So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[East Coast Hustle]

yes, but some of your sources are far less than truthful.

Mind you, I'm not slagging on the work you do, I think it's valuable and necessary, but I also think it would be MORE valuable if it were based on actual science instead of mixing in boogeyman scare tactics perpetuated by agencies with an agenda and passed on to you as hard science.

[AFK]

You are making assumptions that something I am sharing with you here, on an internet message board, is the same thing I am sharing in my professional settings.  No, a comment from a conversation with a DEA agent is NOT something I am presenting to kids and families.  In those settings I am providing information from credible, peer-reviewed resources.  

[East Coast Hustle]

I am making that assumption, but only because I hadn't seen you clarify that until now.

In that case, I'm glad you recognize the difference.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal

Well the only way for someone to get appropriate help is to be properly assessed.  You don't want to treat an ASAM 1.0 the same way you treat an ASAM 3.0.  They require very different levels of care.  

because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

First, I work for a non-profit.  Not an industry.  
Second, as I mentioned before, law enforcement policies should continue to be examined and are as we speak:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/congress-orders-review-of.html

But we can do these things without legalizing the drug.  Because I can assure you that this drug has done considerable harm to individuals and their families.  It's a fight worth fighting, but also, a fight that needs to be fought sensibly.  

It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

Ah, but this gets us back to the whole issue of minors and brain development.  Sure, a seasoned veteran like yourself may understand this, but do you think the majority of teenagers understand this and will exercise that restraint?  Teenagers and restraint are two words not commonly found in the same sentence.  

... are you actually serious?

I don't smoke with kids, but I do talk to kids that smoke. When they get nugget, they hoard it like fucking dragon gold. Nugget tastes better, its less harsh, its a better buzz, it doesn't have seeds so you get more weed for your weight. Now, maybe you have some dumbass kids in Maine, but around here... kids don't seem to be sucking down blunts of Nugget.

30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Are fertilizers not chemicals?  

Yep, so is hydrogen and oxygen and hydro does use water, so I guess you're right.

If you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

Let me ask you a question.  How many chemicals do you think are present in inhaled marijuana smoke?  No, not compared to tobacco, just a number relative to marijuana itself.  

It depends on the strain. There are over 61 different canabanoids that have been documented which show up in different levels depending on the strain. These are activated at different levels of heat, so often many of them are burned off without ever being sucked into the lungs. Unless you're using a variable heat vaporizer. There are about 300 or 400 compounds in the plant itself. If you use a vaporizer like I do, then what you inhale is 90%+ THC and CBD, if you smoke the stuff via joint or bowl, its about 11% with other crap in the smoke.

It seems to me that if the truth isn't enough to stop kids, making shit up to scare them is only a short term fix.

I don't make shit up.  Anything I present to kids or anyone else for that matter in my professional work is researched.  

I should have said "made up shit" It seems to me that you honestly believe a lot of what professional researchers tell you... but a number of claims you've repeated here sound like... ummm, misinformation.

You are making assumptions that something I am sharing with you here, on an internet message board, is the same thing I am sharing in my professional settings.  No, a comment from a conversation with a DEA agent is NOT something I am presenting to kids and families.  In those settings I am providing information from credible, peer-reviewed resources. 

Good to know! I only wish the general drug policy of the country was similar.

[AFK]

we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal

Well the only way for someone to get appropriate help is to be properly assessed.  You don't want to treat an ASAM 1.0 the same way you treat an ASAM 3.0.  They require very different levels of care.  

because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

First, I work for a non-profit.  Not an industry.  
Second, as I mentioned before, law enforcement policies should continue to be examined and are as we speak:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/congress-orders-review-of.html

But we can do these things without legalizing the drug.  Because I can assure you that this drug has done considerable harm to individuals and their families.  It's a fight worth fighting, but also, a fight that needs to be fought sensibly.  

It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

Ah, but this gets us back to the whole issue of minors and brain development.  Sure, a seasoned veteran like yourself may understand this, but do you think the majority of teenagers understand this and will exercise that restraint?  Teenagers and restraint are two words not commonly found in the same sentence.  

... are you actually serious?

I don't smoke with kids, but I do talk to kids that smoke. When they get nugget, they hoard it like fucking dragon gold. Nugget tastes better, its less harsh, its a better buzz, it doesn't have seeds so you get more weed for your weight. Now, maybe you have some dumbass kids in Maine, but around here... kids don't seem to be sucking down blunts of Nugget.

How many kids are you talking about, compared to the entire population of your area?  Do you think that qualifies as a representative sample? 

30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Are fertilizers not chemicals?  

Yep, so is hydrogen and oxygen and hydro does use water, so I guess you're right.

If you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

Let me ask you a question.  How many chemicals do you think are present in inhaled marijuana smoke?  No, not compared to tobacco, just a number relative to marijuana itself.  

It depends on the strain. There are over 61 different canabanoids that have been documented which show up in different levels depending on the strain. These are activated at different levels of heat, so often many of them are burned off without ever being sucked into the lungs. Unless you're using a variable heat vaporizer. There are about 300 or 400 compounds in the plant itself. If you use a vaporizer like I do, then what you inhale is 90%+ THC and CBD, if you smoke the stuff via joint or bowl, its about 11% with other crap in the smoke.

Do you think all of these chemicals are benign to lungs? 

I should have said "made up shit" It seems to me that you honestly believe a lot of what professional researchers tell you... but a number of claims you've repeated here sound like... ummm, misinformation.

Umm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right? 

[fomenter]

out law camp fires

Wood smoke contains numerous toxic substances, including known carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, and tine organic particles. Based on epidemiological studies in children, wood smoke has implicated in increasing respiratory illnesses. Controlled studies on mice and rats have confirmed such associations. In one study, carried out by EPA (Enviroment Protection Agency scientists, a group of mice was exposed to wood smoke for six hours, a second group was exposed to the emissions from an oil furnace, and a third group (the control group) was not exposed to any type of smoke or emissions. All of the mice were then exposed to an air-borne bacteruim which causes respiratory infections. After sex weeks only 5% of the mice in the control group and in the group exposed to oil emissions had died of the infection, whereas 21% of the mice exposed to the wood smoke had died. Independent studies undertaken at New York University School of Medicine using rats exposed to wood smoke and respiratory pathogens (such as the bacterium staphylococcus aureus) showed similar results. Based on such data, the researchers are convinced of the potential health associated with breathing wood smoke.

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

2) Do you recognize the validity of experiential evidence, especially experiential evidence gathered over many years?

3) Are you aware that there's way more to the US government's drug policy than just caring about keeping kids off of harmful drugs? Are you aware of the documentable connections between domestic drug policy and foreign policy and that it is frequently not in the government's best interests to disclose the full truth regarding the reasons behind their domestic drug policy, or the hypocrisy in adopting a "tough on drugs" stance for the electorate while simultaneously using drug money to finance proxy armies (mujahideen, Contras, etc.)? And would you agree that, given these things, the US government may not be a very credible source for hard science regarding drugs and drug use?

now, I've got no more respect for the yahoo hippies that think everything would be great if we were all stoned all the time and I recognize that there are people for whom recreational drug use is detrimental and they may even be the majority, but where do you draw the line between legally enforced prohibition and giving people reliable information so they can make their own choices? I absolutely do not believe in preventative legislation of anything, drugs included. If a crackhead robs someone for his fix, then he's guilty of armed robbery and should be dealt with appropriately but I disagree that that means that smoking crack in and of itself should be illegal. Preventative prohibition is absolutely contrary to the ideals that America was founded on.

[Lies]

out law camp fires

Wood smoke contains numerous toxic substances, including known carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, and tine organic particles. Based on epidemiological studies in children, wood smoke has implicated in increasing respiratory illnesses. Controlled studies on mice and rats have confirmed such associations. In one study, carried out by EPA (Enviroment Protection Agency scientists, a group of mice was exposed to wood smoke for six hours, a second group was exposed to the emissions from an oil furnace, and a third group (the control group) was not exposed to any type of smoke or emissions. All of the mice were then exposed to an air-borne bacteruim which causes respiratory infections. After sex weeks only 5% of the mice in the control group and in the group exposed to oil emissions had died of the infection, whereas 21% of the mice exposed to the wood smoke had died. Independent studies undertaken at New York University School of Medicine using rats exposed to wood smoke and respiratory pathogens (such as the bacterium staphylococcus aureus) showed similar results. Based on such data, the researchers are convinced of the potential health associated with breathing wood smoke.

Sex weeks huh?

[East Coast Hustle]

Lys, go jerk off or something. We're trying to have an intellectual discussion here, in spite of this being Apple Talk.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Umm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

You want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit. Sometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed. Maybe not, maybe my experiences are completely atypical and secret cartels of chemically enhanced marijuana are getting innocent teens addicted and ruining their lives.

I admit that might be the case.

It may also be the case that we live in the Matrix.


As for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

I think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

[Lies]

Lys, go jerk off or something. We're trying to have an intellectual discussion here, in spite of this being Apple Talk.

Sorry, I realize that, I just couldn't help but notice the typo.
I'm just wondering how that got into such an official sounding report.

Actually, I have a lot I want to say to this all, I just don't have the time yet.

Be back tomorrow with intelligent responses, I promise.

[fomenter]

i am with rip city on this one - prohibition laws are contrary to the ideals of the country
i don't doubt that some harm is done by pot but DEA propaganda or DEA jack boots cant be the best way to help those with the problems,

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

This is a good thing. It means people have less smoke in their lungs to achieve the same effect.

Which do you think is more harmful? The smoke or the THC? If it's the smoke, which I believe to be the case, then this reduces the harm of smoking pot, which I would think you would be for.

[Cain]

My point for you, is that i would love to see your take on this factor of "The Game"; i havent read all of your stuff do, so i dont know if i missed it. Although i know its a hard thing to do, for politicians dont make their relations or bribes known in relation to drug cartels...

OK, the thing is, drugs have two major selling points for people who don't mind getting their hands dirty (which, by definition includes the intelligence services, in that are glorified, domestically based criminal organisations):

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market
2.  They are worth tons of money

The CIA angle of the drug trade is probably the one I know the best, so I'll refer to that.  The CIA's budget is mostly secret, hidden among Pentagon spending, but has Congressional oversight through the Intelligence Sub-Committee, IIRC, which means that the American legislature, in theory, can say "What exactly are you doing with our cash?"

Of course, the CIA doesn't like to have to answer such questions.  Secrecy is an institutional obsession, both for its own sake, and because the CIA's officers frequently use the resources of the agency for agendas other than national security.  Not to mention even some of those programs which are undertaken for national security purposes might be objected to, by, say, high-minded reformers or politically aware and motivated voters.

So, in that sense, drug money is a good way to fund operations that the CIA isn't meant to be doing, or wants kept off the books.  Like Program Phoenix for example, the Vietnam assassination program.  Congress told the CIA to stop Phoenix in December 1972.  They kept up the operation until the fall of South Vietnam 1975.  It was funded in part by heroin sales.  The heroin was collected by ethnic groups in South East Asia allied with the US, processed by certain front organisations (like a Pepsi bottling plant in Laos) and then flown out, via the CIA's Air America airline, or smuggled back to the USA in dead soldier's bodies.

Often this is done with tacit approval from the White House...either they ask for something to be done and don't care how it happens, so long as it stays off the books...or it actively aids and abets these efforts, in the hope that Congress wont ever find out.  In Columbia, it is widely believed that right-wing militias like the AUC get funding and arms from the CIA (or DIA, or somebody) in return for a cut of the cocaine profits, which they help facilitate the entry of into the country. 

Drugs also give an excuse for American politicians to land troops anywhere in South America virtually, at any time.  Noriega is your example here.  The General was a Company man, through and through.  But he fucked up...rumour I heard was he started selling US secrets to Cuba, maybe that's true, and maybe it's not.  Either way, his CIA connections meant shit when the Marines came a-knocking.  If you want to get more influence in a country, building up a guy like Noriega and his opposition, then chucking Noriega once he starts believing his own Glorious Leader bullshit and too difficult to manage is a good way to go about it.

Naturally, profits themselves are also a motive.  I mean, hell, you know roughly what the numbers are for the Mexican Cartels alone.  Even a very small cut of that would do quite nicely.

There are also domestic benefits, too.  Many CIA operatives got axed under Carter the Peanut Farmer, when he tried to de-Nixonfy the Agency.  Some of those went on to found private security firms, especially those specializing in training or intelligence gathering.  And hey, if you have a War on Drugs...well, contracts abound for that sort of things.

Drugs also keep uppity minorities down.  Black radicalism, for example.  Throw drugs, guns and profits into the equation, and it turns into gang warfare very quickly.  Nasty, sure, but they're not spouting the Black Panter party line anymore, are they?

I'm sure there are many more examples I've forgotten, but I've only had five hours sleep, and had to count out £105 in one and two pence pieces at work today, so my brain is a little fried atm.

[LMNO]

So remember, kids: the use of drugs is a victimless crime.


[/sarcasm]