A serious blow to Canadian audiophiles, must read

Having grown up in Nebraska I can tell you where the "bad pot" of the 70's came from. August was the month for arrests of out of state entrepreneurs that came to harvest hemp in my former state. You could smoke a truck load of the stuff and only get a headache. It was leftover from the early railroad days when hemp rope was in high demand and was found in abundance along railroad right of ways. Those plants grew well over twenty feet under the right conditions. I suppose the entrepreneurs cut it into other, higher quality grass. Hell, I don't know what they did with the stuff but it went to some market somewhere.

I haven't bought the stuff in years but still partake on occassion when offered. Having grown up on Panama Red, Columbian Gold, Thai Stick and Mexican Bud, I will state in no uncertain terms that the California, Canadian and Hawaiian stinky stuff is fine but not better than the other offerings I've had since 1964. The "much more potent" comment is an urban legend that would never stand up under close inspection. The same can be said of most of the studies cited here. Liars figure and therefore figures can be made to lie.

Before you write me off as being biased in favor of people being stoned please consider the basis of my opinion. Experience has shown me that the biggest threat to non-users is not being able to find any potato chips in the convience store on a Friday or Saturday night since all the pot heads snarfed them up early. I've never known anyone that was ripped committing and act of violence or causing any kind of harm to others. And, for this threat to the public we are given an enormous machine that costs beyond what anyone can actually estimate? Again, think: Jails, prisons, courtrooms, judges, police, gaurds, probation officers, parole officers, lawyers, lawyers and more f***ing lawyers.

Even William F. Buckley considers legalization the only rational remedy. I'm at a point in my life where I don't care if I ever see another bud again and have been there for more than a decade. I do oppose the burden being borne by taxpayers to support an industry that serves no real purpose.

Humans and most other animal species seek substances that provide a temporary escape from reality. Elephants seek out fermented fruit. Horses and donkeys seek out loco weed. Cats crave catnip. Even bees get drunk. Staggering drunk. Confused drunk. Mankind has been fermenting alcohol and consuming halucinogens since long before the pyramids. Even the oldest discovered societies in France and South America left evidence of use. The need for a temporary escape from reality is part of the human condition and to fight it is folly. How much more evidence is needed? The war on drugs is one that will never be won.

Addiction is the emotional hot button that continues to drive the parasitic industry that costs more than we can compute. Treatment for addicts would cost society a fraction of what we now spend and yield real results. It is the addictive personality that concerns us and yet we pay dearly to incarcerate rather than treat. It doesn't make any sense to me, but then again I may have damaged my brain copping a buzz now and again.

Roughly 50% of middle age males in North America have used pot at one time or another. If it were not for lawyers entering politics, writing legislation that only provides work for their growing legions, we would not be where we are today. Give me no LIP (lawyers in politics).

I was thinking comparatively about Tobacco. I suppose the curing, selecting, and blending process tobacco undergoes would make it more difficult to the homegrower. Unlike Marijuana which is easily grown and prepared for consumption. A lot of states in the US have basically "decriminalized" possession. For instance, possession of less than 28 grams will be a misdemeanor. So long as you can prove it was not for distribution. Meaning the Pot would be contained in one container along with possession of apparatus for smoking, like a pipe or papers. I really ride the fence on this issue so its hard for me to formulate an opinion. Anywho, its food for thought nonetheless.

Pragmatist, "gross oversimplification" indeed, and fairly inaccurate as well. But I digress, hoi palloi politics are mostly ideology and cannot be proved either way. The "energy bill" you speak of, was in writing in its last form, and it looked right smart to me. With all he "corporate welfare" as you might call it, as rewards for renewable power, clean air, technology, long term updates, exploration, etc. etc.

As evidenced by the latest power difficulties, the last thing we need to do as a nation, is cripple our power industry. We are a capitalist country and if it isnt already obvious, the companies will do nothing if we dont dangle a carrot of profits in their nose. Companies are not so indifferent from people. It would be obsurd to expect someone to do something, anything, for absolutely nothing. More food for thought.

Distortion,

We obviously disagree on the energy bill;it will interest me to see what finally comes out of conference.

I stand by my statement about welfare. Obviously corporations have the rights to profitabilities but subsidies,by whatever namesdistort prices so that capital deployments are less efficient and real prices rise as their results.

Thsalmon: Below are some excerpts from the first six of your "references" that purport to prove your point and they are hardly convincing. Each study is either irrelevant or inconclusive. Also, It seems that many of these studies don't discriminate between use and abuse of a recreational drug. My own comments are between curly brackets {}.

1) Further epidemiological studies are necessary to confirm the association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and to examine marijuana smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer. {Inconclusive}
2) ...more studies are needed that focus on disentangling effects of marijuana from those of other drugs and adverse environmental conditions. {Inconclusive}
3) This has implications for marijuana as cancer risk factor. {Inconclusive: this is the strongest "conclusion" regarding health risk in this whole article.}
4) METHODS: Bronchoscopy was performed in 104 healthy volunteer subjects, including 28 nonsmokers and 76 smokers of one or more of the following substances: marijuana, tobacco, and/or cocaine. {Inconclusive since it's not specific}
5) In two different weakly immunogenic murine lung cancer models, intermittent administration of THC (5 mg/kg, four times/wk i.p. for 4 wk) led to accelerated growth of tumor implants compared with treatment with diluent alone. {Above quantity is ridiculous. 0.1mg/kg is required to get high. If you inject enough of just about anything into healthy cells, they will develop carcinoma.}
6) ...it remains to be confirmed that smoking cannabis alone leads to the development of chronic lung disease. {Inconclusive}

You're going to have to do better than cut and paste the impressive looking (to some, I suppose) results from a google search to convince anybody that there are studies proving the harm from cannabis use. I didn't assert anything, therefore I need not present references in support. I only called on you to provide references for your false assertion.

And, in reply to your bogus claim regarding cannabis as a "gateway" drug: I'm sure that one could prove caffeine is a gateway drug. No doubt over 99% of heroin users started with either Coca-cola, Dr. Pepper, or coffee. Therefore caffeine is an insiduous precursor to heroin addiction. What a ridiculous argument. Let me know if you can provide any references whatsoever that actually support your assertions, Thsalmon.