The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What the hell is up with you brits and your mythical "skunk"
Sam
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
No, I'm not stoned.
But- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rosie-boycott-skunk-is-dangerous-but-i-still-believe-in-my-campaign-to-decriminalise-cannabis-440657.html
Apparently there's a super mutated weed that makes people have voices in their heads that have conversations with them, and then they break into cars. And this is because there is 25% more THC in weed grown with new hydroponic technology.
It's strange that a paper that from my understanding is a liberal democrat party puppy would take a stance like that as hard as they do. My take on it is that I have seen cannabis that goes by the name they use, that is perceptibly exponentially more potent, and I'm not talking about the effect- I'm talking about the fact that that variety is almost never smoked straight and the amount mixed in with tobacoo is about the size of a pinky fingernail.
But- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rosie-boycott-skunk-is-dangerous-but-i-still-believe-in-my-campaign-to-decriminalise-cannabis-440657.html
Apparently there's a super mutated weed that makes people have voices in their heads that have conversations with them, and then they break into cars. And this is because there is 25% more THC in weed grown with new hydroponic technology.
It's strange that a paper that from my understanding is a liberal democrat party puppy would take a stance like that as hard as they do. My take on it is that I have seen cannabis that goes by the name they use, that is perceptibly exponentially more potent, and I'm not talking about the effect- I'm talking about the fact that that variety is almost never smoked straight and the amount mixed in with tobacoo is about the size of a pinky fingernail.
Sam on
0
Posts
And I'm pretty sure the Independent is in general in favour of the legalising of cannabis.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-cannabis-a-retraction-440665.html
What I find weird is that even the people there that still are in favor of decriminalization acknowledge that skunk leads to vandalism and a pattern of events amusingly similar to Reefer Madness.
Problem seems to be that you just know lightweights. I have no idea about strength etc because I never liked the stuff much, but I know people who would both regularly smoke skunk w/o tobacco, and when they mixed it, tended to go at least 50/50.
But really, this is all anecdotal bullshit. You recognise that the stuff is stronger, and that it is possible to smoke it straight, therefore you should recognise that it is possible some people do so. I very much doubt weed habits are universal in your street, let alone town/state/country, and they certainly fucking aren't the same internationally.
PS Yes, the Independent does seem to be talking themselves into a corner. Well, it's a rag with near-zero circulation and minimal coverage of actual daily news, instead opting for every fucking day plastering some shock topical headline on the front page. They should just give up & become a Sunday paper or weekly topical magazine, because they aren't really a daily broadsheet anymore.
Hm, 'k. Pretty good stand of them; I appreciate reappraisals of positions due to changing facts. If the majority of cannabis available on the 'streets' is indeed mostly skunk nowadays (as that and other articles say) then cannabis clearly can't be considered in the same light as previously.
From a mate who's a bobby - it's not. At least, not in South London.
I don't want to go into details, but those people are not lightweights. And you're right about it sometimes being 50/50, but in my opinion, people who aren't lightweights are still going to find it stronger than necessary for the most part, but forget about all that, assuming people smoke it straight, so what? It's still not THC that makes them vandalize cars, it's the fact that they're the sort of people that vandalize cars.
To draw a crude but nonetheless accurate (to me anyway) analogy, it's like beer and shots. No matter what your tolerance is, unless you're allergic, you can consume more beer than shots, because beer affects your BAC more gradually.
As for the psychosis and low self esteem part of their wolf cry, if you're stoned all day, chances are you're not going to function all that great around people who aren't intoxicated. And yes, it's an intoxicant and leaves an overall subtle, not all that easily perceptible effect on mood etc. for some time afterwards- ever heard of another drug that does that? the only difference is that a hangover is more unsubtle of a punishment so people get the message more easily, while tolerance of cannabis can mask it to some extent.
Right, well that point didn't really come across in your post. You seemed to be suggesting it's all media hysteria and denying that weed can do any wrong.
The word "skunk" has been used for years to refer to highly potent marijuana. That's nothing new. Hydroponics and selective breeding have allowed growers to create progressive more potent strains of marijuana for years. That's nothing new, either. So what's the issue here? Pot is several times stronger than it was when baby boomers were tie-dye-wearing stoned teenagers? Whoopy fucking doo. This is news to nobody who's been following the drug scene for more than 15 minutes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I suppose except for G-13 and the myth of Manhattan Albino.
That sums it up. This can now be locked.
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
As for mental health, it's still the same active chemicals, so i don't see what the difference could be??
At that point it's even fucking healthier than it is unhealthy. At least that's what the doctors say.
Opiates are harmless in minute quantities. But it's pretty easy to overdose if you take too much at once in a purified state. Just because it's the same chemical, doesn't mean it's harmless at every level of dosage. See also: Oxygen.
Seriously, what he said. Marijuana has gotten stronger with every crop run by someone with a botany book. It's not some "new strain."
Because if it's the first one, they're laughably dumb. And if it's the second one, by Brit standards, I smoke nothing but skunk, because that's all they sell here, and the only difference is I get more ripped off of less plant, and that's a good thing.
Basically what Feral said.
.. is nothing?
Few thigns are more amusing to me than the idea of an older stoner testing his crop for quality.
"Aw man, dude. Row E Column D, that shit is crazy. We're gonna seed that shit. Just pack the rest up and sell it. But that one plant, man. That stuff's prime! That stuff will make you real nice."
Except I didn't say anything about dosage. You could argue that stronger strains induce a culture of getting more stoned, but speaking to old hippies about 'temple balls' and such... I doubt it.
If that's the study I think it is Æthelred, then these were the results
The way I see it, 80% ABV rum is treated the same as 4% beer (unless you want to take it on a plane haha), how is this any different?
In the 1970's there was an unusually potent and very interesting strain of cannabis. Despite strain selection producing increased potency (namely the skunk strain and it's varieties, selected for it's potency rather than it's smell/flavor- even a few plants, in bloom, can be smelled for over a kilometer downwind) this 1970's strain is still widely considered to have had a THC content several times that of today's marijuana. It even achieved considerable notoriety and fame- Purple Haze.
The thing is, pot has three active cannabinoids:
tetrahydrocannabinol, producing an analgesic and blissful effect most commonly associated with smoking (a "heady" high),
cannabidiol, which has a calming and relaxing sort of effect.
and cannabinol, a result of the degredation of THC as the plant matures. It generally results in "couchlock" or a sense of weight on your limbs. Plants culled late in their bloom cycle with dark trichromes will be heavy in cannabinols.
None of these chemicals will result in the effects in the report. "hydro" is just weed grown in an optimal system; it's percieved potency is because of a standardized and reliable growing environment. It does not produce any exceptional qualities.
I think this reporter is confusing pot with hashish; i could see hash being referred to as "skunk" very easily.
Hash is pure THC resin pulled from pot plants. There are various methods to achieve it, but the end result is the same- a block of THC resin that when smoked even in minute quantities, gets you high as fuck. It's like scraping the resin from the sides of your bong and smoking that, except without the first run through and subsequent activation and degradation. Some hash extraction methods can leave small quantities of toxins in the hash if you're not careful- isopropyl alcohol, for one. Or it will probably be cut before it is sold several times and that could also have an effect.
But even the weakest hash is a dozen times stronger than the most potent "superpot" that the media is freaking out about. Normal marijuana is really not something to be concerned about. Even hash doesn't even come close to THC toxicity ranges.
The main concern is that in truth, there is a strong correlation between cannabis use as an adolescent and full blown schizophrenia as an adult. There is no causative evidence, but it's rather difficult to pin something so effuse like that down. THC may have a hand at increasing susceptibility to schizophrenia during development. If they were smoking hash whatever effect it might have would be exaggerated and possibly harmful. And that's something people should be careful about, rather than leaving it up to the black market to regulate quality and age limits.
not really, there are strains that on their own would be more potent than resin from a far inferior/badly grown plant.
You can not physically consume enough pot to die.
This reminds me of a bust being covered on Fox last year, when a DEA agent was quoted as saying "this isn't the same pot from 20 years ago, this stuff will kill you."
What's the word for that thing, when people say stuff they know isn't true in order to make people do what they want? Propaganda.
This, pretty much. Yes, there are varying levels of quality of weed, they cost different amounts and result in perceptibly different highs and yes it's probably bad for kids to smoke pot, but frankly even hash isn't so potent as to turn someone who ordinarily holds the idea of property-rights in high regard turn into a crazy vandal.
Reefer Madness in its entirety.
Good job no-one's been saying that then.
You're quoting an article that claims weed is more dangerous than ecstasy.
Maybe not but it does mean that trying to consume enough water to kill yourself is likely to be more effective than trying to smoke enough pot to kill yourself. This really doesn't prove anything though except that you should probably consider finding a more efficient way of killing yourself.
Someone is welcome to try both methods and see which happens faster.
Dude first we need you to try the gun + head method as a control. Then we can perform the experiment. Are you not even listening?
A substance that can't kill can be more dangerous than a substance that can kill. Percentages.
Fair point.
...
Done. Was reasonably effective, but not 100%. Recommend next tester tries gun + rounds + head.
Your turn!
Erowid: cannabis: health
Smoking anything is not good for your lungs, but to say weed today is radically different or less safe than weed from a few years ago, to the point that it is more harmful than Methylenedioxymethamphetamine or solvents (from the graph on page 1) is ridiculous.
Sounds like pure bullshit, rather than pseudoscience. Neat!
You didn't need to say anything about dosage. An ibuprofen capsule with 800mg of Ibuprofen in it, gives you twice as large a dose as an Ibuprofen capsule with 400mg of Ibuprofen it, so you get a higher dose per capsule. More potent, or purer versions, of drugs increase the likelihood of overdosing, especially when you don't know the level of the active ingredient in the drug you are taking. If you have some random Ibuprofen pills with no packaging how do you know if they are 400mg or 800mg per capsule? Bottom line is you don't. This is why you often hear of junkies overdosing on uncommonly pure heroin. They are used to it being heavily cut so use larger amounts, meaning they easily overdose when they get uncut (or less cut) heroin. The same could potentially be true for uncommonly strong marijuana, it'd be likely that you'd take a larger dose of THC because you'd be used to using a certain amount in your joints or your bong and may not realise that you are rapidly upping your dosage simply through using a more potent source.
But of course neither of those examples is a danger unique to marijuana and merely a technicality only an idiot would argue for.
Well, unless THC actually has a toxicity of 'zero' instead of 'low', I'm fairly sure that consuming enough weed via non-damaging-transmission-techniques would kill you too. Vast majority of substances do in large quantities. But since the vast majority of people do smoke weed, and since the smoke would kill you before the THC poisoning, I decided that was less of a technicality than THC poisoning. Just like the alcohol in beer is going to kill you before the water poisoning, & nobody seemed to have a problem with that example...probably because the blatently obvious point I was making is: consume enough of any drug and it can kill you.
TL : DR - STFU