A serious blow to Canadian audiophiles, must read

J Clin Pharmacol, 42(11 Suppl): 103S-107S 2002
J Clin Pharmacol, 42(11 Suppl): 7S-10S 2002
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 48(5): 473-83 2000
J Natl Cancer Inst, 90(16): 1198-205 1998
J Immunol, 165(1): 373-80 2000
J Psychoactive Drugs, 26(3): 285-8
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol, 20(6): 1286-93 1999
J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 9(5): 679-89 2003
Neurotoxicol Teratol, 25(4): 427-36
Hum Psychopharmacol, 18(2): 89-90 2003
Neurology, 59(9): 1337-43 2002

Let me know if you need any other references, asdf@

12-24-03: Hdm
1) Pot is a stimulant, alcohol is a depressant
2) While I wouldn't choose to get in a vehicle operated by, or be operated on by a surgeon who was under the influence of either, if I was forced to, I'd take my chances with the one under the influence of THC every time
3) I don't know how old you are Lugnut, but I'd agree with Swampwalker that current pot is much more potent than the stuff from 20-30 years ago-simply a matter of improving technology and agriculture

I have to tackle all three of these arguments. First, pot is usually classified as a "hallucinogen" neither stimulant or depressant though it can have effects similar to either in different users at different times.

Second, the only big study on pot and driving was done last year in Brittain and showed pot smokers were safer drivers than those on alcohol or the controls who took neither.

And about quality, the best pot today is as strong as the best pot in the 1970s. Trust me, I was there. The quality of pot today is uniformly good. It's hard to find "bad" pot today. In the 70s, you really had to search to find good pot. But when you did, an ounce or more could be had for $10.

In the 70s there were no multi-billion buck drug lords or prison lords. Now we have both. And guess who pays?

One reason there is no legal pot is because it is so easy to grow that there is almost no commercial potential. There would be nothing to tax because most smokers would either grow their own or their friends would grow for them. The tobacco companies wouldn't be able to cash in because there would be only a small market and that would likely remain a "black" market. That's why those companies support The Partnership for a Drug Free America and the dubius D.A.R.E. program.

asdf@camosun.bc.ca,

Sorry that my references aren't from Rolling Stone, Mother Jones or cannabisnews.com. Where are your references?

Pragmatist,

Canada does not subsidize speaker R&D. I don't know if they still do but the NRC at one time did allow speaker manufacturers the use of it's anechoic chamber. The larger companies have now built their own. The government may have tax benefits available to speaker manufacturers the same as they would for other businesses but that would be the same as I imagine it would in the States. Tell me though, are you all still subsidizing your farmers?

As to the other thing, to each his/her own. If you aren't harming anyone (not using & driving), if your kids are fed and well looked after, if your bills are paid on time, then do whatever it is that floats your boat. There is enough misery in the world today. We don't want to be incarcerating people for doing something that is less harmful than gettin caught. AIDS is far more deadly than pot or alcohol and if you are going to jail then you've got an excellent chance of getting that. Best to leave the soap where it falls. If you don't want to smoke pipeweed then don't. No one will force you. I just can't afford the government machinery that keeps it illegal. Any social programs we would have in lieu of the anti-pot establishment would be far cheaper and certainly more effective. Sooner or later some country will get it right. Oh yes, the Netherlands. I don't believe their pot use is much higher than it is in North America.

Macmimir:

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my statement above, so here goes.

Pot is indeed a stimulant; it is somewhat unique in that it is also a depressant. Your point about how it affects different users is well taken, though. As to its classification as a hallucigen, my thought on that is that it is a little off base. Your point on the driving study illustrates that perfectly and gets to what I was trying to say-we are more in agreement than disagreement here. Would you rather get in a car with a pot smoker or an LSD (a true hallucigen) user?

As to your point on concentration of THC, your analogy of good and bad may be correct, but there was a lot of "bad" pot in the 70's. I was there too. I think we're splitting hairs on this one if we agree that there is uniformly better (or worse depending on which side of the argument you're on) pot out there. And there is no doubt in my mind that growers in the past 20-30 years have worked on improving the product-hence the consistent availability of "better" pot.

As to legalization-taxation, the Netherlands is clearly reaping some economic reward with its system. And although I've never been there, I found it interesting when an acquaintance told me of the strong popularity and esteem in which Canadian marijuana is held in the Netherlands. So there are obviously differences based on growing techniques, breeding, etc. My feeling is that's not much different than the respect that certain single malt scotches deserve, but that's a matter open to debate I suppose.