Project SAM

Anti-Marijuana Group Sucks at Messaging/Telling the Truth

|

Courtesy of Will White/Flickr

Speaking this week before a crowd in Middletown, Ohio, Kevin Sabet, a former advisor in the drug czar's office and co-founder of the anti-marijuana group Project SAM, said that 90 percent of medical marijuana users "are registered for ailments such as headaches and athlete's foot," and that only "10 percent of card holders have cancer or were glaucoma patients." That's according to the Middletown Journal.

When Sabet spoke to the Columbus Dispatch, however, he told the paper that "just 5 percent of those receiving [medical marijuana] have severe medical problems," and that "ailments for which marijuana was most often prescribed were headaches and stress."

So is it 95 percent, or 90 percent, of medical marijuana users who don't actually have serious illnesses? And are they faking it with stress, or athlete's foot?

Maybe Project SAM co-founder Patrick Kennedy can clear things up. Here's what he told a reporter in January: "Eighty percent of those who have applied for [medical marijuana] licenses have no cancer, no Parkinson's disease or glaucoma.They have nothing you would associate [with] the use of medical marijuana."

So 80 percent of medical marijuana users are faking it, not 90 or 95 percent? And Parkinsons is now on the "serious illness" list? 

When Politifact decided to dig into Kennedy's claim, Sabet told the reporting group that "Kennedy didn't mean that the 80 percent have no legitimate reason to use the drug."

So does that mean Sabet thinks athlete's foot is a legitimate reason to use medical marijuana?

(By the way: Politifact concluded that Kennedy was "right about the comparatively small percentage of medical-marijuana patients who use it for the conditions he named….But he is wrong that most of those using the drug do so for conditions not associated with it.")

The mathematical discrepancies in Project SAM's claims don't end there. Alex Seitz-Wald profiled Sabet for Salon last month, and he noticed that the anti-pot activist had given several different numbers for the potency of today's marijuana. He told Salon that "today's marijuana is 10 times more dangerous than the marijuana of the '60s"; he told Huffington Post that it's "five to six times greater in potency and strength"; and he wrote in a U.S. News op-ed that it's "4-5 times stronger."

To be fair, I wouldn't be applauding Sabet or Kennedy if they were actually being consistent, because I disgaree with them. But it's even harder than it should be to discuss drug policy with interlocutors who bring different facts every time they show up to the debate.  

NEXT: Detroit Mayor Laments Unfair Treatment From Local Media As City Teeters on Edge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 90 percent of medical marijuana users “are registered for ailments such as headaches and athlete’s foot,”

    Please, please let this guy get persistent horrific migraines and then deny him any potential relief such as some medical MJ. Fuck you, shitbag.

    1. He’s more a pill guy, prescription drugs are totally safe and not all icky hippy madness.

    2. 100% of assholes that think it’s a good idea to go running around the country on a anti-pot campaign have a serious ailment, a mental one.

    3. Seriously, though, medical marijuana is a joke. Once sanity takes over and the stuff is fully legalized, nobody will buy it as “medicine”.

      1. People will. People do now in places where it is illegal.

        I doubt many doctors would recommend or prescribe smoking the raw plant material as a medication, but there are most certainly things that it is useful for as medicine.

      2. It would destroy Ambien or Lunesta in an open market situation.

        1. Stuff does the opposite for me. Keeps me awake. If I smoke before bed I’m tossing and turning for hours.

          1. It’s all rock-a-bye baby for me. Maybe you have the paranoia.

          2. “If I smoke before bed I’m tossing and turning for hours.”

            Drink moar.

            1. Drinking moar works for me, until I wake up an hour later, dying of thirst, which pretty much sucks.

              1. I have a tendency to wake up as soon as I sober up. Blech.

                1. I have a tendency to wake up as soon as I sober up. Blech.

                  Then drink more.

                  Jesus, you fucks are stoopid.

                  1. Alcohol’s a terrible drug. I’d rather have a little weed and valium for beddy-bye any day.

                    1. Well, if you wanna be a hippy about things, I don’t know that we have anything else to discuss.

                      Personally, I find that sucking on fentanyl patches puts me right out.

                    2. Alcohol is a terrible drug, but it’s cheap and legal and it also works. It just has shitty side effects.

                      Alcohol: the cause of, and the solution to, all of life’s problems.

                    3. Alcohol is a terrible drug, but it’s cheap and legal and it also works. It just has shitty side effects.

                      If science could one day take away all the shitty side effects, while preserving the taste and effect, I would just never stop drinking beer.

                    4. Valium is awesome fantastic, especially for sleep. The problem is that it is extremely addictive. Atavan is even better, but same problem as with all the benzos, addictive as hell.

                  2. Dude, at some point dehydration is going to set in, which puts an unwelcome end to drinking more. Trust me on this, I have a PhD in drinking.

                    1. You know you can hydrate while drinking alcohol, right?

                    2. Then you have to piss all night. Or remember to put your catheter in.

                    3. Then you have to piss all night

                      Right, then you can get up 2x as many times, every other time to either get a drink, or to piss. Yippeee!

                    4. Not if you do it in the right ratio. Come on, NutraSweet. This is basic science. SCIENCE!!!

                    5. If you drink everyday, a lot, the negative side effects mostly cease. If you wanna be good at something, it takes practice.

                    6. It seems only the General and I understand how this works.

                    7. I haven’t had a hangover since GeeDub Bush was president.

                      Coincidentally, that was the last time that shrike said anything relevant.

                    8. Count me in your camp. Damn. What the fuck is with all the physical ailments? You guys sound suicidal that you have to take a couple of extra long pisses when drinking beer. Drink beer at night. Sometimes for breakfast. Sip liquor through out the afternoon. No ill effects.

                    9. I think they need to have their prostates examined if they’re peeing that much.

                    10. True. Haven’t had a hangover in years.

                    11. An IV drip? For me, it doesn’t matter how much water I drink in between beers, I still wind up dehydrated in the end.

                    12. Silly. You put tequila in the IV drip.

                  3. Kids today.

      3. This guy and his congenital, tumor-generating bone disease would like to have a word with you.

        Here’s another link.

        I’ve met the guy. He’s not a stoner. He’s a man with a very rare and serious disease and whole leaf marijuana allows him to get on with his life.

    4. “Please, please let this guy get persistent horrific migraines and then deny him any potential relief.”

      Advil can have potentially harmful side effects. And people who use it only use it for like headaches and stress and stuff. Really there’s no reason to allow it on the market, so screw you. Have a nice day Mr. Sabet.

      1. All the pain relievers have some down side – aspirin rots the stomach, ibuprofen rots the kidneys, acetaminophen rots the liver. Other NSAIDs cause cardiac events, and opiates are addictive and potentially fatal in overdose.

  2. Eh, he’s not wrong about that. I mean obviously I support the full legalization of all drugs, but I don’t think it makes him a liar to point out an awful lot of medical marijuana patients do have prescriptions for “stress” or “trouble sleeping” or what not.

    1. No, it doesn’t. Medical MJ in states with very loose rules like CA is kind of a joke and a backdoor legalization. Which is a good thing. People who find it useful for various medical conditions can use it, and so can pretty much anyone else.

    2. Uh…so?

    3. Are you saying it doesn’t help with stress or help some people sleep?

      1. No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that, from what I’ve heard about CA, it’s incredibly easy to get the medical mj card by telling a doctor you have vague, untestable symptoms.

        It’s why I think medical mj is a dead end. You’re conceding to the statists that it is ok to regulate what people put in their bodies. Once you concede self-ownership, they win. It’s just a matter of what scraps they will allow us to gnaw on.

        Weed should be legal because I own my self, and no one has the right to tell me what I do with my own body.

        1. I mostly agree, but will say that I think medical weed showed the straights that the sky wouldn’t fall if people had access to legal weed. And if you talk to the right people in the legalization movement at the right time they’ll tell you that that was the strategy behind the medical advocacy.

          1. Yeah. If we had CA style medical MJ here I’d sign up tomorrow.

            Actually medical marijuana is legal in Virginia. But you need to find a doctor who will prescribe it for cancer or glaucoma, and a pharmacist to fill it. So it’s basically illegal. Still, I wonder if there is a doctor and a pharmacist willing to team up and do some good?

            http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi…..18.2-251.1

            1. Actually, that’s quite the issue. The real problem is the use of the word “prescription”. The Federal government dictates which is and is not able to be prescribed, and marijuana is out.

              That’s why the states to introduce medical marijuana after us have used the word “recommendation” rather than “prescription”. Thanks to the benevolent Fedgov, even cancer isn’t good enough in Virginia.

              1. that’s not quite the issue*

      2. Are you saying that stress or trouble sleeping aren’t legitimate reasons to use a mild drug?

        1. No, I just really dislike the drug policy school which wants a kindler gentler machine gun hand.

          Replacing cops and prisons with counselors and mandatory treatment regimens isn’t much of an improvement to me.

        2. That’s why they make barbiturates and benzodizepines. Why would you want something harmless and unprofitable? Why shouldn’t your betters decide what you put in your own body?

          1. *benzodiazepines

  3. all the proof that anyone should need that nothing stops journalistic curiosity like numbers stated with any amount of conviction. The press loves figures and eagerly swallows them without the slightest hesitation.

  4. Most of the messaging has already been done for them, from years of brainwashing through public education and TV cop dramas.

  5. So does that mean Sabet thinks athlete’s foot is a legitimate reason to use medical marijuana?

    There’s only one legitimate reason to use marijuana. Because you want to, and that’s the only one necessary in a society free of oppression and tyranny.

    1. Where does such a society exist, because I would like to move there.

      1. Me too.

  6. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03……html?_r=0

    Last April, six men, including Mr. Naw Kham, were apprehended in Laos by a team of investigators that included officers from China, Thailand, Laos and Myanmar.

    Mr. Naw Kham and his accomplices were convicted last November during a two-day trial in China’s southwest Yunnan Province. The condemned men, including a Laotian, a Thai and a third of “unknown nationality,” reportedly confessed to the crime.

    The two other men who escaped execution received long prison terms.

    Last month a Chinese public security official told a newspaper that Beijing had considered using a drone strike to kill Mr. Naw Kham but later decided to capture him alive.

    The fucking ChiComms are more civilized then we are on this.

    1. “The fucking ChiComms are more civilized then we are on this.”

      What’s your point?

      And, what’s this “we” shit?

      1. The part where they apprehended a mass murderer and brought him to trial, instead of drone striking him and anyone in a 50 foot radius.

        Seriously, think about that. The Chinese Communist Party chose apprehension and trial, while the US government says “fuck ’em” and dials up a Predator drone with a Hellfire missile.

  7. But it’s even harder than it should be to discuss drug policy with interlocutors who bring different facts every time they show up to the debate.

    Is it easier to argue with someone who brings the same fact to every debate?

    BUT BOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!

  8. “Eighty percent of those who have applied for [medical marijuana] licenses have no cancer, no Parkinson’s disease or glaucoma.They have nothing you would associate [with] the use of medical marijuana.”

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. They have nothing you would associate [with] the use of medical marijuana.

      No munchies or cottonmouth? Sign me up!

    2. On the bright side, they do at least seem to be suggesting that it does have some medicinal use, which is more than they were doing a decade ago.

  9. “My friends, tonight we unveil my most diabolical creation: Swank! Ten times more addictive than marijuana!”

    1. “To human misery!”

    2. Swank! Ten times more addictive than marijuana!

      This is Armin’s apartment, Armin’s liquor, Armin’s copy of Swank, Armin’s frozen peas.

  10. What is it that could possibly make someone want to be an anti-pot activist? I lol just at the thought of it. Talk about a bunch of losers.

    1. I think a fun thing to do would be to show up at any events these guys hold, in a good heckling mood and with rotten vegetables in tow.

    2. “What is it that could possibly make someone want to be an anti-pot activist?”

      Slavers gotta slave.

    3. Pleasure is a sin. Puritans are alive and well.

      1. Shouldn’t they be wearing hooded robes?

    4. I have never understood the hard on for pot in general. I think it has always been just a culture war causality, even if why it’s illegal has changed over time.

      For the last twenty years or so I think it’s only been illegal to keep up the facade that everything considered illicit drugs should stay illegal. And they are right. Once the absolute nothing happens after pot legalization, other drugs will begin to be critically examined.

      1. It’s a control thing. They love that they can deny employment and other things based upon what people do on their own time. On the radio this morning I heard of someone proposing a bill that would require piss tests for public assistance. The hosts and callers loved it. Take that you dirty dopers! Loser! Layabouts! Stick it to the pot smokers!

        1. I heard of someone proposing a bill that would require piss tests for public assistance.

          I would favor a blood test, given by monkeys daily. Not because I give a shit what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes but anything which makes getting a government check more difficult can’t be all bad.

          1. Make it a requirement for Social Security and Medicare as well so that the geezers will finally understand that they’re on welfare, too.

            Hell, might as well make a requirement for ObamaCare.

            The problem with mandatory drug-testing welfare recipients is that eventually the State will use the precedent to demand universal drug-testing.

      2. I have never understood the hard on for pot in general.

        Splenda, the reasoning has always been the same. Negro jazz musicians smoke it and use it to lure your pure white daughters into lives of degradation.

        Reefer madness forever!

      3. “I have never understood the hard on for pot in general.”

        It is nothing more than a pretense for jackbooted thuggery and theft. Tyranny in it’s purest form, plain and simple.

        The clumsy flailing about these guys are doing is evidence of that. That, and the Hildebeast laughing while admitting it outright after having a few drinks.

        AGW is a pretense in exactly the same way and for the same reason. Those that push AGW are equally inconsistent, inaccurate and incoherent.

        The anti-gunners fall into the same camp. Three different flavors of shit.

    5. Answer: These guys:

      Ryan Donaghy, Chairman of the Board Donaghy Sales, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Ron Fowler, Immediate Past Chairman Liquid Investments, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Tom Reyes, Vice Chairman Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      David “Duke” Reyes, Chief Financial Officer Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Peter Heimark, Secretary Heimark Distributing Co. Triangle Distributing Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Terence Fox, NBWA CA Director M.E. Fox and Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Travis Markstein, NBWA CA Director Markstein Beverage Co. Sacramento; Markstein Beverage Co. San Marcos Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Cherisse Alford, CBBD PAC Chair Alford Distributing, Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts

      Jeff Jordano, Management Committee Member Pacific Beverage Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts, etc, …,etc, ..

      1. I’ve often wondered about this. There could be a few reasons that anti-drug efforts are funded by the alcohol industry:

        1. They want to keep attention off of booze and the damage it does by promoting hysterical, anti-drug propaganda. (most likely)

        2. They actually think that legal pot would threaten their business. (I don’t think this is it)

        3. The booze industry is full of hypocritical cristfags that don’t understand that they’re the biggest drug dealers in the world. (remotely possible)

        1. I thought it was (2). Pot is way more bang for the buck, and no calories. God I hate drinking.

          1. Mostly everybody can get pot now, so I think alcohol sales would largely be left unchanged.

            I could go buy some weed right now, but I will instead be heading to the liquor store for booze (now if vicodin was legal, it’s a different story). More people prefer booze.

            1. See, there is this. I used to mix it, and really, I would always want both. I never really liked weed by itself, and then I just stopped it altogether, but continued to like beer. But weed gives me an effect that is not desirable at all, unless mixed with alcohol, then it’s nice.

            2. Are you under 35?

              1. Me or Hyperion?

                I am, and have the same experience with the devil’s weed.

                1. You.

                  The farther away you get from college, the harder it is get weed.

                  (I guess if you keep going to concerts it’s okay. But people start to wonder if you’re a narc.)

                  1. I was talking to a person that would know and he said if you want to find weed, got to a drivethru and if you get someone young just ask.

                    Guy working the drivethru don’t give a shit.

                    Dude that told me this used to sell weed from a taco bell. He said when he’d move somewhere or his regular connection was out he’d head to a fast food place and ask the guy with a tattoo on his neck where to get some, and it always worked.

            3. More people prefer booze.

              I think there are a lot of factors here though. Safety, familiarity, and potentially cost.

              I discovered long ago which was actually cheaper, assuming you wanted to do more than just “enjoy a glass of wine with dinner” type thing.

              Also, I agree that it can be hard for a lot of people to get.

            4. For me it’s not a matter of how hard it is to get, but the fact that I’m subject to random testing at work. Not worth the risk.

      2. Where’d you get the list?

  11. nothing happens after pot legalization, other drugs will begin to be critically examined.

    Hawwahahawwhaaa! Yeah right, nothing happens. Things will happen. Childins and wiminz will be victimized and the media will run with it. Then puppies will die. Then the zombie apocalypse. Then da gubmint will have to act quickly, to save us.

    1. Oh, I fully expect every weed DUI and stoned mob slowly looting a 7-11 to make the news for a while, but some white girl will get herself murdered and the shine will wear off.

      1. A Cheetos riot.

  12. I said this a few months ago, and imo the evidence is only stronger now …. we are seeing a sea change. The federal govt. has done NOTHING in regards to WA and CO legalization of MJ. Imo, this will continue. Medical MJ was fought against, with raids, etc. but the attitude has changed and the momentum is going to build with more and more states legalizing.

    I realize the article is about MEDICAL MARIJUANA, not legalized marijuana in general. Medical MJ pissed off big pharma big time, and is categorically different than recreational legalized marijuana, which doesn’t have the same opposition.

    Seeing it from the streets, legalized mj is working out great so far in WA. No “highway funds” or other fed shenanigans as opined by the naysayers here have happened. People are just going about their business, smoking MJ without govt. (fed or local) intrusion.

    1. The federal govt. has done NOTHING in regards to WA and CO legalization

      Didn’t you hear Holder? He said he was going to issue a statement soon. And he means it.

      /sarcasm

      But seriously, don’t count your chickens so soon, no way the feds ‘do nothing’. They are going to do something.

      1. Like I said, I’ve made a prediction, and I realize it puts me in the minority.

        My belief is that the feds are not going to push back against our state legalizations. Maybe it’s overly optimistic, but it’s what I am predicting.

        There might be some smack talk and stuff, but I am predicting no harsh punitive measures. We will see of course.

        Cheers

    2. They’re only holding off because no one has started making a lot of money yet.
      Once there are assets to steal, the raids will commence.

      1. I accept that this is your belief. We obviously disagree, but we’ll have to wait to see.

        (btw, I hate the “wait and see” construction. I’ve always thought it should be “wait TO see” based on my understanding of grammar. I could be wrong, but it seems the infinitive is being used so it should be “wait to see” preferably)

      2. They can’t go after state-legal distributors, because there aren’t any yet. That’s why they haven’t done anything.

        Once the states get their rules out and some people actually start operating businesses under them, then we’ll see the federal jackboots get shined up for some righteous hippy-kicking.

        Just. Like. With. Medical. Marijuana. That’s my prediction, based on the belief that until you have some reason to believe things will be different this time, they won’t be.

        1. That’s exactly it. There have been no raids because there is no one to raid.
          They’ll bide their time. Wait for people to make profits and buy things like cars and real estate. Then they’ll swoop in and steal it all.

  13. Telling the truth is for suckers and facts are for losers. You don’t think this guy got were he is by not being a snake do you?

  14. Can someone explain this oft-heard canard that “today’s pot” is more potent/stong/intoxicating/deadly than the pot of yesterday?

    (Some might suggest that this means that one is getting more for one’s money, but I am sure that this is not what the drug warriors mean).

    1. They tested crap mexican weed in the 70s and compared it to primo, current weed. And came up with some ridiculous “10 times stronger!” bullshit.

      If you talk to the old heads they say the good shit in the 70s was almost as good as the good shit now, and the regular shit is the same crap. Additionally, weed in the 70s was dirt fucking cheap, so you could smoke giant joints rolled in atlas pages.

      Not that it matters, as you can very easily self-dose to your comfort level with smoked marijuana. Meaning that the effects will largely be the same.

      1. Exactly this. The banners are so amazingly ignorant and mendacious about pot. The stronger argument only makes sense if you consumed marijuana like a single dose. It’s the same stupid idea behind the move to ban pure grain, when you open a bottle of vodka you just drink the entire thing in one long gulp, right? So a bottle of pure grain is TWICE as dangerous as doing that. Because that’s the only way humans consume alcohol, right?

        1. I hardly think the “pot is stronger now” argument is limited to the banners. I’ve seen comments in High Times remarking on how pot is stronger now than in the 70’s, and High Times is not known to promote the banning of marijuana :l

        2. The implication they are trying to make is to heroin. If you ingest really pure heroin, you can overdose. They are implying that weed is the same way, which of course it is not.

          1. I guess that’s possible. I mean this banner in this article talks about “10 times as DANGEROUS” when it’s largely fallacious to talk about potency as DANGEROUSness, since pot has no LD50 value, and I’m not sure in what other way it’s “dangerous”. That argument WOULD work with an opioid, etc. but not with a drug that it’s literally impossible to OD on.

            1. Heroin that is ten times as potent as you think it is will kill you assuming you use your usual dose. Pot that is ten times as potent as you think it is will just give you a headache or a really good high or both.

              1. Headache? From potent pot? I can see you’ve never smoked the stuff.

                1. I smoked catnip once. That did just give me a headache.

              2. You MUST finish the joint. None of this sissy bong hit stuff.

      2. Yeah I would say most of the improvement in potency happened somewhere around late 70’s early 80’s. The price did go up proportuanately at that time and was similar to prices for good weed today. Went from like $35 an ounce to $35 a quater and up. But you needed a lot less and it was more intense. I’m sure some of that really good stuff was available before that but it was not common.

        1. Weed today is not any better than what you could get then for a price.

          1. Not buying that. An ounce of potent weed now could last a casual user a couple of years.

            1. I’m telling you right I was getting weed $45-$55 a quarter back in the early 80’s as good as most weed you see today for similar prices closer to the bottom range of that. I’m sure there’s probably some super weeds available in med mj shops that would blow me away but there not generally available everywhere all the time. I’m not taking about the one off stuff.

              1. I’m talking one hit your done, and there’s no way your smokin’ a whole joint good. And I can tell you nobody smoked more than I did back then.

              2. There’s stuff commonly available now where a tiny piece of it in your bong will get you nicely buzzed. The price per ounce is fairly high, but the price per high is dirt cheap.

                1. But does that bong really exist or is it a figment of your imagination like the rest of reality:)

                2. $500/oz = 4 to 6 months according to an old friend of mine from childhood.

              3. I’m telling you right I was getting weed $45-$55 a quarter back in the early 80’s

                With inflation, that would be the equivalent of $90 – $110 per quarter in today’s dollars IIRC. So the price in real dollars has dropped about in half since then by those stats.

                Weed is getting cheaper in real dollars, because the growing technology is advancing and the prohies are losing the WoD.

                1. Well Cokes a lot cheaper too. That used to be $100 a gram standard pretty much everywhere.

                  1. And it’s available. So yeah, that WOD is working awesome.

                    1. more available

    2. Can someone explain this oft-heard canard that “today’s pot” is more potent/stong/intoxicating/deadly than the pot of yesterday?

      It is, for the most part.(stronger. Deadlier? LOL, pure bullshit, it has no known toxicity level that I have ever heard of.)

      People have refined the cultivation towards more potency, and hybridization(indica/sativa crosses).

      Is that what you were looking for?

      1. But, GBN is correct also, in that the really good stuff back then was just as potent. But in general, the stuff available today via medical mj, is far superior to the common leafy crap of yesteryear.

        1. Thai stick.

        2. I think a lot of people don’t understand that there are different qualities of weed. They think the shit that’s smuggled over the border in some mexican guy’s ass is the same as boutique grown medical weed.

          1. I think the point is the AVERAGE weed you see today is stronger than the average weed sample seen in the 70’s. I haven’t seen much controversy over this from EITHER side of the debate. Sure, there was SOME weed in the 70’s that was comparable to the best we see today. But the average weed is what the stat is referring to.

            1. The weed is more potent BECAUSE it’s illegal. If it was legal, there would be square miles in the Central Valley in CA growing somewhat less potent weed, but as cheaply as possible, so the price of getting a buzz would drop towards a few pennies.

              1. I think that’s a fair analysis. There is more incentive to increase potency of an illegal substance, for a # of reasons.

                1. If it was legal, there would still be very potent weed and hash, for the same reason there’s both high-end single malt whiskey and Rainier tallboys for sale, but there would definitely be a market for cheap but still reasonably potent WalMart type weed.

                  1. Like the cheap shit you can buy at the market in Laos, as opposed to the expensive stuff ($0.50/gm) you buy from a dealer at his house.

          2. I think a lot of people don’t understand that there are different qualities of weed

            Sure, the people who know nothing about it. It would be like trying to explain the difference between Coors light and a really top quality European lager, to someone who has never drank alcohol in their life.

            1. “never drank alcohol in their life”

              what a horrible existance

    3. “Can someone explain this oft-heard canard that “today’s pot” is more potent/stong/intoxicating/deadly than the pot of yesterday?”

      Right. Here.

      http://video.pbs.org/video/1283863040

      According to the segment, no other crop on earth has been so highly developed by man. Not corn, soybeans roses, tulips. Nothing.

  15. Isn’t Kennedy the guy who drove so drunk the police had to take notice of it despite his Congressional status?

    1. That statement pretty much applies to the whole family drinky drinky, rapey, rapey. Livin’ off the govt tit for life.

      1. No, its Winer, Diner, Dinker & Dunker.

        1. That’s actually pretty good:)

  16. today’s marijuana is 10 times more dangerous than the marijuana of the ’60s”; he told Huffington Post that it’s “five to six times greater in potency and strength”; and he wrote in a U.S. News op-ed that it’s “4-5 times stronger.”

    Depending on who your dealer was in the 60s, and who they are now, these could all be true statements. It’s like they think all weed is exactly the same for a given time period.

    1. Also, what is the mathematical reasoning behind a two times proportionality between danger and potency increase.

      1. 10×0 = 0, it checks out.

  17. OT:

    Did y’all hear about how Obama’s new super-pac forgot to register a site name.

    Check out where dot net address goes.

    Awesome.

    1. The NRA has been pretty good with the new media. They tweeted throughout Feinstein’s press conference and ripped her a new one.

      1. Funny thing is, that this is just some guy; the NRA had nothing to do with it.

        Here’s an article about the guy.

  18. There are two groups of people who need to be protected from marijuana:
    (1) Kids, and (2)People who can’t handle it.

    You protect kids by getting it off the street. If it were sold like beer, employees selling to kids would lose their jobs.

    You protect people who can’t handle it by offering free treatment on demand. If we stopped sending arrestees to treatment, more beds would be available for those who ask.

    Don’t use the law to try to make EVERYONE stop. It doesn’t work. We tried that in the 1920s for alcohol, and it was a disaster.

  19. It’s a logarithmic scale of dangerousness.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.