MPP Update
Marijuana Prohibitionists' Potent Lies
Tue, May 26, 2009 3:28 pm
Some things never change. This month, a new report came out from the federally funded Marijuana Potency Project declaring THC levels in marijuana to be at an all time high.
Scare stories about high-potency marijuana are almost as old as the war on marijuana itself. Prohibitionists for decades have warned people that the contemporary version of the drug is "not your father's marijuana" (of course, they wanted to arrest your father for his low-grade stuff as well). Bush drug czar and technological hepcat John Walters likes to refer to modern marijuana as though it were an entirely different drug altogether: marijuana 2.0, he calls it.
The news hook for this latest in what has become an annual ritual of phony hand wringing over rising marijuana potency is that the samples tested have reportedly edged over an average of 10 percent for the first time. I say "reportedly" because, although the National Institute on Drug Abuse publicized the report's findings to the media, they have not posted the report online and have so far refused to provide us with a copy.
Anyway, drug warriors love to exaggerate small increases in marijuana potency and make vague proclamations linking them to increases in marijuana’s potential danger. Of course, vague proclamations are all they have because there isn't a shred of evidence that increased potency raises marijuana's danger in any way. It's not more toxic, it's not more addictive, and it kills the same number of people low-grade marijuana does – zero.
My colleague, Bruce Mirken, appeared on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" to discuss this nonsense May 14, pointing out the obvious fact that, if anything, high potency marijuana is probably safer if you agree marijuana's chief danger lies in the harms related to inhaling smoke. When the marijuana is more potent, users smoke less, just as people typically drink a much smaller quantity of bourbon than of beer. Thus, higher-potency marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean users take in more THC – they just take in less smoke.
For most, this is a matter of common sense. Marijuana users seek a particular effect and stop once they've achieved that effect, just as most drinkers do. Of course, inexperienced users of either drug may find they've overshot that desired effect. The main difference between the two is that inexperienced marijuana users won't die from their error as inexperienced drinkers may.
Cooper had Walters on the same segment in a separate interview. Confronted with Bruce's point that higher potency marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to increased smoke intake, Walters responded, "There is no evidence of that."
But there is. In a study titled "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study," published in May 2007 by the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of California researchers looked at smoking and vaporization using marijuana of 1.7 percent, 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent THC.
Although the high-strength marijuana was four times as potent as the weakest, it produced a peak plasma THC level only about 20 percent higher. This, the researchers wrote, suggests that either less is absorbed at the higher potency levels or there is "self-titration of THC intake," meaning "smokers adapt their smoking behavior to obtain desired levels of THC." Among the evidence for self-titration, researchers found that their subjects tended "to take more puffs at lower THC concentrations" – despite having been given a fairly regimented smoking procedure to follow. Similarly, the subjective "high" reported by participants was only modestly more intense at 6.8% THC than at 1.7 percent.
If you're concerned that the man in charge of federal marijuana policy for the past decade would be so out of touch with the research on the subject, don't be – he knew. We know this because NORML's Paul Armentano pointed it out to him when Walters was making up the same lie last year, and he sent him the article.
Of course, if defenders of marijuana prohibition were truly worried about THC levels in marijuana, then they should favor regulating the drug and requiring manufacturers to label the product’s potency, just as we do with alcohol.
I guess we'll just have to wait and find out what they say after next year's report.
Dan Bernath is the Marijuana Policy Project’s assistant director of communications, www.mpp.org. Email him at dbernath@mpp.org.











» add a comment
overseer420
Jan 19 2010, 11:08 pm
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! best pun I've read in a long while :)
Puff puff *correction*PASS please :)
overseer420
Jan 19 2010, 11:06 pm
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! best pun I've read in a long while :)
Puff puff ass please :)
treehugger
Jul 5 2009, 6:41 pm
I saw your post in Hightimes, and visited your site, and was initially intruiged? Pot and politics?
But after browsing for a few minutes, found myself questioning how you intend to achieve the goals or fund these movements.
I don't think your membership fee will cover it.
Just a few observations that may help further you cause;
don't model our immigration policy based on other countries, America is supposed to set global policy, not follow it.
playing the "immigrant card" is a pathetic attempt to grab the attention of the frustrated and desperate. It's no excuse for not being able to come up with real solutions to real problems (and 100 years of bad policy) with real funding and legislation, and a million new jobs, as I have.
Unfortunately, the aristocracy of this country (property owners) was built upon slavery. But became a Super Power because of immigration, and will continue to do so long after we're dead. Not to mention the most obvious - HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS THE RESULT OF IMMIGRATION, MIGRATION - except for the endemic of Africa/India.
don't make personal attacks on the US President - attack his policy, not his character (which has yet to be determined)
I'm sure you're not a constitutional lawyer, nor will you ever be commander-in-chief., despite your 2012 hopes. As I am sure he's not, "Obama is the most prejudiced President in US history ". You base your surmises on what study?
And we don't need a massive Energy R&D project, the technology is already there, we just refuse to manufacture, so Germany and Japan are the only ones cashing in on our research.
Here are some of my ideas, feel free to steal and cash in on;
Medical Insurance covers it, without a Dr deeming it appropriate, or building a database of "registered users" losers that will pay when the DEA hacks the data, or will be denied an organ transplant cuz, "your medical ID thumbstick indicates you're a pot-head".
50% tax on recreational sales
50% tax on commercial bud sales
0% tax on personal consumption-we don't pay tax on anything else we grow for personal consumption (but soon you will if you don't vote no on Bill HR 875, google it, google CODEX)
You have to grow 2 acres of hemp or bamboo per acre of bud
0% tax on donations made to compassion clubs (I'd freely give half of my crop to the terminally ill, who pay nothing cuz the shop only needs a little money to hand out donated weed)
Build a canal from Baja to Brownsville 600' wide by 100' deep;
30-60 million new tax payers, stop the buy, end the violence, create 1/2 a million new jobs, take half of the semi's and trains off the roads, and procure the best place on the planet to grow pot/hemp! Cut the travel time in half again, first is was Cape Horn (crazy mother-fuckers!), then Panama, now Baja!
That means you can buy 3 pairs of sneakers for $100, instead of 1 sneaker. What good is 1 sneaker?
....but is that really what the gov't wants?
Keep puffin...(that doesn't mean = cage penguins)
treehugger
Jul 2 2009, 8:08 pm
PLEASE VOTE
Vote NO on Bill HR 875, google it, before it's too late!
Google CODEX, Monsanto, FDA bilateral's via trilaterals and quadralaterals.
Sounds impressive, 'eh? Does any of that sound like AMERICAN FARMER'S ARE FUCKED? 90% of all plants and animals, FUCKED. Cuz they code it appropriately, and cover generously with HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. Google that too!
All of this, to feed 300 million obese diabetics? WOW! Mars may not even be able to help us.
Mary Wanna
Jun 6 2009, 4:32 am
one person in it's history. WAKE UP AMERICAN
» add a comment