I'm with Barney

I agree with Barney. Even if the science regarding increased risk of psychosis is true, the overall negative effects of marijuana are probably still lower than alcohol. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about it, of course. But imagine if we approached alcohol the same way we do pot? We'd have to face some uncomfortable truths that we manage to avoid generally and that allow us to market alcohol so freely, and to kids, yet (despite that we don't officially market it to kids).

I think the path pot has take, in THC-etc. content, also says a lot more about unregulated capitalism than it does about the inherent nature of marijuana. And unregulated capitalism is exactly what absurdly making something as relatively illegal as marijuana should be called.

We should take a lesson from that prohibition and think about how wise it is to let unregulated capital direct the rest of our lives.

Fascinating....

This may explain a few things in my own family.

Unfortunately.

So teenagers shouldn't smoke

So teenagers shouldn't smoke skunk. Or weed period, for that matter. Educate, regulate, tax. Lather, rinse, repeat.

To further a tired analogy, 70's weed is to beer what genetically enhanced pot is to over-proof liquor. Get this notion (flawed though it is) out where they can assimilate it, and we might get somewhere.

Couldn't do much worse than this reefer-madness-in-disguise article. Can Suzuki sink any lower?

Today's pot is stronger!

Comparing ditch weed to BC bud is like comparing beer to hard liquor.

Back in the 70's the marijuana may have been weaker but the hashish that was available had a much higher THC content.

Since marijuana smokers self titrate; the actual amount of THC ingested varies little between strains and varieties.

How many teenagers develop psychosis after drinking alcohol?

Just asking.

Potent Pot-gate!

Holey Frankenherber Batman - just wait till e-mails leak on this one!

It's a conspiracy of the New World Order/ Tri-latte-Teabaggers Commissioning /BilderBirthers/ plant-breeding Illuminati.

With Suzuki there, how long before Al Gore shows up - he invented psychosis.

[translation for the sardonically-impaired provided here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8MJ7wlPE2E

time to start telling the truth.

I wonder if anyone took the time to find out if the afflicted teens were already predisposed to alarmist tendencies and / or adults who had long emphasised to them that pot-smokers will surely go crazy.

I remember when in the 60s LSD was the drug of choice, and Art Linkletter, a very popular TV host whose daughter supposedly jumped to her death out of a high building, began warning the US Nation that users of LSD would become similarly suicidal.

The story is that kids all over the US began jumping out of windows. The response by the "counter-culture" was the setting up of "Kool-Aid" groups whose primary purpose was the "talking down" of kids experiencing uncomfortable highs.

I am among those few who got that same "super high" when I first smoked pot, and it was the counselling of friends which showed me that the effects were of short duration. I am also among those few who learned to use pot for "meditation".

In more recent times I've noted that many smoke pot or ingest mushrooms to enhance the effects of alcohol - "A cheap drunk"- and IMO a shitty one to boot.

Since most kids can see first-hand the use of pot by their peers and elders with no short or long-term ill effects, they recognise the anti-pot warnings as pure prohibitory propaganda, which it is.

The REAL damage comes when they see the very valid warnings about crack and the various chemicals in the same light and, understandably, ignore them.

Drugs are bad mmmmkay

RESULTS: For Canada in 2001, 4,010 of all deaths in the group below 70 years of age were attributable to alcohol, 3,132 in men and 877 in women. This constituted 6.0% of all deaths in Canada in this age group, 7.6% for men, and 3.5% for women.A total of 144,143 years of life were lost prematurely in Canada in that year, 113,079 years in men and 31,063 years in women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499510

Marijuana Overdose

No evidence exists that anyone has ever died of a marijuana overdose [61, p. 53 - 54]. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you stoned) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication is 40,000:1 [1]. For comparison's sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1 [61, p. 227-228]. Alcohol overdoses kill about 5,000 yearly [3] but marijuana overdoses kill no one as far as anyone can tell.

A far superior experiment by the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) involving 64 rhesus monkeys that were exposed to daily or weekly doses of marijuana smoke for a year found no evidence of structural or neurochemical changes in the brains of rhesus monkeys [6, 58]. Studies performed on actual human populations will confirm these results, even for chronic marijuana users (up to 18 joints per day) after many years of use [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. In fact, following the publication of two 1977 JAMA studies, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially announced its support for the decriminalization of marijuana.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/mjfaq1.htm

After the repeal of prohibition...

...I look forward to purchasing taxed, mild weed, quality-controlled for strength and other subjective properties.

Overproof pot is the direct result of growers trying to cram the most THC into the smallest space possible. End the madness, start taxing it and let growers get creative in other ways....

Legalization the Solution

It is plain to everyone who has studied this issue, including police, courts, judges, lawyers, pot smokers and criminologists, legalization of pot is LONG overdue. Criminilaization of pot just perpetuates the growth of organized crime.

The anti-legalization push is primarily from the US, which has so many convoluted world plans it can't figure out if its punched or bored. Their failed War on Drugs has been a catastrophic failure.

Good article and good discussion.

simple solution

legalize and regulate the weed, like alcohol and tobacco. collect taxes and quit wasting money on the failed war on pot, which only enriches criminal gangsters. allow cultivation for personal use. heck marijuana grows much like a tomato plant, nothing to get excited about. cannabis has been used for thousands of years with minimal harm, unlike alcohol and tobacco.

reefer madness 2.0

OK so originally it was that weed would make those black guys go crazy and rape your wives. Bunk. Then it was the gateway drug, if you smoke weed you'll end up a heroin junkie. Ribunkulous. Then it was 1 joint is as bad as a whole pack of cigarettes as far as causing cancer. Bunk diddy bunk bunk bunk. Now if you smoke weed you will go insane. Yeah I'm so sure. Pull the other one.

Pot-induced psychosis may signal schizophrenia
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true
individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis," Arendt explained in comments to Reuters Health.

Cannabis use does not cause schizophrenia
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/01/24/15577.aspx
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says that based on current evidence smoking cannabis was likely to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia by just one per cent.

Synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) can improve the symptoms of schizophrenia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19440079
These results complement the recent finding that the cannabinoid blocker rimonabant does not improve schizophrenic symptoms and suggest that the role of cannabinoids in psychosis may be more complex than previously thought. They open a possible new role for cannabinoids in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900
a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards ... a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s ... The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44 ... In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

Can recreational doses of THC produce significant dopamine release in the human striatum?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539765
In the largest study of its kind so far, we have shown that recreational cannabis users do not release significant amounts of dopamine from an oral THC dose equivalent to a standard cannabis cigarette. This result challenges current models of striatal dopamine release as the mechanism mediating cannabis as risk factor for schizophrenia.

etc etc etc

Oh and ps it cures cancer too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

WEED

Weed is smoked by a very large percentage of Canadians.

Weed needs to be regulated and legalized so as to protect the people of Canada. Refusing to legalize it, puts people at risk and criminalizes an activity that should never have been illegal in the first place.

We should be able to buy weed at the liquor store.

Psychosis stats are misleading

It's important to remember that people who are predisposed to mental illness are far more likely to smoke pot as a way of self-medicating than people who are not. Pot-induced psychosis, then, is really a question of chickens and eggs. It's no secret that people with mental illnesses are drawn to mind-altering substances (and for understandable reason). To say pot actually causes psychosis is too simplistic. THC likely triggers something that was already there.

this has been totally debunked

I note how both The Tyee and the Bill Good show has been a pusher with this proven wrong story WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING TONIGHT's CBC Doc Zone Cannabiz (Thursday January 28, 2010 at 9 pm on CBC-TV)

Another serious blow to the credibility of the Tyee.

REALITY:
"In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

Strong Marijuana

We are constantly getting comments about the strong Marijuana of today over the 1960's.

Well I was there, and started smoking Marijuana in 1966. At that time there were just as strong varienties as there is today. Thai weed, or South American weed was super strong.

If the Marijuana is strong then you smoke a lot less than if it is mild.

During that time I have excelled in business and become a financier doing business all over the world.

Marijuana was enjoyed by some of my business associates during all those years.

Prohibitionary posturing

There are two kinds of people: 1. those who have never used the herb or have had a bad experience (paranoia) with it and 2. those who have a lot of experience with it. This journalistic tripe appeals to those in the first group. Those with experience (me and millions of others) know just how badly this article lays out its case. Especially nowadays with information so readily avaliable on the internet. Anyone who cares to discern the facts will find the counter arguments to the flimsy premise of this article in short order. Of course if you would rather get your info from this mainstream media "news release" you probably will not bother. That's what the prohibitionists are counting on.

rangerrod and others of like mind

You misunderstand and mischaracterize the debate, and in addition to your straw man fallacy, you fail to do the very thing you accuse your opponents of doing - i.e. provide a shred of evidence to back your claim that the psychosis research cited above is false.

This is not a simple black/white issue made up of two competing groups of people. Nor is it about media releases or biased mainstream journalism. This is about an increasing body of scientific evidence.

I notice lots of pot activists love to wheel out the same pieces of aging data to make their case. Has any of that data ever been repeated and put to further testing through rigorous, peer reviewed scientific study? And why is it that if a piece of new science, such as the research highlighted in the above article, even hints at the negative side of genetically modified grow-op bud, it is, therefore, deemed FBI, DEA, RCMP or anti-drug propaganda? Or worse, a media conspiracy against pot consumers. Gimme a break!

I've been smoking weed long before the grow-op revolution, enjoy its recreational and medicinal effects, support legalization, yet I also support impartial science on the stuff. I think we need to look at data like this without our fogged up pot influenced glasses on.

A sensible approach would seem to be one that balances out all stakeholders. I, for one, do not like the wildcard factor that comes with purchasing Hell's Angels grown power-pot off an even more unknown series of middlemen sources.

As a consumer I want to know what exactly I'm getting. I want to know whether it's organically grown, naturally grown outdoors, hydroponically grown, what it's been adulterated with, exactly. I want to know its origin, how genetically modified the strain is and its THC content. I want control, regulation and oversight. In short, I want the same kind of labels on my pot that exist for foods and booze I buy. More importantly, I want my purchase to be taxed and invested back into public services, rather see my dope cash go down an organized crime black hole to be used for anything but the public and social good.

The reactionary attitude of pro-marijuana activists has to adjust to the changing times. You guys need to look at all the facts, not just the ones that support your deeply entrenched political opposition to unfair drug laws.

I'd like to see better public relations from the compassion club crowd, the sort that offers a sophisticated response to this research, rather than the same, tired old, dismissive, paranoid conspiracy theory line.

Genetically modified?

Barney, that's twice above here you claim that hybrid pot as grown indoors is genetically modified. Can you give us some details about that?

Genetic modification is a highly technical process that involves substituting or adding genes that don't occur naturally to an organism. My understanding was that the current comercial types were developed by standard breeding techniques around Mill Valley California during the 70s. The program was called 'sinsemilla' or something like that, referring to the seedless propagation by cuttings.

The stock was originally various legendary named varieties, Acapulco Gold, Panama Red and so forth, which were usually diploid or triploid expressions, bred to shorter hashish producing Indica types with heavy and dense oil glands.

Just a regular old breeding program. If genetic modification has taken place there, I would certainly like to hear some details.

Nutrition and

Nutrition and schizophrenia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15041037
In addition, there was a recent posting on the Tyee about DDT and its possible link.
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/01/22/DDTPropaganda/
And how about the heavy metals present in the air, soil water? HM are known to block absorption of essential minerals:
http://www.ctds.info/5_13_magnesium.html
Magnesium is a must. The diets of all Americans are likely to be deficient........Even a mild deficiency causes sensitiveness to noise, nervousness, irritability, mental depression, confusion, twitching, trembling, apprehension, insomnia, muscle weakness and cramps in the toes, feet, legs, or fingers.
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/anti-ageing/heavy_metal.html
For example, enzymes are catalysts for virtually every biochemical reaction in all life-sustaining processes of metabolism. But instead of calcium being present in an enzyme reaction, lead or cadmium may be there in its place.
And how about the very notion of SMOKING weed? How about ingesting it? Are there any comparative studies?

not yer parents pot - just another worn out canard

As several posters have already pointed out, cannabis has always varied in quality.
And users have always adjusted their intake, just as one drinks beer, wine and hard liquor in amounts directly related to potency.

Hashish, hash-oil, thai-sticks and columbian gold were always preferred in the 60s/70s over Mexican skunk weed.
Our current cultivators have brought some quality control to the situation

Excellent commentary

When alcohol prohibition was in place, the gangs started making more potent liquors because it was easier to hide the same amount of alcohol. If pot is more potent now, then no doubt some of the same reasons apply.

Marijuana was made illegal in Canada without debate by adding it to a list of already banned substances. Since then the war on drugs has turned into what amounts to political persecution.

The bottom line is that the harm done from prohibition of marijuana far and away exceeds the harm done from people smoking it. End prohibition now.

Bailey

Good points, Bailey. I admittedly use the term GM in this context liberally. Prohibition prevents us from knowing, as consumers, what process our pot has undergone to get to our pipe. And that has to change. I think most of us share that common opinion - end prohibition so we can be more informed, educated consumers.

Here's what we do know about what hyper-breeding of cannabis has resulted in:

"in the process of cultivating more potent strains of pot, growers have also been breeding out a little-known ingredient called cannabidiol that seems to buffer the effects of THC. So today's high-octane pot actually contains a double-whammy - more psychosis-producing THC, and less of the protective CBD or cannabidiol." (from the embedded CBC article)

In my view, this high-octane breeding process, which strips out the good chemicals in the plant, is a recipe for the types of problems raised in the research under discussion. Today's stronger weed is not at all the same product as the strong Thai stick of the 70's.

Maybe not technically a GM process, but certainly a genetically manipulative process aimed at getting more bang for the buck - designer pot. There are consequences to this. I'm not saying ban high octane weed. I'm simply saying such tinkering with nature has consequences and I, as a consumer, want to know what I'm smoking so I can make better, informed decisions about what I buy and who I buy it from. Furthermore, with the issue legal and on the table, health officials and researchers can better evaluate the risks and design appropriate education programs, in the same way we do for youth and alcohol & prescription drugs.

Thanks, Barney

I agree with you that the type of breeding program used here often ends in very odd and unbalanced results, not at all superiour to their origins.

There's something about having the power to do such odd things that seems to fascinate people, and tempt them. We do tend to do silly things just because we can, quite often. Perhaps the result of our own efforts to selectively breed ourselves.

I've been interested in this. It sems to have gotten it's first big push from English pigeon fanciers in the 19th century. They easily produced such odd pigeons, with spectacular variations. One I read about actually couldn't stand up because of the enormous breast protruding.

This success led to similar programs for cattle and then food plants. Eventually found its way to humans in the Third Reich's attempts to produce supermen from soldiers and blonde German girls toward the end of the second world war.

It doesn't work for an odd reason, which is that it works too well. Idiots can choose qualities to breed for based on very flawed reasons, political or religious prejudices for instance, which leads to disaster regularly.

Monsanto has recently produced seeds that automatically commit suicide. I'm just waiting to hear how that little gem will play out.

genetically modified blarney

If you want to know what you are smoking then grow your own. Then you won't be going around making bogus claims about genetically modified pot. You will also find out how false the claims of super pot are. The truth is that because it is illegal the growers, breeders, dealers, cops and addiction industry have a lot of reasons to hype, propagandize and outright lie and deceive about how potent pot is. It simply suits their purposes. When people learn the truth about pot they discern the lies and see through those in power. The powers that be will loose their power over the people if the truth is known.

Crap!

If pot is stronger people just smoke less of it. Saying that stronger pot is a threat is like saying whiskey is a threat because people might drink it like beer. Back in the old days people would smoke 2 reefers, today they have a few tokes off one single reefer and they get high.

There is literally no lie or misinformation that the people who profit from illegal hard drugs won't tell about an illegal but harmless soft drug. Gotta keep pot illegal, for decrim is the thin edge of the wedge. Next thing you know drug addiction will be treated as a medical and social problem and where would all those hundreds of millions of dollars that funnel into the financial system from illegal addictive drugs come from?

On the other hand I do agree kids shouldn't toke - they don't need it - its for adults.

I'm a charter member of the

I'm a charter member of the hashish inhalers society and can state, perhaps with an unrecognizable syllable or two, that the joint stops here. It's oblivious to me and everyone who knows me that there is zeero efect in a regular partakation of this holey herb. In fact, if I remember correct, I knew someone that once. Nonethe less, fill yer boots. Without further dew, I bid you could hey?

rangerrod

You deluding yourself, or smoking too much of that basement bud if you really believe increased potency is nothing more than "propaganda, outright lies and deception." Now that's bunk.

When I was a kid there was about 2-to-4% THC and an equal amount of CBD or cannabidiol in pot. Today's BC Bud exceeds 20% THC and almost zero of the all-important balancing chemical of CBD. This is not propaganda.

I actually think the latest research on psychosis is quite fascinating, but otherwise not terribly surprising. It suggests that those small percentage of kids with genetic predispositions to psychosis are far more likely to trigger that psychosis by using today's engineered Frankenherb. Otherwise, the general population is at no proven risk of psychosis.

The problem I have with reactionaries like you is that you are so entrenched in your religious defence of marijuana, that you can't even recognize a potentially important bit of research when it's waved in front of you - simply because it fails to jive with your Sacred Herb mentality.

Calm down, bro, I don't want to take your weed away. I just want you to be better, more informed pot-head and exhibit a bit less hyperbole. Don't discount every piece of marijuana research that shows a negative result - simply because it shows a negative result.

The real issue here is access to good, reliable information. Legalize it, regulate it, educate its use and empower consumers with information. I think you'll find in the final analysis you and I have more in common than you may think.

Anyway, great chat and exchange of opinions.

Later,
b

RE: "religious defense of marijuana"

OK how about defense of logic?

The primary argument against "not your parent's weed" is that hash, which is essentially crystallized THC, has been around for centuries.

100 years ago hash was sold by the POUND at London markets (source: 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica).

The same source cites s study commissioned by the British Empire on long-term consumption of bhang and ganja in India. For those of you who don't know, EATING pot produces a much more potent high than you could ever get from smoking, because you can easily eat more than you can smoke.

In fact, in the original Arabian Nights, the Sultan and Sinbad go on record as consuming enough hash to stone a small elephant. So much for your parent's weed.

The rest of the program was given over to vagaries such as the novel observation that mental illness tends to run in families (duh) with the one common sense observation that if schizophrenia runs in your family, you should be careful experimenting with drugs (but completely forgot to mention the binge drinking so popular with teenagers these days).

Incidentally the Australian government has an entire website devoted to long-term brain damage caused by excessive drinking.

It would also be good to see an expose tracking the relationship between teenage suicide and use of SSRI antidepressants. There is a definite link but didn't stop a doctor from recommending prozac over pot to my teenager.

Welcome to your Harper government - instead of prosecuting Marc Emery under Canadian law as is the right of any Canadian citizen (never mind Omar Khadr!), we get a taxpayer-funded spin exposing the "real" dangers of pot. It's only taken the best minds money can buy to come up with a tenuous link after 4 decades of research :.?

I would also like VERY MUCH to see a recent article here, in BC's "feisty little" "news"paper about the Flathead Valley which is currently in the international spotlight again due to proposed mountaintop removal-type in the watershed of an American national park.

As the doc on TV also noted, those 3 teens may have already been

on their way to having mental health issues; and they may have used the weed to cope.

The establishment is afraid that if legalized many would choose to no longer pursue economic growth; volunteer their time more; grow their own weed (entrepreneurship!)perhaps even get more involved in politics (politicians would prefer less involvement!)!

Legalization would put more money in government coffers to cover growing health care costs; and pot will help with many 'boomer' chronic illness-I know it helps my arthritis!

barney

First of all: "Frankenherb", "genetically manipulated", blah blah scary blah blah. I think the term you are reaching for here is "DOMESTICATED". Like every vegetable you can find in the grocery store, breeding over the centuries has emphasized the desired properties of the product. Like every farm animal, breeding has emphasized the desired properties of the product. Do you think all the varieties of apples you can find were created at the beginning by God? They were "genetically manipulated" by humans saving seeds from the trees that produced the most desirable fruit. To try and say that pot growers are doing anything different is silly. To try and imply that pot growers have labs where mad scientists are doing marijuana gene splicing is retarded.

"I notice lots of pot activists love to wheel out the same pieces of aging data to make their case."

Here are the links I posted above, again, with dates now:

Published Nov 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103

Published Jan 2006:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/01/24/15577.aspx

Published Jun 2009:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19440079

Published Sep 2009:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

Published Oct 2009:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

"When I was a kid there was about 2-to-4% THC and an equal amount of CBD or cannabidiol in pot. Today's BC Bud exceeds 20% THC and almost zero of the all-important balancing chemical of CBD."

People who were there are telling you: you could get good weed back then. I'm here now and I'm telling you: you can get crappy weed today. I know people who prefer shake or whatever they might call it in your area, they smoke them like cigarettes. You can choose not to believe eye witness testimony, and rely instead on the non-representative sample of marijuana that gets confiscated and destroyed by the police - but that's your problem, don't try to call it some kind of deficiency on the part of anyone else.

(And I feel safe betting that police are more likely to do the paperwork on big busts of high potency pot than to bother when they confiscate a joint off someone on the street, and more likely to send samples of indoor grow op weed to the lab for testing than the outdoor plots that they just pile in a bonfire - leading to skewed statistics)

I am interested in the theory that CBD is getting lower though - if you could post some links to back that up I would be interested to do some further reading.

You seem so close to being on side - join us! resistance is futile!

;-)

arts courses and cars

Y, I heard that people who have taken arts and creative writing courses are six times more likely to have psychotic episodes at some point in their lives.

Most people take photography courses and really enjoy them, but you really never know, could make you go insane. So don't.

Not to mention photography these days is nothing like it was in the 70s. Sooo many more megapixels now. Not the same thing at all.

O, y, almost forgot. Most people can go for a drive and be just fine. But some people end up as a stain on the road or if lucky, crippled for life.
Cars kill ~50 thousand and injure over million and a half yearly in North America. Those under 30 are disproportionately affected and should not try driving.

More potent pot today is healthier for you

No one has brought this up, but I am thankful, as a recreational user, that marijuana has been made more potent. It means I don't have to inhale nearly as much smoke as I did when I started in the mid 70's. One to three tokes is enough instead of becoming a human smoke stack just to get a minor high. It lasts longer, both literally and buzz wise. But most important is that my lungs don't have to deal with much smoke.

Some of you equate the changing strength with beer vs hard booze, but you seem to assume that one would drink the same number of ounces! Ridiculous. In fact one might even argue that drinking two beers instead of one highball, may be worse for your health as well if your bloated beer gut is any indication.

I realize that the whole psychosis / pot argument is another topic, but its maddening to hear this "stronger is dangerous" myth over and over.

Not my parent's reefer madness, but still propaganda

I watched that Nature of Things program last night. It may not have been my "parent's Reefer Madness", but it was still reefer madness, just toned down a bit. The thing that disappointed me the most was that it left the impression that there is cause and effect between cannabis use and schizophrenia, when that has not been established. In fact, the 'documentary' ended on that note. If heavy, long-term use of cannabis leads to psychosis and schizophrenia there should be a cannabis caused pandemic of mental illness breaking out all over the world by now. And I, and many people I know, should be out of our minds (some would argue I am, but it's debatable).

This was still a propaganda piece, using for example, the bogus claim about the increased potency of cannabis as a scare tactic. Thai Stick, a sativa variety I used to smoke in the 70s was as strong as anything you can find today, but because it was you could use less for the same effect. And I'm currently using medicinally a pure sativa strain that has never been cross-bred or modified since the early 70s, but only cloned since then generation after generation for over 30 years. It has no fancy name made up by breeders, but is an extremely effective pain killer nonetheless. A few years ago the police tested it at 23% THC (they had confiscated some in a bust). In other words, that strong variety was available in the 70s, as were many other strong varieties.

Suzuki once did an excellent report on the B.C. Compassion Club and medical cannabis. There is so much fantastic research from around the world showing the efficacy and safety of cannabis as medicine that it is a shame that Suzuki chose instead to promote this modern reefer madness.

Whose facts ?

I would certainly want to know if marijuana caused health problems. I would not be happy to see someone I know and love be harmed by the use of marijuana.

Marijuana is no stronger today than it ever was.

Marijuana is a market like any product. The customers will decide what they want. The producers will provide that product.

From 3 percent THC to today's 23 up to 25 percent? Say What?

25 percent of what? Liquid fraction. Aqueous fraction. Organic fraction. Combined. Wet weight????

This potency element is completely nonsense unless the measurement parameters are stated. As stated, a joint with 25 percent THC would be a powdery gooey mess.

Besides, greenmonkey is correct. The greater the potency, the less relative intake of deleterious smoke products.

As for paranoia. Just have a look around folks. If you are not paranoid, you should be. Actually, I am less paranoid now, thanks to the province having gotten rid of photo radar.

Fair comparisons

I think David Suzuki may need to put his tin foil hat BACK ON. I do not doubt some connection between smoking strong pot and psychosis, however this refers to a small percentage of a small demographic of affected youth. Marijuana has medical benefits beyond most peoples imaginations in another much larger demographic that has a skyrocketing incidence of cancers and chronic illness (our elderly).

Those in doubt of the medical benefits of properly concentrated and orally ingested marijuana (oil) need to see the Rick Simpson Story.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7331006790306000271

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw

Thanks, Tyee.

Thanks for this thread, Tyee. It was good to find that the anti-pot argument has weakened so significantly, while the pro arguments have strengthened greatly. I often wonder how strong the anti's arguments would be if even 1/10 of the money spent looking for ill-effects was spent looking for the positive effects.

Surely all the many pot smokers aren't just recruits of the Devil, as the Devil-Dodgers would have us believe? I am amazed to find that so many familiar names on Tyee have come out on-side with Pot use, a sure indication that the anti's tactic of heaping scorn upon advocates has worn very thin.

One thing is for sure - IMO - is that the anti's main reason, the one that underlies all of their paranoia, is not that pot will do any of the various kinds of "brain damage" they posit, but rather that THC promotes "thinking outside the box" allowing a person to entertain ideas that they would normally think beyond questioning or entertaining.

It has been said that Silicon Valley, the area of California that gave birth to the incredible computer revolution still growing today, was then and remains a product of thinking enhanced by pot.

But that, of course, is precisely what the religionists and the conservatives fear most - that people will start to question the controlling dogma they've worked so hard to instill in us all.

`

bits and pieces

bits and pieces
It feeds the lie to call marijuana a drug.
Its prohibition is criminally insane. I agree it's an excellent diversion so society doesn’t look at what the self perceived “big boys” are, or are not, doing. And God forbid we laugh while kicking one out of office.

Fact is, marijuana is often dusted with some nasty, mind-bending chemical for extra weight, a ploy many food processors use.
Aside from the fact that many people are no longer stable, often through no fault of their own; aside from the fact many teenagers are in hormonal and social turmoil, who is to say what was smoked? It’s not regulated and what would that help anyhow? Look at tobacco, now saturated with toxins, or alcohol, which has become a petroleum product.
MSG is more destructive than marijuana.
http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/msgstudy.html

“The emperor wears no clothes” by Jack Herer came out in 1985, you’d never know it.
http://www.jackherer.com/chapter02.html
Suzuki sold out years ago; it’s only his pockets that are deep.
Some people state marijuana is God’s plant.
I for one believe it.

And furthermore!

My husband and I still can't believe that the definition of "psychotic episode" has now been upgraded to include any time you ever sat on the crapper and thought that the pattern on the linoleum looked a bit like a crazed leprechaun (!).

I went to my doctor a couple of months ago hoping to get a different painkiller for migraines (the frequency and severity of my migraines had significantly increased following exposure to toxins on a government contract but that's a different story). Anyway my stomach will tolerate a couple of baby tylenol at this point and not much else, so I was really hoping she would suggest medicinal pot.

After suggesting codeine and darvon, she finally recommended some wonderful new pill with no side effects. So when I get home and read the pharmacist's printout and do some of my own research, I discover that there is a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of metachlorpromine because it can cause NON-REVERSIBLE symptoms of Parkinson's Disease (!).

When is David Suzuki going to expose some REAL problems such as this recent study on GM corn - which is already on the market and being consumed by you, the unsuspecting consumer (75% of corn is now GM and corn-derived high fructose syrup is now found in EVERYTHING)?

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/

And I guarantee you that a only a tiny fraction of the research money dedicated to finding something, anything, wrong with marijuana use is allocated to research on long-term effects of ingesting GMOs

Comments have more truth than the article

Seems like the Tyee might find a good writer that could tell the other side of the story.

In the meantime, thanks to the commentators for correcting the biased positions presented in the article.

Not surprisingly, a swing and a miss

If someone were to produce a documentary on how poor science, good intentions and flaccid journalism could be combined, perhaps they'd call it "The Downside of the Downside of High."

Or, perhaps we could skip directly to the subtext and call it, "A smarter way to sell stupid."

In this case, the stupid contention is that the public, particularly youth, is more likely to buy a "big lie" strategy that involves health than one that involves criminalization, and that in the long run, that will be better for them.

Problematically, the studies cited in this documentary do not prove any such link. In fact, they use the "Mother's Milk" causation argument, long held by rational researchers: if there were direct links between all prior behaviour and all current behaviour and/or health, then alcoholics would be able to blame mother's milk or pablum for their condition -- as they all consumed it at some point before becoming alcoholics.

Similarly, there's nothing in this documentary that in any way shows a causative link between marijuana use and schizophrenia, just a link, period.

It doesn't seem to occur to any of the geniuses in this piece that perhaps these people were already predisposed to mental illness, and the pot is just an attempt to self-medicate.

That's not science, that's just common sense.

If the documentary were solely based on that specious scientific link, it could be written off as merely foolish. Instead, it gives the RCMP time to propagandize.

The RCMP has claimed for years, that THC is commonly far stronger now than years ago due to breeding. But it's not 25% THC, and as a journalist, I've asked the RCMP to produce evidence supporting that oft-stated contention.

It can't. And it couldn't produce it for a senate panel, either. In fact, all of the evidence in that senate report (indicates typical THC ranges of 8%-13% now -- higher than in the past, but not in any way high enough to be causing substantially different reactions in its consumers.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the dangers of marijuana consumption. Having said that, when are we going to realize in North America that taking such polarizing positions merely delays reaching a shared understanding of how best to move forward, respecting the wishes and health of the majority, but the rights of the individual and common-sense public policy?

THC Potency - What about hashish ?

The thing that bothers me is how we have to forget history as I recall that in the 70s and 80s until BC Bud came to be, most Canadians at least from Calgary to the east coast smoke hashish or hash/pot oil which are all much higher THC products that BC Bud could ever be.

Also back in the 70s and 80s, pot was $20 per oz when it was around and you rolled a lot funnel joints (3 or 4 papers giant joints). Hashish was $10 per gram, oil was $20 per gram. Today BC Bud is $200 to $300 per oz.

So in my opinion, Canadians are now smoking a lower THC product that in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

And I don't believe it for a minute that the pot grown in Canada is now "We know today what is coming out of our labs is THC of anywhere between 18 to 23 to 25 per cent. And that is significant." as the RCMP claim (another myth ?).

Let's see the test results. Perhaps they got a few samples at 18 to 23 and 25% but I bet the average pot in BC is single digit THC.

But the real question should be why we continue to let pot be sold in ALL our large high schools by fellow students to fellow students as its been for decades instead of adult only stores where it should be ?

Is their any reason at all (except for all the myths) ?

Making drugs illegal gives up all control.

HIGH THC and Health Canada DAS

The RCMP claim "We know today what is coming out of our labs is THC of anywhere between 18 to 23 to 25 per cent. And that is significant." and the article claims "Health Canada regularly tests the strength of marijuana confiscated from illegal grow ops and reports back to the RCMP."

Actually the article is referring to Health Canada DAS (Drug Analysis Services) that test all seized marijuana in Canada for the courts.

As in my previous post, I suggested that the HIGH THC hype is perhaps not true and maybe they got a few samples at 18 to 23 and 25% but I bet the average pot in BC is single digit THC or pretty close.

I did talk to the Director of DAS in the fall of 2007 after the then Health Minister Tony Clement claimed the HIGH THC hype and he told me that he couldn't understand how the Health Minister could be saying that. He offered it up to me after agreeing that what the previous Director of DAS had told me in spring 2006 that the Marijuana is LACED with Meth/Chemicals hype that the RCMP promote is a MYTH TOO and not true since DAS had never found any evidence of any "product" (DAS jargon for intentionally laced).

In fact according to Health Canada DAS evidence, from 2003 to 2007, 14 samples of pot of 194,454 tested samples (0.0072 per cent) contained both pot and meth, cross-contaminated they said. Another DAS employee told me they have no control on how the RCMP interpret their reports. I had called the Director because of my concern that the Health Minister had also used the Marijuana LACED with Meth/Chemical MYTH.

ANYONE who knows anything at all about the black market knows LACING marijuana is preposterous.

So that is why I question the THC levels. I suggest "WE KNOW" nothing.

PS I should of got the THC level from DAS for the 194,454 samples because now they won't give me the info since I guess the true facts on LACING of meth undermines the RCMP MYTH. As a matter of fact, the NEW Director of DAS only two months ago told me its the RCMP who test for THC, not them although the RCMP just confirmed again that its DAS who do the testing (the truth is DAS tests, perhaps the RCMP have applied pressure to DAS to support their MYTHS so us Canadians cannot get the true test results from OUR Health Canada DAS who we pay for i.e. we have entered the land of HOCUS POCUS, not science and facts).

It's funny how we look at

It's funny how we look at drugs(i.e. badly). We make these huge arguments whether drugs(especially marijuana) are beneficial or detrimental, which is fine, we need to be educated on these things. The problem is that we keep these substances illegal because there could potentially be health risks! Oh dear lord no!!!!!!!!!

Think about it, I could go home tonight eat a Big Mac Meal, drink a six pack of Pilsner and have 20 cigarettes, yet it's a crime to smoke marijuana, take a hit of ecstasy or do steroids because they may be harmful if used improperly or excessively? Ridiculous(by the way I don't use drugs, weed makes me paranoid). These substances are more harmful illegal than legal, teenagers can obtain them easier because of the illegality of them and who knows how pure drugs are when you are buying off some crack dealer?

I'm sorry for bringing legalization into this topic but whenever I see articles talking about the health risks of marijuana, I can't help but laugh a little.

remember?

The case for BC Bud being "more dangerous" than the old weed is a bit amnesiac. For one, most of us were smoking Asian or North African hashish back then anyway, even Trudeau - extremely potent stuff, a clean stone, kinda like what you get now with a bit of good local bud. The problem occurs if you go at it too fast and go past your comfort threshold before the full effects kick in. Hmmm, sounds like the very real dangers of single malt scotch.....

A gentler message of MODERATION would solve this overdosing problem. Instead, we have intolerant swarms of psychopathic police repressing the fundamental freedom of choice, hinterlands and suburbs crawling with swat teams, courtrooms plugged with bored Crown attorneys arguing foolish things, and a paranoid prison/security industry that's gone completely metastatic.

My sense is that "Reefer Madness" is still alive and well, in that part of our society that's never been healed with cannabis.

Fair comparisons2

Yes! One of my major points when I debate this topic has been fair comparisons between how and who is putting our "youth at risk".

For example, how is it that we have the "novel" Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine which is outrageously inadequetly tested (see Judicial Watch), likely contaminated, containing toxic adjuvants and excipients, and unnecessary as 90% of HPV infections are cleared naturally by our immune systems, available WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT for FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS and up at our public health clinics all over BC and in our school system for grade 6 and grade 9 girls. This vaccine has caused over 40 documented deaths and 10,000 plus severe adverse reactions (seizures, paralysis, GBS, ALS) in the USA. And these are only the adverse events that have been recognized and reported to the VAER system.

And the powers that be want to propagandize the health affects marijuana may or may not have on our youth! ARRRRRRRGGGGHHH!

Re more potent pot is healthier

I agree with greenmonkey re the benfit of more potent pot; much less is needed at a time for the same effect.(Also need less for cooking and eating it.)
I've only skimmed previous comments, so this point may have been made previously, that instead of prohibition and then permission, which leaves young people with little or no expereince on how to drink and intake cannabis properly (the most enjoyment for the least pain to oneself and others), we need to emphasis responsible use (which in some cases means not using a drug), and to project an image, using celebrities of all kinds, that the 'cool' man or woman is one who knows when to stop drinking before they get drunk, and stops. And doesn't drive home, of course.

Backing Barney & Article

Several people have made the analogy between beer and hard liquor vs. old and new weed, thereby suggesting the harmlessness of the new weed. I'll accept the analogy, but I don't think the right conclusion has been drawn.

Any reasonably serious drinker will tell you that Jack Daniels gets you into a lot more trouble - short and long-term - than Coors Light. That's why one of the first steps that many problem drinkers take in addressing their problem is to cut out the hard stuff.

About today's weed. I can't make any global statements, only my own experience to go by, but NOTHING that was easily or regularly available around here in the '70s packed nearly the same punch as the ANY of the weed around today.

Two guys could, for instance, smoke an eighth of an ounce of Hawaiian weed between them at, say, a Billy Idol concert, and handle the trip fairly easily. These days, on the other hand, four people could share two beans at, say, a Christmas party, and one or two of them might start hallucinating, puke, and have to go home - missing out (hypothetically) on having a chat with some of the really nice-looking women there.

So go ahead and tell me again that it's no different. I don't believe you.

On a more general level, anyone (Pfizer, for example) who suggests that ANY drug has no negative effects, EVER, from effexor to caffeine, is deluded or conning and shouldn't be listened to.

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but any drug has a variety of effects depending on who takes it, how much they take, what they take it with, under what circumstances they take it, how often then take it, for what period of time, etc. etc. etc.

It therefore seems a pretty reasonable proposition - a la Barney - that weed be legalized, regulated, and taxed. Open, legal sales would likely result in a wider variety of options being available (from beer, to wine, to hard stuff, if you like), more transparency in what it contained and how it had been processed, and more opportunity to do medical research. All of which would provide people with more choice and information.

What's the problem with that?

By all means legalise it......but.....

If Pot was made legal and sold in stores, Can you just imagine the advertising that would ensue?

"For the best religious high, try CATHEDRAL HIGH brand"

The mind boggles when entertaining the guaranteed reaction THAT would bring !!!

Not GMO

Barney you might be getting a little psychotic yourself there, either that or you don't know what GMO means.

There's no evidence weed has been genetically modified. It has been intensely selectively bred to bring out the trait of THC production to an insanely high level. But this is no different than all our food crops. Our grain crops never used to yield so much, but thousands of years of selective breeding and hybridization makes our wheat, oats, and corn plants unbelievably more productive than their wild predecessors (no one even knows for sure what the wild corn plant is, and corn can not reproduce itself in the wild).

Genetically modified foods carry laboratory inserted genes that wouldn't normally occur in the plants. For example, some tomatoes carry fish genes that help make them more frost resistant. Some plants now produce pesticides that weren't naturally occurring before, others are modified to produce vitamins that don't normally occur in that plant.

I don't deny you irony of health food nuts that pretend smoking is healthy, but before you blather on about the double standards of pot smoking non-GMO food eaters, educate yourself about what that means please.