The reason some of the pot available in the US is "stronger" is because it's hydroponic. Stuff grown under lights, with intense attention paid to pH levels and fertilizer, can be quite potent. However, very few people have access to this marijuana. The vast majority still comes from Mexico. Some folks call that "dirt weed" (and with good reason).
I'm sure there are some strains that can be made somewhat stronger with some manipulation of the growing conditions. But saying that is different from their hysteria - you know... "Pot is getting stronger and stronger and stronger! What will happen to our children!" As far as I know, no one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana alone. But they conveniently don't mention this...
The critical question is not whether pot is getting stronger, but whether people are getting more stoned. Do they smoke until they reach a recognizable level of highness, or do they roll a joint of a certain size and smoke it?
It's very much like the question of portion sizes and obesity in America. Do people eat fries until they feel full, or do they eat "a plate of fries," disregarding whether that plate has twice as many fries as it did 10 years ago?
One could argue that purer, less contaminated drugs are a good thing, but when 90% pure heroin started showing up in Dallas in the '90s, there were kids who died because they were used to smoking the 20% pure stuff, so they OD'ed.
Now, food takes a while to get into your bloodstream, and heroin is usually portioned out all at once. If you're in a group that's passing around a pipe, you're reasonably likely to notice how high you are and stop at an appropriate time. So I consider it an open question whether stronger pot is something to be worried about.
In any case, it's not something we'll be able to put a stop to as long as marijuana is so strictly punished. Smaller quantities are easier to smuggle, so more compact delivery forms will win out. The same thing happened during prohibition, where beer brewing disappeared but underground distilling flourished.
Many moons ago when I was a naughty college student, I used to say I knew when I was stoned enough - it was when I would look at the pipe and wonder what it was and why it was in my hand :o :)) I suppose that means I had smoked "too much". But since I and practically everyone else who was smoking at that time are now doing average to fairly well in the business world, and none of us ever got sick, it is a little hard for me to take the anti-pot hysteria very seriously. However, I've seen many lives destroyed or ended by alcohol, heroin, various illegally gotten (or sometimes legally obtained!) pills. The penalties do not match up to the damage any of these substances create. Well, the US tried outlawing alcohol and you see where that went - nowhere fast. I think they should wake up and realize it really is doing the same with these other drugs - only encouraging an underworld black market in which people buy unregulated drugs in unknown strengths (one of the reasons for overdoses). When you buy alcohol, they are required to say on the botle how strong it is. But the corner dealer will not have a label on his heroin or whatever that says "this is purer than the average stuff so if you shoot up the same amount you usually do, it will kill you." So like you said in the example of the case from Dallas, kids die. Another reason people die, of course, is that they are afraid to seek help when they know they need it because they will go to jail. When the government claim the penalties are there to help people, but then put people in jail, thus ruining their lives far more than the drugs they were taking were doing, I am skeptical. I automatically take anything the government says about drugs with a grain of salt. I know lots of people who take all sorts of drugs - not saying they are all good or anything like that, some substances really screw people up - but the official literature put out doesn't reflect reality. Nor does the policy of jailing people for possession make any sense - it has merely resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, and no end to drug-taking in sight.
I also think that stronger pot is a good thing, as it decreases the amount of smoke that users are forced to endure while securing their THC "hit".
I also can understand the bored dismissal; govermental agencies have been spouting hysterical trash about marijuana for so long that they can hardly be considered a reliable information source.
However, a consistently falling age of first marijuana use is not a good thing.
Neither does the absence of fatality associated with marijuana imply an absence of risks associated with its use. The fact that marijuana is plainly safer than tobacco does not imply that it is perfectly safe. I stole less money than anyone at Enron!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 10:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 11:10 am (UTC)The reason some of the pot available in the US is "stronger" is because it's hydroponic. Stuff grown under lights, with intense attention paid to pH levels and fertilizer, can be quite potent. However, very few people have access to this marijuana. The vast majority still comes from Mexico. Some folks call that "dirt weed" (and with good reason).
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 11:14 am (UTC)As far as I know, no one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana alone. But they conveniently don't mention this...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 01:31 pm (UTC)It's very much like the question of portion sizes and obesity in America. Do people eat fries until they feel full, or do they eat "a plate of fries," disregarding whether that plate has twice as many fries as it did 10 years ago?
One could argue that purer, less contaminated drugs are a good thing, but when 90% pure heroin started showing up in Dallas in the '90s, there were kids who died because they were used to smoking the 20% pure stuff, so they OD'ed.
Now, food takes a while to get into your bloodstream, and heroin is usually portioned out all at once. If you're in a group that's passing around a pipe, you're reasonably likely to notice how high you are and stop at an appropriate time. So I consider it an open question whether stronger pot is something to be worried about.
In any case, it's not something we'll be able to put a stop to as long as marijuana is so strictly punished. Smaller quantities are easier to smuggle, so more compact delivery forms will win out. The same thing happened during prohibition, where beer brewing disappeared but underground distilling flourished.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-20 03:45 am (UTC)I suppose that means I had smoked "too much". But since I and practically everyone else who was smoking at that time are now doing average to fairly well in the business world, and none of us ever got sick, it is a little hard for me to take the anti-pot hysteria very seriously.
However, I've seen many lives destroyed or ended by alcohol, heroin, various illegally gotten (or sometimes legally obtained!) pills. The penalties do not match up to the damage any of these substances create. Well, the US tried outlawing alcohol and you see where that went - nowhere fast. I think they should wake up and realize it really is doing the same with these other drugs - only encouraging an underworld black market in which people buy unregulated drugs in unknown strengths (one of the reasons for overdoses). When you buy alcohol, they are required to say on the botle how strong it is. But the corner dealer will not have a label on his heroin or whatever that says "this is purer than the average stuff so if you shoot up the same amount you usually do, it will kill you." So like you said in the example of the case from Dallas, kids die.
Another reason people die, of course, is that they are afraid to seek help when they know they need it because they will go to jail. When the government claim the penalties are there to help people, but then put people in jail, thus ruining their lives far more than the drugs they were taking were doing, I am skeptical. I automatically take anything the government says about drugs with a grain of salt. I know lots of people who take all sorts of drugs - not saying they are all good or anything like that, some substances really screw people up - but the official literature put out doesn't reflect reality. Nor does the policy of jailing people for possession make any sense - it has merely resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, and no end to drug-taking in sight.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 12:35 pm (UTC)I also think that stronger pot is a good thing, as it decreases the amount of smoke that users are forced to endure while securing their THC "hit".
I also can understand the bored dismissal; govermental agencies have been spouting hysterical trash about marijuana for so long that they can hardly be considered a reliable information source.
However, a consistently falling age of first marijuana use is not a good thing.
Neither does the absence of fatality associated with marijuana imply an absence of risks associated with its use. The fact that marijuana is plainly safer than tobacco does not imply that it is perfectly safe. I stole less money than anyone at Enron!"
(no subject)
A.