REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.

That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.

So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.

Yes and it is being used in the medical setting.  The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products.  If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version.  Please note the "ifs" in my statement.  If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen. 

And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations.  But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right. 

The funny thing is that the US government created the G-13 strain.

[AFK]

I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.

Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.

Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.

They are in my community. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.

I do.  And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community.  Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. 

Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?

Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work.  So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does.  Call me crazy. 

Big compared to what? Rhode Island? Isn't Maine about the size of Multnomah County?  He mentioned compassion on the part of government... does your town have different sentencing laws from the rest of Maine?

Read a little slower.  He said government and law enforcement communities.  Since I said "They are in my community", it should be obvious I'm referring to law enforcement. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well.  You conveniently leave those out.  But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information.  If you don't or can't, that's not on me.  If you think it's bogus, prove it.  Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information. 

But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.

Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?

Well I do want to address this one because it's a little interesting.  So when Telarus, or anyone else in this thread you agree with posts a bunch of links to articles, and large blocks of information it is okay but when I do it, it is "mostly irrelevant".  Look, you don't agree with me, I get it, but c'mon, if you are going to use arbitrarily different rules for different posters then what is the point of me even addressing you on this subject? 

BTW...please specifically explain to me how the information and sources I post are "mostly irrelevant".  I mean, besides the fact that you don't agree with them.  I mean, that's a very simple, general, and un-nuanced statement.  Surely you must have some specific reasoning for categorically rejecting every source I post.  Oh, I'm sorry, "mostly" everything I post.   

Telarus posts a lot of links once to show what he's talking about.

You repost the same information repeatedly.

I do not "categorically" reject every source you post, Mr. Nuance. Point out one example of me rejecting a single source you've posted.

Yes you do, and it is clear there are different rules for those you agree with and those you disagree with, so I'm done discussing this with you.  It's a waste of my time.  Besides that you generalize, for example when you say that every source I post is "mostly irrelevant"  I've posted many, many sources in the many, many threads.  It is very unthinking to just out of hand categorize all of them as irrelevant.  And now you are saying I post the same thing over and over again which is also a generalized and untrue summation of what I've been doing in this thread.

So when you are ready to debate this topic in good faith, we can resume, until then, I'm done with you. 

Okay, I concede my claim about you reposting irrelevant information. I checked back over the thread and have to agree that you're right, it was an inaccurate generalization.

[BabylonHoruv]

Waittagoddamn minute....


RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?

How the fuck is that being pro-children?

well by the time they can't get financial aid they are adults......

[BabylonHoruv]

• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels

Such as?  [citation needed]

Such as, "[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows.  Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users.  But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''

OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-gm-marijuana-problem-colombia.html

One greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.

Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed "a bigger production and better quality at the same time".

A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, "Creepy".

Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as "La Cominera", is named for the Colombian village where it grows.

"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher.

Despite the fact that marijuana production is illegal in Colombia, farmers say they continue to sell both traditional and modified marijuana because of economic advantages. One resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he can sell 11 kilograms of marijuana for 160,000 Colombian pesos ($87).

In the greenhouses outside of Cali, in a secret location accessible only by foot, it is easy to recognize the famous plant with star-shaped leaves, where it grows amid other legal crops.

"I don't like growing marijuana, but it ended up that way," one farmer said. "I received a loan to grow coffee, but I was drowning and I had to sell my harvest very cheap. My sister told me it would be better to plant marijuana."

Marijuana was first introduced to the country in the 1930s and residents of Cali said that for economic reasons, they have never stopped cultivating the plant since.

Yeah.  It is completely far-fetched that marijuana would be altered to create a more potent product to compete with a legal, federally regulated product.  Yep. 

Easy comparison to alcohol here.  During prohibition hard alcohol became far more popular than beer or wine, partly because it is much easier to transport and conceal.  After prohibition was repealed beer and wine started to predominate again.  hard alcohol is still available, in regulated stores.

There's no reason the same couldn't be done with weed, and no reason at all that people would prefer black market weed of unknown potency over the stuff of known and measured potency available at the local store.

[BabylonHoruv]

It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.

That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.

So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.

Yes and it is being used in the medical setting.  The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products.  If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version.  Please note the "ifs" in my statement.  If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen. 

And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations.  But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right. 

Why on Earth should the potency be regulated?  IIRC, they can't even quantify it.

They can and do test the THC levels in weed.

Of course it fluctuates even within a given crop, but not by much for plants of the same strain grown in the same conditions.  (by same conditions I mean the same hyrdoponics system, not the same blend of nutrients in two different greenhouses)

[Bruno]

So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal?  If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth? 

Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?

No, because it's a shiny new drug for kids to try out.  And then it spreads through social networks. 

Kids can't legally enter smoke shops, so they're unlikely to even know about the stuff unless they already smoke weed. In Maine, Spice is (or was, I think it's been banned now?) only sold at head shops. You can't just go get it at CVS.

Please, this stuff spreads through social networks as I said.  Remember the stories about Jenkem, the tampon margarita, do you think all of the kids across the country that tried those all managed to figure it out on their own?  No.  It spread through social networks.  Trust me, kids that are actively seeking and experimenting with drugs are very good at being up to date on these sorts of things. 

What steps has your community taken to curb the jenkem epidemic?

[AFK]

Padlocks on port-a-pottys. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.

Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.

Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.

They are in my community. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.

I do.  And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community.  Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. 

Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?

Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work.  So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does.  Call me crazy. 

Big compared to what? Rhode Island? Isn't Maine about the size of Multnomah County?  He mentioned compassion on the part of government... does your town have different sentencing laws from the rest of Maine?

Read a little slower.  He said government and law enforcement communities.  Since I said "They are in my community", it should be obvious I'm referring to law enforcement. 

Yes, but then you are completely disregarding the other half of the statement.

[AFK]

So?  Plenty parts of my statements are getting ignored or unaddressed by those who disagree with me, including you.  Why am I being held to a different standard? 

[Doktor Howl]

KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND...YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF YOUR PARTNERS MAY DEPEND UPON IT.

The dope fiend can be recognized by her inability to read an entire post, her glassy eyes, and the enormous spiked strap-on that she wears at all times.  When not out mugging helpless old ladies and effeminate artists, she can usually be found down on skid row, giving a hobo a haircut...or butt-raping a policeman, just like you.

The only safe way to handle a dope fiend is to shoot first, as our brave boys in Tucson did.  Failing that, hide her cigarettes and send in 20 men when she goes into nicotene withdrawl convulsions.

Write your congressman to provide harsher penalties for dope fiends.  Suggest the bastinado.

Remember, the life you save may be your own.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND...YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF YOUR PARTNERS MAY DEPEND UPON IT.

The dope fiend can be recognized by her inability to read an entire post, her glassy eyes, and the enormous spiked strap-on that she wears at all times.  When not out mugging helpless old ladies and effeminate artists, she can usually be found down on skid row, giving a hobo a haircut...or butt-raping a policeman, just like you.

The only safe way to handle a dope fiend is to shoot first, as our brave boys in Tucson did.  Failing that, hide her cigarettes and send in 20 men when she goes into nicotene withdrawl convulsions.

Write your congressman to provide harsher penalties for dope fiends.  Suggest the bastinado.

Remember, the life you save may be your own.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I keep trying to bite my tongue but I'm giving it the fuck up.

Every time I see someone trot out the "they knew it was illegal" defense of the absolutely idiotic, inhuman, incompassionate drug enforcement laws, I want to ask them if they know that the #1 predictor of drug abuse is child abuse, and that essentially what they're doing is the very worst form of blaming the victim. It's fucking sick.

"They knew it was illegal" is in the same category, for me, as "She was asking for it". Which is related, BTW, because the #1 predictor in victims of rape is ALSO CHILD ABUSE.

Some people need compassion and help, and dismissing it with "they knew it was illegal" is inhuman and worthy of nothing better than total contempt. It's a system that punishes the broken for their past miseries, and nothing more.

If you want to make a difference, work to end child abuse. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.

Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.

Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.

They are in my community. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.

I do.  And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community.  Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. 

The flaw in your argument here is that not every single person who is subject to federal laws lives in Maine.

Oh, and the part where any policy that relies upon selective interpretation to approach even a hint of being fair or just is a bad policy.