cannabisnews.com: 'Pot 2.0': Where Can I Get Some?





'Pot 2.0': Where Can I Get Some?
Posted by CN Staff on October 20, 2007 at 06:48:17 PT
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Source: AlterNet
Washington, DC -- Heard the latest from the Feds regarding their multi-billion dollar war on weed? According to warnings posted on the DEA's new website JustThinkTwice.com, today's cannabis is nearly twice as strong as the pot available in the 1970s and 80s. Sounds like its time for the Drug Enforcement Administration to don some new duds. How about t-shirts saying: "I've arrested millions, and all I got was stronger pot?"
Naturally, law enforcement and federal bureaucrats have little sense of humor when it comes to these matters. "We're no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s," Drug Czar John Walters told Reuters News Wire. (The Czar failed to explain why if previous decades' pot was innocuous police still arrested you for it.) "This is Pot 2.0."Speaking recently to the Associated Press, DEA chief Mark R. Trouville, who heads the agency's Miami office, took an even more dire tone. "This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana," he said. "This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."For our friends at the DEA, here's a news flash. Unlike booze, sleeping pills, or even aspirin, pot poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of its THC content. (In fact, my physician can prescribe me a pill called Marinol that's 100 percent THC and nobody at the Drug Czar's office seems to mind.) Moreover, cannabis consumers readily distinguish between low potency and high potency marijuana and moderate their use accordingly -- taking smaller and fewer puffs of the "good stuff" than they do the "shwag."Besides, isn't variety the spice of life? Last time I visited my local, state-sanctioned liquor store I had my choice of a head-spinning variety of alcoholic beverages, all of various strengths and sizes. I passed on the Bacardi 151, picked up a pint of vodka (80 proof) and then went next door to the supermarket to buy a six-pack of beer (7 percent alcohol by volume). Other customers made similar purchases. Nobody from the White House seemed terribly concerned.But what the suggestion that today's pot is so addictive that just one puff is a one-way ticket to drug rehab? In this case, the devil is in the details.According to the latest data from federal Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS), more individuals are, in fact, enrolled in drug treatment for pot than ever before. However, this increase is a direct result of the fact that more Americans are being arrested for pot than ever before. (For example, a new study published in the online journal BMC Public Health reports among the 27,000+ adults entered into Texas drug treatment clinics between 2000 and 2005, a whopping 70 percent of them were diverted to treatment as a condition of sentencing, parole, or probation.) Faced with the choice of jail or attending drug treatment, most offenders -- not surprisingly -- choose treatment, whether they need it (most don't) or not.So let's review, shall we? Our federal government wants Americans to get off the pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then go out and inadvertently give America's pot farmers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that their weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent pot they've been hearing about on TV.Perhaps it's time for the DEA to heed their own advice and "just think twice."Note: The feds have started issuing dire warnings about the potency of today's marijuana, calling it "Pot 2.0." Will it backfire and tempt more to toke? Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. He may be contacted via e-mail at: paul norml.orgSource: AlterNet (US)Author: Paul Armentano, AlterNetPublished: October 20, 2007Copyright: 2007 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/DL: http://alternet.org/drugreporter/65594/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Research Leaves No Cloud In Medical Pot Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23420.shtml10 Million Americans Busted for Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23372.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #12 posted by whig on October 21, 2007 at 10:12:45 PT
FoM
Too many people profit by war, and too many love their profits.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by NikoKun on October 21, 2007 at 09:00:42 PT
To aolbites
Hey... lol Got your Digg post to front page ^_~ yay for having 100 friends.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 21, 2007 at 08:40:19 PT
John Tyler
That makes sense to me. I sure wish they didn't hate the hippie culture so darn much. Caring people are good people to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 21, 2007 at 08:38:19 PT
Mike
That's great. Thank you. Maybe he will do it. I can hope.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by John Tyler on October 21, 2007 at 08:36:14 PT
why
I think most of the public doesnít really know why cannabis was banned in the first place. All they hear is propaganda from the various governmental organs now saying that itís bad, without any facts to prove their point. (Basically, because there are none. Their primary argument is lazy, crazy and stupid. Which has been disproved over and over again.) If the general public could / would read some of the remarks these founding prohibitionists were spouting they would be absolutely shocked by their vicious racism. To be fair, these guys were just stirring up the racism that was already present in society in order to mask the other narrow economic reasons, which were to protect the timber, chemical, and petroleum interest from competition from the hemp industry. It was a double win. Certain industries would be protected, and minorities could be legally oppressed. The ploy worked and has been working until thoughtful people began examining the facts of the matter and the fact that the country actually now needs the benefits that a legal hemp industry can bring. This creates a problem for the government and the prohibitionists, etc. Now they have to backtrack on their 70 years of lies and persecution. This wonít be easy for them to do. What government likes to admit they were wrong, not only just wrong, but seriously wrong? On top of that, they were proven wrong by a group of people they hated, the hipsters. Thatís even more humiliating. The arrogant brought down by the humble. Thatís got to sting. They will have to find some graceful, face saving way to do this. Maybe the next president can assemble a bipartisan committee to study the matter and arrive at new findings and quickly make the necessary legal changes. 
Been drinking too much coffee this morning. Have a nice day.
  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Mike on October 20, 2007 at 16:29:42 PT
FoM
I e-mailed him. Thanks! I told him the one downside would be that Digg users often crash websites with all the extra traffic, but that would be a problem like having too much gold to carry. Our best weapon is the truth, and spreading it most effectively beyond our group. And while we all may not see eye to eye on every issue, I think we're all united on the most important fronts, and respectful when we aren't. Increasing awareness beyond this scope is our key. We need to get the message out into the mainstream. Its the only chance we've got. Otherwise there is no competing with the DEA's budget, and the masses do tend to bite and swallow whatever bait "advertises" the most.Rest assured, people of the future will look at todays drug policies the same way we look at slavery/racist laws in our past, nevermind Anslinger. The only thing is that I would like that future to happen sooner rather than after we're all long gone, WWIII notwithstanding.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by NikoKun on October 20, 2007 at 12:37:23 PT
To aolbites
Thanks for the link! ^_^
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by aolbites on October 20, 2007 at 12:00:02 PT
NikoKun that link you were looking for..
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/American_Medical_Association_Opposes_the_Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937-=snip=-Cannabis and its preparations and derivatives are covered in the bill by the term "marihuana" as that term is defined in section 1, paragraph (b). There is no evidence, however, that the medicinal use of these drugs has caused or is causing cannabis addiction. As remedial agents, they are used to an inconsiderable extent, and the obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on their use as to prevent such use altogether. Since the medicinal use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of the use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to foresee.-=snip=-
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 20, 2007 at 11:29:52 PT
Mike
I think that would be great but Matt Elrod would have to do it but if you e-mail him maybe he will. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Mike on October 20, 2007 at 10:09:13 PT
FoM
We need a Digg button at the bottom of these posts to send them more into the mainstream. The masses are only beginning to realize the truth. The articles you post are powerful indeed, but make little difference when they're limited to here and just preaching to the choir (for which the choir does appreciate, nevertheless.)For example, this appeared on the front page today:
http://digg.com/politics/Marijuana_is_illegal_because_of_its_effect_on_the_DEGENERATE_RACESIts enjoyable watching the masses begin to get educated.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by NikoKun on October 20, 2007 at 09:15:50 PT
let me just add...
Also, another thing I just thought of...These DEA arsemongers are trying to make it look, like the high potency stuff is available from your average dealer or inner city supply... It's not...
In fact, in most cases, more often than not, the only pot you can get is lower grade stuff, because dealers aren't walking around with a huge selection on them... and suppliers are just growing whatever they can, and not spending huge amounts on seeds from Amsterdam or BC. lolI'm guessing that the DEA merely took some old ditch weed hemp, and compared it to the high level stuff available in Amsterdam. lol That must be their justification for the huge increase... Never mind that ditch weed hemp is un-smokable garbage and is almost never considered pot. That isn't the stuff people were smoking in the 70s... lolThis prohibition is trying soo damn hard to justify their criminalization of pot... XD it's almost funny... that is if it didn't effect me and piss me off so much...
There is no reason for criminalization... Just freaking legalize it already! Focus on some other actually dangerous drug, you moronic DEA assholes...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by NikoKun on October 20, 2007 at 09:06:25 PT
oh jeeze...
Nothing but bullshit scare tactics and more reefer madness...I can't believe their back to the "This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you." bullshit... -_-
Thats about as believable as talking poo...Fuck, and for that matter my and my parents are proof the statements are nothing but BS scare shit... -_- I mean we know how it was in the 70s and 80s, my parents were there, And they've said on more than one occasion in response to this BS, that the pot is exactly the same.There have always been stronger strains and weaker strains... And although small 2% increases have occurred here and there, it never goes far beyond a 20% concentration level.And Besides that, stronger pot is no more dangerous than any other pot... It is not more addictive or harmful, and in fact is likely even SAFER for you! When you have stronger pot, it takes less to get to your comfortable 'high' level... Which means smoking less. And of course less smoke means less harm to your lungs.Stronger pot is NOT equal to higher 'highs', and more addictiveness, because people don't want to get too high, as that would only result in uncomfortable paranoia levels.But besides that, even if what they say was true, it's still isn't any reason, to continue criminalizing pot! AT MOST, it would be a reason to legalize, and put THC level restrictions on the product. Similarly to how we restrict Alcohol's levels.So what's the problem here? Besides more baseless false scare tactic bullshit? God I hate the lying, thats why I want prohibition to end... I want to see these bullshit lies corrected, after the 70 years of injustices, lies, and failures... Without anything backing them up in reality.Common sense really has no place in politics, let alone the Drug War... -_-
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment