The Shotgun Blog

« Five cannabis cases on Legal Ease with Kirk Tousaw | Main | Good riddance to Brodie »

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Smoke gets in their eyes

Earth to libertarian reefer reformers:

In March 2007, The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, declared cannabis to be more dangerous and addictive than LSD and Ecstasy. About the same time, Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council (and in 1997, the moral authority behind The Independent's liberalization campaign) unequivocally reversed his cannabis-friendliness: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."

Read Barbara Kay's entire anti-legalization column, published in today's National Post, here.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 22, 2008 in Science | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55280c5898834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Smoke gets in their eyes:

Comments

say it aint so oh my!!!!! I knew it.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-05-22 8:37:50 AM

Now we're mixing it up. :-)

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-22 9:17:14 AM

mixing it up where??? sorry

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-05-22 10:05:01 AM

I meant now we're having a real debate on marijuana. We're mixing it up.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-22 10:09:36 AM

LSD is hardly addcitive. I doubt pot is even close to as addictive to cigarettes. Even so, who cares. Coffee is addictive. And I am addicted to food, some of it is bad for me. Some of it may takes years off my life. If we don't want someone else telling us what to eat, we shouldn't want them to tell us what to smoke.

Posted by: TD | 2008-05-22 11:18:33 AM

As usual we are being pointed to an op-ed piece that is really not providing anything useful outside of an opinion (shock!).

The one article that was referenced as a "March 2007" piece in the Lancet. Now checking their online archive the only thing I could find when it comes to anything (recreational) drug related in the March issues of The Lancet is:

"Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse"

There isn't really any "prove" in this article about anything Cannabis related, it merely points out that there is more research required.

The nice thing about The Lancet website is though that it provides a link to "related articles" and it also linked (at the end of it) to this article:

"Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis"

Now, this is where our op-ed author seems to have gotten her news from, albeit it seems she isn't quite as versed with scientific language as she seems to think, the conclusion of this (rather short) article is:

"Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use COULD increase the risk of psychotic illness. FURTHER RESEARCH is needed on the effects of cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis."

So in other words, it's by far not a slam dunk deal as to the real effects of Cannabis.

But then again, once more a piece long on opinion, short on facts and severely challenged by the lack of reading comprehension by it's author.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 11:44:08 AM

I'm still trying to catch up on the findings of the Lancet study Kay refers to, but this article in the Guardian pertaining to the study is interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jul/27/drugsandalcohol.drugs

Illustrative quotation:
"The overall additional risk to cannabis smokers is small, but measurable. One in 100 of the general population have a chance of developing severe schizophrenia; that rises to 1.4 in 100 for people who have smoked cannabis."

I know this is not the only "risk" associated with smoking pot, but it seems to be one people are fixating on. But so what? But, of course, the headline would be something like: "Pot smokers 40% more likely to develop severe schizophrenia!"

Yes. Here we are:
The Daily Telegraph: "Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%"

Kay's column is an example of the same kind of hysteria.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-05-22 11:48:48 AM

Oh, that's a good one too:

"In 1970, pot contained 1% THC. Bud contains 20% THC. Imagine a glass of wine or beer with a similarly proportioned alcohol content and consider the "rush" it would provide."

There are beers and wine that do have a 20% alcohol content, Triple Bock beer for example, some fermented wines, let's not talk about Rum or Scotch which tend to be at ~40% vol. alc.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 12:01:34 PM

Snowrunner,

Good catch. The argument seems to be something like: The old pot contained 1% THC. The new pot contains 20% THC. Therefore, the new pot is 20 times more dangerous than the old pot!1!!

I like the idea that pot smokers are 40% more likely to develop schizophrenia than the average person. Do the people who are running with that finding really think they were at such a great risk of developing schizophrenia in the first place, that the 40% number is such a big deal?

Christ, going for a walk today probably makes it 100 times more likely that I'll get hit by a car than if I stayed in my office (a car could come crashing through the wall, I suppose.) I'd better not go for that walk!

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-05-22 12:15:31 PM

Terrance that is absurd. One needs to walk to get around. one need not smoke dope as a part of living.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-05-22 12:46:56 PM

Merle,

I don't need to walk RIGHT NOW. Let's stipulate that we're only talking about an additional, optional "walking adventure" that's unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, but simply enjoyable (the sun is shining, I feel like getting some fresh air, etc.)

Surely this one additional walking adventure makes it more likely that I will get hit by a car than I would be if I avoided it altogether, and stuck only to the walking that was absolutely necessary to get me from point A to point B. Is that a good reason to stay inside today, despite the sunshine and the fresh air?

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-05-22 12:51:30 PM

TD wrote: “LSD is hardly addcitive.”

Physically, no. Psychologically, yes.

TD wrote: “I doubt pot is even close to as addictive to cigarettes. Even so, who cares.”

Again, physically no, psychologically yes. Your comment suggests you haven’t even bothered to check.

TD wrote: “Coffee is addictive. And I am addicted to food, some of it is bad for me. Some of it may takes years off my life. If we don't want someone else telling us what to eat, we shouldn't want them to tell us what to smoke.”

Coffee and tobacco won’t bake your brain, and neither will alcohol unless you REALLY overdo it. If you were on a desert island, no harm, no foul. But in the city your actions affect others, and for as long as pot is illegal, you're feeding a criminal industry that actually kills and maims people. And it says a lot about the doper's mentality that he would rather bankroll violent criminal behaviour than change his lifestyle.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 12:58:10 PM

Snowrunner, it’s true that we have here only the opinions of a couple of researchers who changed their minds. That does not a watershed make, or even a truth for that matter. (Look at the number of “scientists” who believe in global warming.) I’m all for more research, but there was a lot of research conducted during the 60s and 70s and later, and pretty much all of it is ridiculed by the pro-pot activists and their sympathizers. They can't imagine how there could be a dark side to their beloved weed.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 1:02:04 PM

Snowrunner wrote: "n 1970, pot contained 1% THC. Bud contains 20% THC. Imagine a glass of wine or beer with a similarly proportioned alcohol content...[but] there are beers and wine that do have a 20% alcohol content."

Yes, and such beers and wines are usually sipped by the glass instead of guzzled by the pint. Has anyone done any research into the average dose of marijuana by weight in 1970 and today? Or do people just pretty much smoke a whole joint per session as they've always done?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 1:06:44 PM

Terrence wrote: “I don't need to walk RIGHT NOW. Let's stipulate that we're only talking about an additional, optional ‘walking adventure’ that's unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, but simply enjoyable (the sun is shining, I feel like getting some fresh air, etc.)”

Let’s not. Hypothetical arguments prove nothing.

Terrence wrote: Surely this one additional walking adventure makes it more likely that I will get hit by a car than I would be if I avoided it altogether, and stuck only to the walking that was absolutely necessary to get me from point A to point B. Is that a good reason to stay inside today, despite the sunshine and the fresh air?”

Like a lot of “free spirits,” Terrence, you lack a sense of proportion. If you smoked a joint as often as you got up to walk someplace, even if it’s just to the bathroom, the danger to you would be grave indeed. While there are no reliable records of anyone toking themselves to death in the short term, you’ll be cooking your lungs and pickling your brain but good.

If you need a reason to stop smoking pot, think of the criminals you’ll be helping put out of business. Or are you prepared to let those crooks keep operating as long as you can continue to get high?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 1:11:57 PM

"If you need a reason to stop smoking pot, think of the criminals you’ll be helping put out of business. Or are you prepared to let those crooks keep operating as long as you can continue to get high?"

If you need a reason to legalize pot, think of the criminals you'll be helping put out of business.
Or are you prepared to let those crooks keep avoiding taxes as long as you can continue to take the moral high ground?

Posted by: K Stricker | 2008-05-22 1:22:15 PM

Shane,

My post was entirely about proportion. It's the people who think that a 40% increase in risk of harm if I perform some action necessarily means the action should be avoided (or, worse, prohibited) who need a sense of proportion.

As for the danger of "cooking your lungs," I deliberately didn't talk about that one because it seems, under plausible conditions, to be one with an entirely internalized cost, even though the risks of incurring that cost seem relatively high. If I'm only cooking my lungs through my action, then there's no reason to stop me from doing so.

Insanity does seem to have external costs, insofar as crazy people have been known to export their craziness onto others. But if we're going to prohibit behavior on that basis, we have to consider not just the costs, but the risks of those costs being incurred in the first place.

Finally, I don't know why you treated my stipulation as if it were some kind of wild hypothetical. The only question I was asking is whether the increased danger of being hit by a car is a sufficient reason for me to restrict my walking to that which is absolutely necessary.

All I was stipulating is that, while some walking is necessary, some is purely optional. While such a distinction is a stipulation in my argument, I can assure you that it is not in the least hypothetical in my own situation. Sometimes I walk just to walk. Should I stop doing so because it is needlessly exposing me to risk?

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-05-22 1:31:23 PM

More fuel for the fire:
"Marijuana use has been shown to trigger and worsen psychosis in young people who are vulnerable to psychosis and may even cause psychotic illnesses in people who would not otherwise suffer from them."--B.C. Partners for Mental Health and Addictions Information. http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/cannabis-psychosis

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-05-22 4:41:27 PM

K Striker wrote: "Or are you prepared to let those crooks keep avoiding taxes as long as you can continue to take the moral high ground?"

I'm prepared to hang them. What more do you want?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 4:46:49 PM

"Coffee and tobacco won’t bake your brain, and neither will alcohol unless you REALLY overdo it."

I realize it's off topic and a diversion, but I have to disagree that alcohol is only dangerous in really big doses. It only takes a few drinks during the first trimester of pregnancy to destroy the life of a child. It might not even be the mother's fault since many don't realize they're pregnant til well into the first trimester. The only real prevention is total abstinence. I know of no such evidence that pot causes problems with the unborn, other than the fact that the mother is showing very bad judgement and will likely continue down that path.

http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html

My only reason for supporting legalization is to save money on policing, and take money away from organized crime. I wouldn't smoke it if it was legal. I don't think usage will go up at all.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-22 5:10:05 PM

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 22-May-08 12:15:31 PM

It's not even 40% higher.

The overall chance seems to be 1 in 100 (that's a 1% chance that you develope it). If you smoke pot the chance seems increase to 1.4 in 100 so your actually risk is now 1.4%, still remarkably small.

From a statistical standpoint this is probably "noise". but I do not know enough about the the data on which they based the 1%, but my guess is the 1.4 in 100 chance to develop Schizophrenia falls within their error envelope.

Also, without some other correlating data you cannot assertain that the pot / bud is actually the reason for the increase or if they just happen to look at a group that was already at a higher probablity anyway.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 5:10:05 PM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 1:02:04 PM

Too bad that the current data (that this opinion piece is based on) is not really conclusive though. The researchers seem to think there MAY be a connection, notice the MAY.

This doesn't mean this isn't true, nor does it mean it is. But to blow it out of proportion (e.g. a miniscule risk to develope Schizophrenia MAY increases slightly) and use it for political means is probably not what the researchers had in mind either.

It's seems in the hands of OpEd writers Science becomes a cocked and loaded gun.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 5:13:26 PM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 1:06:44 PM

You do know though that you won't absorb all of the THC when you smoke a joint? There is a gas exchange obviously happening in the lungs, but not at 100%.

So, unless you eat the grass the chances for you to absorb 100% of the THC content is rather low.

And usually you don't knock back the entire joint in one pull either, there are usually stages, just like drinking alcohol.

And btw, you alcohol loving people:

"It is also notable that ALCOHOL abuse is a STRONGER PREDICTOR of psychotic symptoms than regular cannabis use (BY A FACTOR OF FOUR)."

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

"Clinical and laboratory studies link alcohol and other drug use to the occurrence of psychotic experiences, but epidemiologic evidence has been lacking. In this study, the quantitative relationships between alcohol or other drug use and psychotic experiences were examined by analysis of prospective data from 4994 adult household residents sampled in a multisite survey of mental disorders in the population, the NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program. After control for sociodemographic factors and preexisting psychiatric conditions, the risk for onset of self-reported delusions or hallucinations was observed to be greater for daily users of marijuana or cocaine and for users of anxiolytics or sympathomimetics compared with nonusers. After control for daily cocaine use and alcohol disorder, the risk of onset of psychotic experiences for daily users of marijuana was double that for nonusers. Alcohol disorder in men was associated with eightfold risk and in women with threefold risk. Baseline depressive episodes, manic episodes, agoraphobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder also were associated with increased risk of onset of psychotic experiences."

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 5:20:38 PM

DP, your remark about alcohol during pregnancy is well taken, but it's common knowledge that all sorts of things, including many over-the-counter cold remedies and perhaps even coffee, are best considered off-limits by pregnant women. That noted exception is not grounds for withdrawing these products from the market entirely.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 6:20:39 PM

Terrence, your argument winds its tortuous way through five paragraphs to convey one simple idea—that risk is inevitable in life and cannot be eliminated, only managed. But risk is usually also weighed against any potential benefits. Marijuana combines the mood-altering properties of alcohol with the lung-damaging properties of tobacco and throws in paranoia, hallucinations, and a godawful stink to boot. And it remains in your system for weeks, not hours.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 6:27:28 PM

Snowrunner wrote: “Too bad that the current data (that this opinion piece is based on) is not really conclusive though. The researchers seem to think there MAY be a connection, notice the MAY. This doesn't mean this isn't true, nor does it mean it is. But to blow it out of proportion (e.g. a miniscule risk to develope Schizophrenia MAY increases slightly) and use it for political means is probably not what the researchers had in mind either.”

True researchers are careful to hedge their language in this manner, because no proof is ever 100%. However, numerous studies conducted over decades have arrived at the conclusion that marijuana is not the harmless herb its advocates insist it is.

Snowrunner wrote: “It's seems in the hands of OpEd writers Science becomes a cocked and loaded gun.”

Science is like religion. It commands respect, and unscrupulous opportunists are often quick to use it is a springboard to launch their own political agendas. Like that isn’t the oldest trick in the book.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 6:32:42 PM

Snowrunner wrote: “You do know though that you won't absorb all of the THC when you smoke a joint? There is a gas exchange obviously happening in the lungs, but not at 100%. So, unless you eat the grass the chances for you to absorb 100% of the THC content is rather low.”

I’m willing to bet that the coefficient of absorption is the same whether it’s 1% or 20% THC, though. All other things being equal, you’re still getting 20 times the product. This is a red herring—and a blatant one at that.

Snowrunner wrote: “And usually you don't knock back the entire joint in one pull either, there are usually stages, just like drinking alcohol.”

So your argument is that if you smoke the whole joint over half an hour instead of five minutes, that will moderate the dose and the effects thereof? Even though it takes days (and sometimes weeks) for the marijuana to be completely excreted from your system, and you can be impaired without knowing it for up to 24 hours?

Snowrunner wrote: “It is also notable that ALCOHOL abuse is a STRONGER PREDICTOR of psychotic symptoms than regular cannabis use (BY A FACTOR OF FOUR).”

Drinking alcohol in moderation is not considered abuse. Taking marijuana in any quantity is considered abuse, and regular use is definitely considered abuse. Another red herring netted and gutted. And after all that effort, it wasn’t even very tasty. Next time, throw me a salmon.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 6:41:59 PM

Shane- I realize it's not all that productive throwing comparisons around. I hate booze about as much as you hate pot, that's just the way it is. We both know that neither of them is all that healthy.

Where I get confused is trying to figure out why one is legal and abundantly available, while the other will land you in jail for possesing it. We spend millions every year studying things that mean very little to society. Why not put together a commision to study this issue?

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-22 6:53:23 PM

What's to study, DP? We already know that booze, in moderation, is harmless. The problem with comparing it to pot is that, unlike booze, there really is no "safe" minimum you can do. Nobody takes one drag on the joint and snuffs it until the next day (were that in fact the norm, I could almost accept it). One has to draw the line somewhere; if not at pot, where, and why?

The whole issue is academic anyway, because even if Canada does legalize pot, it will remain illegal in most of the rest of the world (including the U.S.), meaning that the dope growers will continue to flourish in this land of misguided tolerance. And if we do nothing to curb it, we risk incurring the wrath of those other countries.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-22 7:25:31 PM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 6:32:42 PM

Which studies? The Lancet up until this blurp was activly promoting the idea that it was "harmless" based on all the studies conducted. After this study came out they say: 'Well, maybe there is something else, we should take a closer look."

What do you know that The Lancet doesn't?

------------------------------

And yet, you happely do it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 10:05:59 PM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 6:41:59 PM

Possible, but that doesn't mean people smoke as much. Are you drinking Scotch by the wine glass full?

------------------------

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 6:41:59 PM

I can't tell you how people smoke, but most people don't drink like this and I would bet most people don't smoke like this either.

---------------

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 22-May-08 6:41:59 PM

Not at all. Because you seem not to have read the study, it is based on DAILY smoking of MJ and so is alcohol. The conclusion by this study seems to be that ANY abuse is a precursor to Schizophrenia and that alcohol is a way stronger predictor.

BTW, the "red herring" you claim to have proudly caught and gutted was a study done by people who know way more about the subjecct than you or I.

Enjoy your wine.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-22 10:09:46 PM

Shane- You're wrong to assume that drinkers are capable of moderation while pot smokers are out all out of control stoners. It isn't like that. Thousands of Canadians use pot in moderation and know their limits. They learn it the same way drinkers do.

I remember in grade 9 drinking too much at noon and having to hide out in the locker room. I learned my limits, and it didn't happen any more. In grade 10 I got way too stoned and made an ass of myself in algebra class. After that it was 2 puffs only during school hours.

I quit drugs by age 20, but the booze took way longer to quit. I've worked with a few guys who'd sneak off and have a couple of tokes during the day. I never caught them at it but heard about it from other people. I always thought I'd be able to notice, but obviously these guys didn't exhibit any clues they were high.

I can't imagine this sort of thing only happens in the oilpatch. It would likely shock even me to know just how many taxi drivers, construction workers, cops, retail clerks, stay home moms, doctors, teachers, lawyers, news anchors, and on, and on, take the odd toke before the 5 o'clock whistle blows. They learn to hide the smell just like alcoholics learn to mask their breath with aftershave, mints, gum, etc.

Pretty amazing that such a wide spectrum of society would risk criminal prosecution for the benefits they receive from a few puffs. It just goes to show that the police have their own code when it comes to laying charges. If someone is behaving normally and not causing any trouble, it's unlikely the cops would arrest him for pot possesion. There have to be some extenuating circumstances before charges are laid.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-22 10:29:23 PM

Shane, i feel sorry for you. When did a pot smoker hurt you? I on the other hand have been challenged to a fight in a bar on more the on occasion.

You really need to read both sides of the argument, educate yourself.

Here is how we got to this place today...

It started out in the 30's There were men that saw a product (hemp) that once a automatic harvester was invented, would make hemp a far cheaper solution, for fiber (particularity newspaper). If you look up the name William Randolph Hearst and hemp you will see that he on purpose used a obscure mexican nickname called marijuana because it sounded mexican. The reason for this important name is so he could start to play on peoples fear of the time (and still today) of minorities. Stories of marijuana crazed Latinos, and black men raping and killing white women were suddenly front page news. People were scared and wanted action, so the states started passing anti "marijuana" laws.

Not to be out done and needing to employ law enforcement personal with out a job because alcohol was no longer illegal. The federal government stated up the the initial organization that we now know today as the DEA. One of it's first jobs was to send out agents to watch the progress of this automatic hemp harvester (near Chicago, that hot spot for Mexican demon weed.LOL) As the harvester was reported nearing completion, a law was rushed through the quickest route possible. Even the medical community (that sent their Representative to the hearings to convince them that they should not ban this plant) remarked that they had just learned that marijuana was cannabis (or hemp). Not exactly educating the public very well are they?? The law passed, and hemp was made unviable as a crop. The very next month, (due to lag in printing times) popular mechanics front page store story was about the harvester making hemp the next billion dollar crop.

So we have spent the next 80 years locking up minorities, poor people, and people that just prefer cannabis to alcohol. We have armed gangs roaming the streets, undercover police, dirty cops, unregulated product inspection, and dealers willing to sell to your kids. We have thrown BILLIONS of dollars in to police and court services yet the price/purity of cannabis continues to improve/get worse (depending on your opinion LOL) Most people today would say there city is less safe today. The main reason for this fact is because of drug laws with the ironic name the controlled substance act (even though they have actually given up all their control of said substances)

Now please tell me how the kids in Holland (where cannabis is sold in shops) are FAR LESS likely then Canadian, or American children, to smoke cannabis. Why does this simple fact always not make the news???

In the mean while we have cut down millions of acres of forest just to read the news papers everyday. Polluted the rivers with their pulp making chlorine chemicals, and invented the logging practice of clear cutting. So now we have increasing co2 levels in the air and less mature plants to absorve the co2 that they use to make oxygen.

So forgive me if your lack of knowledge dosen't piss me off a bit. It is ignorant people like you that are keeping this insane war on drugs going. This war is KILLING PEOPLE so you can feel good about how smart you are.

Please wiki "hemp", and Google "why is marijuana illegal" and educate yourself.

Posted by: freedom | 2008-05-23 12:20:03 AM

Funny, isn’t it, Freedom, how “progressives” always play the ignorance card, denouncing their opponents as uneducated knuckle-draggers? Their politics are so much a part of their identity that they’ve made a huge emotional investment in them, and this emotionalism colours their every word, thought, and deed. It is “progressives” who march in the streets, burn people in effigy, throw paint on fur coats, trash frankenfood labs, and in general act like the mindless barbarians they accuse their counterparts of being. Classic projection betokening delusional mania and a massive inferiority complex. Now then.

I am not interested in zany conspiracy theories and “the path not taken.” They explain everything while proving nothing. A useful device for fiction, but not for policy-making. The word marijuana is of genuine Spanish origin; it’s not a pseudo-Hispanic invention of some artery-hardened media baron. And anti-marijuana legislation, particularly in the Islamic world, dates back to the Middle Ages. No one thought to outlaw its use in America until the 1930s because until then no one had ever even heard of it. Hemp was for making rope, not for smoking, and most came from the Philippines. (And Manila hemp is not even true hemp.)

Moreover, the crime rate today is much lower than it was in the 1930s. Don’t forget that this was the “public enemy” era, with such larger-than-life criminals as Frank Nitti, Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, and a host of others. The murder rate today is not only the lowest in 25 years but lower than the average rate for the entire 20th century. Most crime today, apart from property crime and white-collar crime, is the province of gangs. And these usually prey on each other, not the public at large.

Oh, and you potheads really should get off your Amsterdam kick. If the laws there suit you so much better, I suggest you move there—if they’ll accept you, which I doubt. Comparing Holland to Canada doesn’t wash, because the urban/rural dynamic and cultural and historical backgrounds are completely different. Even with Holland’s hash cafes, over sixty percent of the pot produced in that country goes to the black market—now, why does THAT little factoid never appear in pro-pot literature? Or the fact that outside Holland, pot is illegal in pretty much the entire world? So even if Canada legalized it, we would still have a black market for export—and that this export market comprises the bulk of B.C. production?

Frankly, I don’t care if you’re pissed off. Feelings are like assholes—everybody has them and nobody else likes to look at them. How you choose to emotionally respond to something is in no way binding on me. And I’m not going to feel guilty about the killing in this so-called “war” when the only killing is being done by criminals. You, however, having chosen to support the killing rather than switch to something legal, are in no position—absolutely none—to resort to moral outrage. Progressives decry blood for oil, but are more than happy to accept blood for pot. You grease your lifestyle with the blood of murdered victims. Oh, what a fine specimen of humanity are you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-23 8:56:59 AM

Actually, DP, you’re the one who’s wrong. In most social drinking contexts, you don’t drink enough to get intoxicated. And depending on how long dinner lasts, you may actually be safe (and legal) to drive at the end. Try that with a joint. Just because your buds didn’t exhibit any visible signs of intoxication doesn’t mean they weren’t impaired. People who are over the legal driving limit, but not by much, are hard to spot too.

Keep in mind that most people don’t work in the oilpatch. They work indoors. Hiding the stink of marijuana is difficult outside and pretty much impossible inside. You therefore have to be pretty stupid to toke on the job. We have a doper in our 90-unit, four-storey condominium and his drug of choice stinks up the building from cellar to attic. Unless you’ve got some sort of active ventilation system that evacuates somewhere far away from people, it simply isn’t likely you’ll be able to get away with it.

As for the cops being reluctant to lay charges—well, if we didn’t have so many old hippies on the bench who simply wink conspiratorially at the dopers and send them off with a token fine—if that much—maybe they might actually bother to fill out the paperwork.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-23 9:04:26 AM

Snowrunner wrote: “Which studies? The Lancet up until this blurp was activly promoting the idea that it was "harmless" based on all the studies conducted. After this study came out they say: 'Well, maybe there is something else, we should take a closer look." What do you know that The Lancet doesn't?”

Oops, I forgot—the Lancet is the only publication ever to write about marijuana, ever. Are you being intentionally thick?
------------------------------
Snowrunner wrote: “And yet, you happely do it [use science as a springboard to launch my own political agenda].”

There’s a difference between junk science and true science, Snowrunner. And use your dictionary--nothing detracts from a piece like bad spelling.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-23 9:08:13 AM

Swowrunner wrote: “Possible, but that doesn't mean people smoke as much. Are you drinking Scotch by the wine glass full?”

Actually, I’m a rum man.

Swowrunner wrote: “I can't tell you how people smoke, but most people don't drink like this and I would bet most people don't smoke like this either.”

So your argument is based on the fact that you don’t know jack. Hmm.

Swowrunner wrote: “Not at all. Because you seem not to have read the study, it is based on DAILY smoking of MJ and so is alcohol. The conclusion by this study seems to be that ANY abuse is a precursor to Schizophrenia and that alcohol is a way stronger predictor.”

You’re still skirting the definition of what constitutes “abuse.” You can have a glass or two of wine a day with no ill effect. You can even drive after. Try that with a joint, or even a portion thereof.

Swowrunner wrote: “BTW, the "red herring" you claim to have proudly caught and gutted was a study done by people who know way more about the subjecct than you or I.”

Did they say how much alcohol would be considered “abuse”? Or did they just mention "daily" alcohol use? As they say, the devil’s in the details.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-23 9:14:23 AM

P.S. And the answer to your question is yes; I do drink rum by the wine glass full.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-23 3:44:42 PM

LOL

once again know your facts... the middle east is a gold mine for cannabis LOL!!!! so much for the laws there too i guess.

I did not apply that you where stupid, on the contrary you stick me as quite intelligent. Unfortunately i can not believe that some one so educated could possible recommend that i switch to a product that is worse for my health... No thanks you have at that rum...

Since you seem to like to post multiple times i can only see that you are not interested in a informed discussion, but to inflame people like me... i wish you the best in your alcohol fueled life. Notice i did not try to forbid you from anything that you enjoy...

just stay the hell away from me with your holy then thou morals. Those morals are getting innocent people killed, not me. If you can't see that then there is no hope for you.

But i will tell you this. You will NEVER win this drug war... NEVER!!!

you know why???

Because people that want them, want them MORE then you could EVER want them gone. Plain and simple as that.

puff...puff...pass...

chill dude.

Posted by: freedom | 2008-05-24 1:02:27 AM

Freedom wrote: “once again know your facts... the middle east is a gold mine for cannabis LOL!!!! so much for the laws there too i guess.”

Got numbers to back that up?

Freedom wrote: “I did not apply that you where stupid, on the contrary you stick me as quite intelligent.”

Thanks—but the words are “imply,” not “apply,” and “strike,” not “stick.”

Freedom wrote: “Unfortunately i can not believe that some one so educated could possible recommend that i switch to a product that is worse for my health... No thanks you have at that rum...”

Let’s see. Alcohol in moderation does no harm to the health whatever, although depending on your metabolism it may thicken your waistline a smidgen. You’d have to guzzle it like water over a period of years to do any real damage. On the other hand, toking a joint a day for a year will damage your lungs more than smoking a pack a day for eleven years. Pot erodes cognitive function, short-term memory, drive (all sorts), and pretty much turns you into a useless object.

Freedom wrote: “Since you seem to like to post multiple times i can only see that you are not interested in a informed discussion, but to inflame people like me... i wish you the best in your alcohol fueled life.”

A discussion generally consists of the same person opening his mouth more than once, Freedom. Otherwise it’s called a one-liner.

Freedom wrote: “Notice i did not try to forbid you from anything that you enjoy...”

Which thing does not make you right and me wrong.

Freedom wrote: “just stay the hell away from me with your holy then thou morals.”

The difference between your morals and mine is that I have some.

Freedom wrote: “Those morals are getting innocent people killed, not me. If you can't see that then there is no hope for you.”

Actually, it’s people like you who fuel demand for the product that are getting innocent people killed. If people didn’t buy it, criminals wouldn’t break the law to grow and sell it.

Freedom wrote: “But i will tell you this. You will NEVER win this drug war... NEVER!!! you know why??? Because people that want them, want them MORE then you could EVER want them gone. Plain and simple as that.”

By your own words you have just proven the truth of my words: It is potheads like you who create the demand that makes illegal drug trafficking so lucrative. The blood is on your hands, not mine. You want what you want and let the graves multiply, you’re totally cool with it is long as you get your tokes. Maybe we should hang you along with the traffickers.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-24 4:01:08 PM

I understand that you're upset because some guy is stinking up your apartment complex Shane. That's why I haven't lived in an apartment for decades. Maybe you're going through a separation or some other rough period in your life, but I urge you to get into more stable living conditions before you go off the deep end. The last time I lived in a place like that in Edmonton, I found out there was a Beatles/Harry Krishna/Satanic cult next door. To make matters worse, one of the members was the manager of the complex.

I've been thinking that Shane should have a cage match with Grant Brown. There was a hilarious skit on SCTV a few years ago featuring a boxing match with Julia Child(John Candy) vs Mr. Rogers(Martin Short). I watched that so many times the VHS tape finally wore out. Eugene Levy played Howard Cosell. Julia was really kicking Mr. Rogers until he hit her with a hand puppet.

I'm waiting patiently for Grant to have me removed from the site. Every time I hit "post" I expect my computer to burst into flames. I've decided there's no point trying to have a debate with a number of the posters, so I might as well have some sport.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-24 4:46:39 PM

No worries, DP, nothing rough to speak of apart from the stress of raising two hyperactive toddlers (both boys). As it happens we’re planning to move, to a detached house if possible, within about a year. At least I still have all of my brains cells in spite of the rum, which is more than I can say for Freedom. Pro-pot advocates are like abortionists—they have the facts, but don’t care, because what THEY want is so much more important. And then they have the nerve to blame others for the sorrow. It is a sad commentary on the welfare state that such non- and semi-contributing riffraff has been allowed to live as long as it has.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-24 9:51:51 PM

I had 3 boys in diapers at once Shane (We had twins). It might have driven me to drink if I hadn't been too busy. Enjoy it, it's over way too soon.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-24 11:08:42 PM

So you want to string me up now huh??

nice...

you know it was not all that long ago that the tables were turned....

How did alcohol prohibition work out for ya?? my grandfather who is in his 90's still remembers it...

I am sure you would not want me (using a completely legal substance at the time) asking for you and your alcohol pushing thugs to be strung up would we???

Our point our view of the world is shaped by a very small view of history. Values change all the time. Don't be so harsh in your judgments because it can come back to harm ya. I believe the cia word for it is "blow back" Treat people bad enough and eventually they will rise of against you. This is not a threat, but a fact.

Now lets see, we win the drug war (lol) then what do the same people need to bitch about... ohh well there is always tobacco! GONE.... Oh lets not forget fast food... it's bad for ya... GONE... alcohol... well we learned from our failures the fist time, so time to give that up too. On and on it goes....

This will make us a safer society... happier i am not so sure. I am sure though that you will be a good little boy, and comply. I on the other hand will be marching on the streets fighting to get your RIGHTS back.

So sting me up if you want, but damn it i will die a happy man in search of my rights and freedoms.

p.s.

oh and i live on a horse farm estate. so much for those lazy stoners...guess i just got lucky eh? good luck getting out of the apartment... they can drive ya to drink... lol

Posted by: freedom | 2008-05-25 2:46:26 AM

Freedom wrote: “So you want to string me up now huh?? nice...”

Remember, I said “maybe.” :-)

Freedom wrote: “you know it was not all that long ago that the tables were turned....How did alcohol prohibition work out for ya?? my grandfather who is in his 90's still remembers it...”

And rest assured I would not have gone to extraordinary lengths to procure a then-illegal product that is essentially a harmless distraction. I like it, and like it enough to have voted against Prohibition and worked for its repealment had I been there at the time, but not enough to break the law for it. Makes me look like a class act compared to tokers, doesn’t it?

Freedom wrote: “I am sure you would not want me (using a completely legal substance at the time) asking for you and your alcohol pushing thugs to be strung up would we???”

You’re assuming that I am as much of an outlaw and rebel at heart as you are. As indicated above, I’m not. For that matter, most people aren’t. At least not the ones who have managed to grow up.

Freedom wrote: “Our point our view of the world is shaped by a very small view of history. Values change all the time. Don't be so harsh in your judgments because it can come back to harm ya. I believe the cia word for it is "blow back" Treat people bad enough and eventually they will rise of against you. This is not a threat, but a fact.”

Keeping illegal a psychotropic substance with no proven medical use hardly amounts to trampling your fundamental rights, Freedom.

Freedom wrote: “Now lets see, we win the drug war (lol) then what do the same people need to bitch about... ohh well there is always tobacco! GONE.... Oh lets not forget fast food... it's bad for ya... GONE... alcohol... well we learned from our failures the fist time, so time to give that up too. On and on it goes....”

Ah, yes, moral equivalency, a favourite tactic of the embittered partisan. Marijuana is much less predictable or safe than either marijuana or tobacco and crosses the line, which of necessity must be drawn somewhere. Most people who like pot say they would still like “hard” drugs illegal, but why? And then there’s the fact that people who smoke pot are far more likely to switch to those drugs in the first place. Hmm…

Freedom wrote: “This will make us a safer society... happier i am not so sure. I am sure though that you will be a good little boy, and comply. I on the other hand will be marching on the streets fighting to get your RIGHTS back.”

Freedom wrote: “You’d march in the streets to protest a cat chasing a mouse. For activist types like yourself, the object is not the cause, but the struggle associated with it. You’re not happy unless you’re miserable and up in someone’s face.”

Freedom wrote: “So sting me up if you want, but damn it i will die a happy man in search of my rights and freedoms.”

Um, where in the Charter does it say you have a right to get stoned? Or to get stoned on the blood of others? You have consistently avoided the question of the blood on your hands because of your product of choice, going so far as to shift the blame to ME. That’s like blaming those who oppose prostitution for the miserable existence of streetwalkers. They, and to a lesser extent the johns who provide the market, are to blame for that one. People who defy the law without any good reason to do so and thus come to grief have no one but themselves to blame.

Freedom wrote: “oh and i live on a horse farm estate. so much for those lazy stoners...guess i just got lucky eh? good luck getting out of the apartment... they can drive ya to drink... lol”

No offence, but grooming horses and cleaning out stables doesn’t require the same mental alertness and quick reflexes as driving or operating equipment. And let’s face it—horses basically drive themselves, so they’re the perfect vehicle for you. But I’m betting you don’t get Mr. Ed stoned before you take him out for a ride.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-25 10:13:49 AM

Shane wrote: "Marijuana is much less predictable or safe than either marijuana or tobacco and crosses the line..."

Sorry, that should read: "Marijuana is much less predictable or safe than either ALCOHOL or tobacco and crosses the line..." My bad.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-25 10:58:02 AM

Shane "Reefer Madness Got a Bad Rap" Matthews makes all sorts of grand claims about the dangers of the demon weed (and the relative safety of his intoxicant of choice.) Scientific studies, however, seem to indicate that, per usual, Shane is full o' shit.
In particular, there are a string of studies that indicate that marijuana does not impair driving in any significant way and indeed, may improve road safety because stoned drivers are more cautious.
While that doesn't make driving while stoned a good idea - even NORML, which advocates for reform of marijuana law, takes the position that you shouldn't toke and drive, it does expose Matthews's prolix bleating for the hysterical nonsense it is.
The following is a link to a survey of relevant studies, including several conducted for our Senate and the UK House of Lords, compiled by NORML.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-25 12:08:47 PM

"In particular, there are a string of studies that indicate that marijuana does not impair driving in any significant way and indeed, may improve road safety because stoned drivers are more cautious."

In my expeience I can say definately yes and no.

It does make most people cautious, but that's not always a good thing. I've ended up coming off a ramp too slowly and almost causing a pileup. That was a long long time ago. I'd say it's about 90% as dangerous as driving while slightly drunk. Of course nothing is as dangerous as someone who's totally pissed.

There are some rare cases of people becoming more aggressive when they smoke pot. They don't suffer the same physical impairment as drinkers, but they make up for that with some amazing bravado. All in all, pot smoking is a no no when driving or operating machinery. A simple sobriety test would be need to replace possesion laws.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-25 12:22:27 PM

Another thing I've been wondering, how much did it cost to put the breathalizer into service? I bet it wasn't cheap. A system to measure THC levels might be expensive too, but it would end the argument over controlling pot impaired drivers.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-25 1:06:31 PM

dp,
Unlike blood-alcohol levels, THC levels do not prove intoxication. Indeed, tests show that THC can be found in the bloodstream as long as 25 days after consumption. There are some studies that show a possible link between THC levels in saliva and intoxication, but we're a long way from setting anything like a .08 standard.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-25 1:21:47 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Smoke gets in their eyes

TrackBack

Comments