegality of dope that revolves around its price—it goes up. The relationship of the US government and its covert activities abroad are perhaps best understood as seeking means to finance such activities by untraceable funds—here the concept of follow the money becomes difficult, thus follow the drug to its source and examine our political relationship to the country producing the drug might be revealing. Tidbits like the CIA's historical relationship to the Mafia, the CIA's relationship to the drug producing nations can be enlightening. The survival of a state's power is not always a mere matter of "good", survival can entail the use of some "evil" as well.

Partially legalizing the drugs weakens the pricing because they get cheaper—weakening the more subversive interests. I would guess that control over certain countries that produce illegal drugs might be a lucrative means to black-money for the large repertoire of dark lord activities our country is known for out in the world—for example blackmail, bribes, assassinations, counterinsurgency (supporting rebels) illegal weapons, illegal wire tapping, secret prisons, kidnapping and other such goodies. This of course says something about the government—but considering that we invaded Afghanistan—as opposed to merely going there hitting the rebel camps, get Ibn laden and leave—we've planted our feet there "to bring them democracy", but our presence has destabilized Pakistan and thus threatens the stability of a Muslim nuclear armed power (foreign policy at its best) Still I would not trust our government when it comes to Afghanistan in terms of the drugs,—especially given that the wars are going poorly—bribes are most likely a political necessity. Still I look at what happened in Haiti—the coup and the first thing that popped into my head is drugs—To create a safe house for distribution of Afghan opium and hashish, merely consider our involvement in Columbia and the failure to reduce in any notable way the flow of drugs. In 35 years nothing has changed and there are no grounds to trust the government in Columbia much less Afghanistan. (this merely suspicion and has no basis in fact—but has the price of heroin gone down in the US? Has the number of users gone up in that last 5 years? Such data might give indications. Some one should check it out)

Marijuana has proven medicinal benefits and there is no doubt that it is less damaging on average than say alcohol, especially in terms of physical addition, even if the TCH is at 8%. Another thing to consider is the competition marijuana creates for the pharmaceutical industry or even alcohol industries, maybe tobacco which have lobbying power. Perhaps if marijuana were analyzed from a different perspective, where the object was to accept that societies use "drugs" and that these drugs serve a real purpose—culturally, psychologically, etc and if viewed from this perspective the negative effects of marijuana might be shown in terms of its negative costs to society to be cheaper than say alcohol, or certain kinds of prescription drugs (for depression, or other things) where marijuana might function as an alternative. Alcohol is a killer (car accidents), a home wrecker, and so on—here it might be possible to make a macro cost-benefit analysis. What do barbiturates cost the society, amphetamines, alcoholism, etc and then compare this with an Expected cost of legalized marijuana would do to the country. I'm sure that marijuana would come out of such a study as having greater benefit—because its destructive costs to society as a whole would be lower than the "competition" and because it is not physically addicting, marijuana will most like show lower negative medical costs in terms of abuse. Thus if one simply analyzed the number of deaths, the number accidents, frequency of household violence etc, where marijuana is found in the blood and compare this to other substances that are "legal" then the justification statistically for the "danger" of marijuana could be determined by use of existing actuary models and compared—so that its actual risks could be assessed. I seriously doubt marijuana would look "evil", meaning the cost and risk of its presence in society might be shown scientifically to be greater as an "illegal substance" and than as a legal one, meaning its illegality is built on ignorant bias not fact.

Can't retest 40, 30, or 1 year old samples for THC. Surprise, the THC level of pot lessens over time. The potency of pot, oregano or any other herb lessens as the sample gets stale. THC evaporates.

As the senior writer and researcher for NORML and the NORML Foundation, I find your backhanded swipe at the organization highly inappropriate -- particularly in light of the fact that your essay, "Forget Politics 2.0, What About Pot 2.0?" rings eerily similar to the essay I pitched to Mother Jones back in April: "Pot 2.0,' Where Do I Get Some?"

------ Forwarded Message
From: Paul Armentano
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:42:13 -0400
To:
Subject: ARTICLE QUERY: "Pot 2.0,' Where Do I Get Some?"

To the editor,

Please consider the enclosed, original essay "'Pot 2.0,' Where Do I Get
Some?" for publication.

....

Care to comment?

Ha!
Dude, Paul, maybe you should lay off the weed? You seem a bit paranoid ... or vainglorious.
I think the whole "2.0" thing had broken just a bit before you sent an email to Mother Jones.
*Or* maybe in an undisclosed magazine-wide severe episode of writer's block they've resorted to culling clever headlines from reader emails?!
Someone get on it!

Wow... Clara...

I've a need to chip in the "hiding behind patients" claptrap you spew as well. As an advocate for pot, what our friend Big Bong in Oz calls a "Cannabist", I and most others advocate for medical precisely because it is a no-brainer. Not to be redundant but we ain't hidin'. We ARE everywhere. And its because we know Elvy Mussika and George McMahon and Gary Storck, etc... and because we know the gummint killed Peter McWlliams and could only utter an "its regrettable" after his death... because we are disgusted w/ such treachery, that we advocate for medical use by patients. On this aspect of cannabis alone the whole of the ONDCP/DEA drug war apparatus should be publicly flogged and locked away with the general prison population in Attica or Marion FP or any of the other institutions of the corporate for-profit prison-industrial complex.

If there is anyone hiding it is the Feds, whose blogs lead to nowhere, who don't allow public commentary, whose officials are whisked into towns with huge security staffs, usually unannounced publicly, and whisked away again.

These are the pigs Clara, not us. Get a clue and stop spouting propaganda like some WO(s)D shill.

Thanks to Paul, Rick and Scott for weighing in. And a Bronx cheer for MJ. Get a clue and publish something from one of LEAP's ( http://www.leap.cc/ ) excellent writers!

In fact... Clara, MJ... why doesn't this fine publication do some down and dirty on the ONDCP and their house of lies?

Why are they NOT transparent and open like a good little gummint agency should be? Why are they allowed to use our taxpayer dollars to produce crappy commercials and come to our states and pass gas in front of the media about issues that don't involve the feds, that are beyond their purview?

And weren't there any of MJ's editors that could look at that statement:

"it's a little unseemly when perfectly healthy pot-positive types hide behind AIDS and cancer patients."

and have some sirens and red lights go on? Or do you Mother Jones types believe it as well?

Too bad I don't subscribe to Mother Jones, just so I could cancel my subscription in a huff of indignation! hah!

I've been smoking for 15 years and no problem, its not getting any stronger. Check out my personal website and you can see all the good facts about it. Educate yourself.

http://www.marijuanahempworld.com

Rob