No sooner had posted about reefer madness myths than Barbra Kay published this piece of crap. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=530488&" title="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=530488&" target="_blank"http://www.nationalpost.com/o...;p=1 So I cannibalized much of the post, added a few other comments and I fired off the following letter to Kay.

Potent pot is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151" title="http://www.slate.com/id/2074151" target="_blank"http://www.slate.com/id/20741...
(Money quote as for as you are concerned: “As to Walters' claim that all those '70s hippies were getting goofy on the 1-percent stuff—the basis for his 30-fold increase claim—the number lacks credibility. No one smokes 1-percent dope, at least not more than once. You make rope with it. The industrial hemp initiative approved by state election officials in South Dakota this year defined psychoactively worthless hemp as a plant with a "THC content of 1 percent or less.")
Only the Independent bought in and the Guardian took care of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/dru...,,2041749,00.html The Guardian rebutted such nonsense in its Bad Science column.


There is exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The UN Drug Control Programme has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, the highest 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized resin, six from Morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.”

However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological affects of consuming 1 “chemically supercharged” joint, as various US attorneys like to say, versus x number of “dad’s joints” would be no different if the amount of THC consumed is the same. As for consumption, just as people do not drink the same volume of gin as beer, the higher the THC level in pot the less people consume. Hence, ironically more potent pot may be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School concurs, so does Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and so does UCLA’s Mark Kleiman.


Comparing marijuana strength through the years is "absurd," according to Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor at Harvard Medical School , who consults patients, many of them elderly, on using marijuana to relieve pain and nausea. "The whole issue on potency is a red herring," he said. "The more potent the pot, the less you use. "Grinspoon said that studies have shown -- and his patients' experiences confirm -- that marijuana users smoke until they feel high -- or, as he prefers to say, "achieve symptom relief," -- and then stop, whether it took two hits or an entire joint. In this regard, today's higher-potency pot is no more "dangerous" than the bunk weed of yesteryear, he said.
http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/printthread.php?Board=wwwpottv&" title="http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/printthread.php?Board=wwwpottv&" target="_blank"http://forums.cannabisculture...;main=374623&type=pos t


unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less – the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer – and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19416/" title="http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19416/" target="_blank"http://www.alternet.org/drugr...


The original ONDCP "Facts" correspond with estimates from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman that marijuana has roughly tripled in potency. Kleiman also notes that there is no evidence at all that marijuana is getting kids more stoned than it used to. Writing on his own blog, Kleiman cites the respected annual University of Michigan study that asks respondents about levels of intoxication. Writes Kleiman: "The line for marijuana is flat as a pancake. Kids who get stoned today aren't getting any more stoned than their parents were. That ought to be the end of the argument." Kleiman points out that the average joint is now half its former size, so even if kids are smoking more powerful pot, they are smoking less of it. " 'Not your father's pot' is a great way to convince [boomer parents] to ignore their own experience, personal orvicarious, and believe what they are told to believe."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151" title="http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151" target="_blank"http://www.slate.com/?id=2074...

That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. As Martha Hall Findlay has noted, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught. Your son made the same argument. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/ archive/2007/06/26/jonath an-kay-on-marijuana-polic y-and-a-rare-miss-for-the -globe-and-mail-s-peggy-w ente.aspx" title="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/ archive/2007/06/26/jonath an-kay-on-marijuana-polic y-and-a-rare-miss-for-the -globe-and-mail-s-peggy-w ente.aspx" target="_blank"http://network.nationalpost.c...

Finally, the distinction between potent pot and your dad’s marijuana is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today’s marijuana is truly different in kind from “dads marijuana”, would it be ok to legalize “dad’s marijuana”, i.e., low potency pot?

Gateway Drug

Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave raise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal.

However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast relationship being more than mere correlation.

That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana’s pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana’s illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged blackmarket relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway. Ironically the gateway drug theory has been turned on its head and used as reason for legalizing the drug. The Canadian Senate employed the new and improved version of the gateway argument as a reason for legalizing the drug.

A recent adjunct is the argument that marijuana illegality can lead serve as a gateway to criminality in so far has proven to be a tempting to teenagers what to make an easy buck serving as low level dealers.


Potent Pot

Potent pot is more is more Drug Czar myth than reality. http://www.slate.com/id/2074151" title="http://www.slate.com/id/2074151" target="_blank"http://www.slate.com/id/20741... Only the Independent bought in and the Guardian took care of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/dru...,,2041749,00.html

The Guardian rebutted such nonsense in its Bad Science column.

There is exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The UN Drug Control Programme has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, the highest 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized resin, six from Morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.”

Comparing marijuana strength through the years is "absurd," according to Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor at Harvard Medical School , who consults patients, many of them elderly, on using marijuana to relieve pain and nausea. "The whole issue on potency is a red herring," he said. "The more potent the pot, the less you use."Grinspoon said that studies have shown -- and his patients' experiences confirm -- that marijuana users smoke until they feel high -- or, as he prefers to say, "achieve symptom relief," -- and then stop, whether it took two hits or an entire joint. In this regard, today's higher-potency pot is no more "dangerous" than the bunk weed of yesteryear, he said.

unlike the speculative claims of increased danger, peer-reviewed scientific data show that higher potency marijuana reduces health risks. Just as with alcohol, people who smoke marijuana generally consume until they reach the desired effect, then stop. So people who smoke more potent marijuana smoke less – the same way most drinkers consume a smaller amount of vodka than they would of beer – and incur less chance of smoking-related damage to their lungs.

The original ONDCP "Facts" correspond with estimates from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman that marijuana has roughly tripled in potency. Kleiman also notes that there is no evidence at all that marijuana is getting kids more stoned than it used to. Writing on his own blog, Kleiman cites the respected annual University of Michigan study that asks respondents about levels of intoxication. Writes Kleiman: "The line for marijuana is flat as a pancake. Kids who get stoned today aren't getting any more stoned than their parents were. That ought to be the end of the argument." Kleiman points out that the average joint is now half its former size, so even if kids are smoking more powerful pot, they are smoking less of it. " 'Not your father's pot' is a great way to convince [boomer parents] to ignore their own experience, personal orvicarious, and believe what they are told to believe."

“A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don’t find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won’t publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that’s hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women.

"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the '50s,"

“ When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell.”

Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.

Drug warrior Margret Kopala is at it again. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/st ory.html?id=0a9856bb-4389-4c1 5-8491-68798147f68e&" title="http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/st ory.html?id=0a9856bb-4389-4c1 5-8491-68798147f68e&" target="_blank"http://www.canada.com/ottawac...;p=1

Experienced advocates and demonstrators all, the purposes of these convoluted
funding arrangements aren't clear but it wouldn't be the first time the courts were used to advance an agenda with camouflaged taxpayer dollars footing the bill.

It is all part and parcel of the twisted logic, moral gymnastics and legal quagmire that has engulfed Insite since its inception in 2003.

In Alberta, the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act allows parents to commit their adolescents for compulsory treatment while outreach programs and drug courts offer compassion but demand accountability.

As for addictive drugs with purported medicinal properties, they should undergo accepted legal and scientific protocols before being marketed or prescribed, protocols circumvented by medicinal marijuana that now need correction.

we must remove the harm in harm reduction -- a fatalistic, patronizing, no-hope approach that sanitizes, normalizes and facilitates continued use of drugs.

Yet another poll shows that Canadians want to see Marijuana legalized. This time 53% of Canadians told Angus Reid they want to see marijuana legalized. The poll found little regional variation and nor any difference among men and women. 53% of men support legalization and 53% of women do.

http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.05.12_Drugs.pdf" title="http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/2008.05.12_Drugs.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.angus-reid.com/upp...

Last election the NDP took 7.5% of the popular vote in Quebec. Now polls consistently show the NDP at around 12% in Quebec. In other words, the NDP is up 4 to 5% in province with about a quarter of Canada’s voters. However, recent polls put the NDP below what they were in 2006 nationally and hardly any poll since 2006 has showed the NDP rising above what the obtained in 2006. Ergo the NDP is bleeding voters elsewhere. This is certainly the case in greater Toronto. The NDP is loosing support both to the Liberals and the Greens there.

Toronto Center and Willowdale were not flukes; they are the future. The NDP is going to take it on the chin in the 905 and 416. If there was an election this spring chances are Layton might keep his seat, albeit barely, but Chow, Marston, Charlton and Nash will loose their seats.

Now, the political spectrum has never been a particularly fool proof way of understanding politics in Canada and this is especially so with regard to the western provinces. The NDP and Liberals are not fighting for the same voters there; the NDP and Conservatives are. That is what makes the following NDP “game plan” all the more baffling. “Damaging Harper and the Conservatives on ethical issues like the Cadman mess mainly helps the Grits, and that’s not in our gameplan.” Before the arrival of the Reform Party, the NDP was where protest voters parked their votes. Damaging the conservative parties on ethical issues has historically been a very good game plan for the NDP and did someone forget remind Layton that the seat Dona Cadman is running for is held up the NDP’s Penny Priddy. The Liberals stand no chance of winning Surrey North.

The NDP seems to have seen the writing on the wall and have realized that while they are bleeding support to the Greens in urban centers and also loosing support to Liberals inside in greater Toronto they are holding their own in rural and small town Canada. To this end, rather than minimizing Conservative scandal or using it as a means of broaching other subjects (e.g., NAFTA in case of the Obama leak), they have started to play them up. They have also not followed the Liberals in backing carbon tax that is bound to be unpopular with rural and small town voters.

So long as NDP continue on this track, there is reason to believe to uneasy truce between the Liberals and NDP could develop that could prepare the groundwork for a Liberal NDP minority government by doing two things. The first is by forging ties between the two parties and the second by developing a strategy to pull the Conservatives into different directions.

The key is get NDP supporters at this junction in time to recognize that there are other measures of success other than just the number of seats one wins and to realize that even though the NDP won 29 seats in the 2006, the 39th parliament has not been a successful one for the party. This involves looking back and realizing that at its best, the NDP has provided an invaluable service to all Canadians; it widened the Canadian political debate and did so by historically being the most ideological of the major political parities. Parties concerned with the “art of the possible” are not infusing the political debate with new ideas with little chance of furthering their party at the polls. They are reactive. However, the catch 22 of such pragmatism is that such parties concede some of the field to those who are not so cautious. To use an evolutionary metaphor, the politically brave and ideologically pure help determine the policy areas to be discussed; the powerful and pragmatic determine what policies get accepted. Historically, the NDP were able to get “results” for Canadians in two ways. One, they played king maker in several Liberal minority governments. Two, they were able to achieve successes at a distance by continually infusing the political arena with new policy ideas. Either way the Liberal party benefited. By infusing the political arena with ideas from a leftist perspective, the NDP shifted the political debate in Canada leftward, leaving Liberals and not the Progressive Conservatives as the “natural governing party of Canada”.

Climate change is not the most pressing issue facing Canada. Hell, Canada is one of the few countries that may actually benefit from climate change. (The tree line is moving north etc). Immigration, for example, is a more pressing concern for Canada than is climate change. Canada is one of the oldest countries (39.7). However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. The ability of Canada to sustain its social programs will be greatly comprised.

Part of the problem is that average immigrant to Canada (37.1) is not much younger than the average Canadian (39.7). The situation is akin to baling out a boat by moving water from one part of the boat to another.

Major changes to the immigration system are needed. Two come immediately to mind. Canada needs to limit family unification to spouses and dependents under 18 and it needs to rework of the points system so that more emphasis is placed on youth. The average immigrant to Canada has to get younger. Canada also needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed. The earning power of immigrants continues to fall and this will eventually affect our ability to attract immigrants to Canada as well as the affect the general population’s willingness to accept them. To that end, Canada needs to do a better job ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized, but it also needs to place a greater emphasis on the ability to speak English or French and it needs to limit is exposure to immigrants who are the least likely to speak English or French and many of are the most likely to drift into illegal status (viz., refugees).

In addition to changing the type of immigrant Canada goes after, Canada also needs admit a lot more immigrants -- upwards of 500,000 a year. This will mean, among other things, greatly increasing the number of visa officers in second world countries with large pools of young educated English speakers. India is an example that comes readily to mind, but others abound. Currently interviews in Brazil are only held in Brasilia and Sao Paulo, but not in Rio. As a source of immigrants, South America remains largely untapped and this especially so with regard to Brazil.

An obvious place to start the search is at home. Foreigners who complete graduate degrees in Canada should be granted citizenship and those who complete an undergraduate degree should be given more credit than they currently receive. Currently they can receive no more than 5 points for studying in Canada. As for ESL students, Immigration officials should be going from one ESL school to another and making clear to students that if they pass the Cambridge exam, say, have a degree and are in their twenties, we want them.

It is imperative that Canada undertake such a project now. After all, Canada is not alone in having to deal with aging population. Some Europe have an even worse problem. Indeed, professor Charles Kupchan notes, "today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1."

"World Bank projections show that the working-age population of the present EU will drop from 230m now to 167m by 2050, a fall of 63m. Most of this is concentrated in the 12 current euroland countries, where working-age population is projected to drop from 186m to 131m. The worst-hit individual countries are Italy , with a 15m, or 42% fall, from 36m to 21m, followed by Spain and Germany . Britain is not immune but fares relatively well. The World Bank projects a 5m fall in working-age population, from 35.2m to 29.9m In general, though, Europe 's position is dire. As Lombard Street Research writes: "The last demographic shock on a similar scale was the Black Death of the late 14th century. Even two world wars did not stop Europe 's population rising by nearly a fifth in the first half of the 20th century."

If Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050!