U.S. judge won't remove marijuana from most-dangerous drug list

[Jhhnn]

ok i posted links from studies done by university lab testing and Federal testing proving that pot today is more potent than "back in the day" but for some idiotic reason you know better and want to argue it.

ill play your silly game, post your facts and sources. prove me wrong.

You don't even comprehend your own links-

Has Marijuana Become Stronger?

The marijuana used today is stronger than it used to be, but not as strong as has been written in some media reports (claiming marijuana is 30 times stronger today than during the 1970s). Depending on how analysis was conducted and the sample analyzed, marijuana strength has increased by 2 to 7 times since the 1970s, measured by THC levels.

Another difference between then and now is that marijuana users in the 1970s were most likely to smoke the leaves and initiate use around 20 years of age. Marijuana users today, however, start in their mid-teens and prefer to smoke the more potent flowering tops, (buds) of the plant. Research shows that young, regular (daily or near daily) users are most at risk for many of the adverse effects of marijuana, including mental health problems and dependence.

So What's the Story?

Anecdotal reports as well as measurement in lab tests suggest that cannabis used today is stronger than in the past. Based on available scientific evidence, it would appear that the strength of marijuana has increased to some extent over the last 25 years, though far less than is sometimes claimed.

Instead, it is likely that the main difference today is the part of the plant people smoke and the age at which people begin regular use. It is more common for people today to smoke the flowering heads of the plant which are much more potent than the leaf product. These changes in the patterns of use may result in users of today taking in higher levels of THC than in the past. Additionally, the younger age at which people start, and the more regularly they use, the more likely they are to be adversely affected by marijuana. Simply focusing on marijuana potency may obscure the fact that young regular users are most at risk of marijuana related harm.
- See more at: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/potency.htm#sthash.RjCJE4Pt.dpuf

Which is just a different way of saying what I offered in the first place.

Another factor not mentioned is that midwestern feral hemp varieties were harvested & sold as drug cannabis back in the 70's, also blended into higher priced imports to increase profit margins. Sleazy ripoff artists, obviously, but cops treated it the same as any cannabis.

You had to live it to understand it, to appreciate how the Mexican WoD caused quality to descend rapidly by the mid 70's as growers harvested early to get ahead of the helicopters & how Colombian organizations stepped in to fill demand in this country. The end of the Vietnam war also had a negative effect as highly organized smuggling by military personnel fell off to nothing.

Modern cannabis is in no way stronger than the best of the early 70's, no better than Oaxacan sinsemilla, gold Colombian buds, Thai sticks or Vietnamese black. Mostly, it's been bred for indoor cultivation- better bud to leaf ratio, shorter stature, faster maturation. Other aspects have been changed, as well, resulting in greater variation in flavor & aroma.

 

[touchstone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-a-school-presentation/?tid=trending_strip_6


Possibly need its own thread. I haven't read the article yet and won't have time until the afternoon, so I will hold off commenting except to say "WTF?"

 

[nickqt]

You don't even comprehend your own links-



Which is just a different way of saying what I offered in the first place.

Another factor not mentioned is that midwestern feral hemp varieties were harvested & sold as drug cannabis back in the 70's, also blended into higher priced imports to increase profit margins. Sleazy ripoff artists, obviously, but cops treated it the same as any cannabis.

You had to live it to understand it, to appreciate how the Mexican WoD caused quality to descend rapidly by the mid 70's as growers harvested early to get ahead of the helicopters & how Colombian organizations stepped in to fill demand in this country. The end of the Vietnam war also had a negative effect as highly organized smuggling by military personnel fell off to nothing.

Modern cannabis is in no way stronger than the best of the early 70's, no better than Oaxacan sinsemilla, gold Colombian buds, Thai sticks or Vietnamese black. Mostly, it's been bred for indoor cultivation- better bud to leaf ratio, shorter stature, faster maturation. Other aspects have been changed, as well, resulting in greater variation in flavor & aroma.

Anyone crying and complaining about cannabis being "stronger" today is an idiot.

Alcohol can literally kill you dead, forever, and it's sold in products that range from 4% like beer all the way to Everclear which is around 90% alcohol.

It's a non-sequitur to bring up cannabis strength.

Wait, you mean I can get high off of one good hit instead of 3 or 4?!?!?

KEEP IT ILLEGAL OH MY GOD IT'S SO MUCH STRONGER THAN THE 1970s!!!!

 

[OutHouse]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-a-school-presentation/?tid=trending_strip_6


Possibly need its own thread. I haven't read the article yet and won't have time until the afternoon, so I will hold off commenting except to say "WTF?"

bunch of shit. but why didnt the mom flush her hash oil? she had 2+ hours to get rid of the drug. if she did that she would have a lot less problems right now.

i know if i had illegal drugs in my house and had a bunch of cops asking to search my house, the first thing i would do was flush the shit.

 

[OutHouse]

You don't even comprehend your own links-

i understand this just fine, you are the one wanting to make a argument over it.

lab tests suggest that cannabis used today is stronger than in the past. Based on available scientific evidence, it would appear that the strength of marijuana has increased to some extent over the last 25 years,

please provide something other than your anecdotal opinions to prove this statement wrong.

 

[NoStateofMind]

bunch of shit. but why didnt the mom flush her hash oil? she had 2+ hours to get rid of the drug. if she did that she would have a lot less problems right now.

i know if i had illegal drugs in my house and had a bunch of cops asking to search my house, the first thing i would do was flush the shit.

It's actually medication. She needs it.

 

[nickqt]

i understand this just fine, you are the one wanting to make a argument over it.



please provide something other than your anecdotal opinions to prove this statement wrong.

What does it matter if cannabis THC strength is higher today than 20 years ago.

I drink a beer.

I take a shot.

Ultimately, I'm choosing how much of a buzz I want. The only difference is the amount of alcohol I'm consuming.

Why does it matter, at all, if cannabis is, on average, stronger than before? What difference does it make in regards to whether it should be legal for a human being to change up their consciousness a little with the substance?

Perhaps if taking 1 hit off of a 20% strength joint could kill you or put you in a coma, then a warning might be necessary, but it won't do either. Yet, there is a very huge difference between beer and liquor strength, and yet no warning.

What does it matter? I don't understand why this is even mentioned, ever.

If you smoke 1 cigarette, you probably aren't going to die from nicotine poisoning, but if you eat 20 cigarettes, it can be very toxic.

Who cares if you need to take less hits off a joint/bowl/bong/vaporizer to get high?

 

[Ns1]

Modern cannabis is in no way stronger than the best of the early 70's, no better than Oaxacan sinsemilla, gold Colombian buds, Thai sticks or Vietnamese black. Mostly, it's been bred for indoor cultivation- better bud to leaf ratio, shorter stature, faster maturation. Other aspects have been changed, as well, resulting in greater variation in flavor & aroma.

20 years of genetics bro. That said, unless we have lab tests with THC%'s from the the best of the best from the 70's this is all a moot argument anyway.

 

[MrPickins]

I'm merely pointing out that the apocalypse alluded to above hasn't happened yet even though there's basically a lab experiment happening in China to which we could look for evidence of this impending disaster. Yet we don't see that. What does this tell me? Not that it doesn't cause mutations (I'm not qualified to answer that and I doubt you are either) but rather that the impact/likelyhood of such mutations are severely overblown.

Tell that to someone infected with MRSA

Drug-resistant diseases are a big problem already and the problem is getting worse. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to change that fact.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why should only congress have a part in fixing this?

Do you have any concept of how exactly our system of governance works? The legislative branch is the one that creates laws, the executive executes them, and the judicial branch interprets them. If you think a law is stupid, then you're going to need to talk to those who create the law to have it changed.

Congress is universally understood to be the least effective and most corrupt part of the legislative branch. They have a 13% approval rating but they are republican so of course, we should run every decision by them.

Completely irrelevant and stupid drivel. How popular the legislative branch is means nothing, nor does your perception of their competence. The bottom line is that in our system of government, the legislative branch creates the laws. Period.

Poker Guy, you have zero idea what you are talking about.

Coming from someone who demonstrates total and complete ignorance of how the government works, I'll take that as a compliment.

That law is 100% unconstitutional.

Says who? You? Some other idiot down the street? Based on what, your vast legal knowledge?

If congress passes a law making broccoli illegal, let's say because congress thinks 'illegals' use it, that is not automatically constitutional just because congress does it.

I didn't say it was constitutional because congress does it. It is, however, a valid (and enforceable) law until such a time as a court says it is not constitutional -- ie, it has to go against the consitution in some way, not just "be stupid". If in fact congress banned production or consumption of broccoli, I don't see any reason why that would be unconstitutional.

This judge just prolonged the suffering of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.

No, if you think keeping it as sched 1 is prolonging suffering etc, then congress and the executive branch are to blame, not the judge. Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

In my mind that is treason and she should be charged for her clear complicity in propping up the police state and the drug war under the guise of "protecting the constitution".

This is criminal.

The only thing criminal is your unbelievable ignorance on the subject and lack of understanding of the fundamentals of government.

 

[touchstone]

Do you have any concept of how exactly our system of governance works? The legislative branch is the one that creates laws, the executive executes them, and the judicial branch interprets them. If you think a law is stupid, then you're going to need to talk to those who create the law to have it changed.



Completely irrelevant and stupid drivel. How popular the legislative branch is means nothing, nor does your perception of their competence. The bottom line is that in our system of government, the legislative branch creates the laws. Period.



Coming from someone who demonstrates total and complete ignorance of how the government works, I'll take that as a compliment.



Says who? You? Some other idiot down the street? Based on what, your vast legal knowledge?



I didn't say it was constitutional because congress does it. It is, however, a valid (and enforceable) law until such a time as a court says it is not constitutional -- ie, it has to go against the consitution in some way, not just "be stupid". If in fact congress banned production or consumption of broccoli, I don't see any reason why that would be unconstitutional.



No, if you think keeping it as sched 1 is prolonging suffering etc, then congress and the executive branch are to blame, not the judge. Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.



The only thing criminal is your unbelievable ignorance on the subject and lack of understanding of the fundamentals of government.

PokerGuy logic:


Law that outlaws a plant based on racist 1937 law that banned it because black people used it: CONSTITUTIONAL


Judge overturning said law and saving the lives of thousands: UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WRONG



Stupid. I'm not even gonna refute the rest, not worth my time. And don't expect any responses to whatever equally stupid wall of text you post in response. I don't care.

 

[PokerGuy]

Heh. I suppose you disagree with Clinton, GWB & Obama failing to enforce federal law wrt MMJ, & now Obama wrt legalization.

I think you're missing the point. I never commented on the schedule classification itself, whether it's right or not, and on the war on drugs etc etc. The judge didn't rule on any of that. The plaintiffs are essentially asking for the judge to rule that the classification of this one substance is unconstitutional. That doesn't make any sense. If you give the government the power to classify substances and regulate them, then you can't say it's unconstitutional when they do exactly that.

Now I'm personally more in the libertarian camp myself, let each person decide for themselves what to do, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Had that not happened, the time it would get fixed is.... never. The federal bureaucracy has never intended to move in that direction & Congress will do nothing

Are you unfamiliar with prohibition? How was it done away with? This is not all that different. It's going to take action from congress to change things.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy logic:


Law that outlaws a plant based on racist 1937 law that banned it because black people used it: CONSTITUTIONAL


Judge overturning said law and saving the lives of thousands: UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WRONG



Stupid. I'm not even gonna refute the rest, not worth my time. And don't expect any responses to whatever equally stupid wall of text you post in response. I don't care.

You are obviously a completely delusional idiot. What makes something constitutional or not is not "is it dumb" or "was it done for the right reasons". The question is "does it violate one or more parts of the constitution?". If you can identify the specific part of the constitution you think is being violated, feel free to post it, otherwise you might want to refrain from further demonstrating your complete stupidity.

 

[touchstone]

ITT: people who don't know crap about the U.S. Constitution but love to talk about it

 

[PokerGuy]

ITT: people who don't know crap about the U.S. Constitution but love to talk about it

Still waiting for you to tell us which part of the constitution specifically the law violates. I'm sure with your brilliant legal insight you'll have no trouble showing us all

Look, you're an idiot, we get it. At least try to learn something along the way. Educate yourself on our system of government, so next time perhaps you won't look like a complete moron.

 

[touchstone]

The sad part is you actually think that people are dumb enough to swallow your BS. Nobody is buying it.


You don't get to whine and have me spend time making you look stupid. You do a great job of looking like the stupid bigot you are by just talking. So chop it up and let's all have a laugh at how dumb you are

 

[touchstone]

To the rest of the people I this thread: The reason the scheduling is unconstitutional is because the drug is already prescribed for medical use in 24 states. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to on the one hand allow states to run MMJ businesses, and then prosecute patients under federal law.


Or you can take this guys stance, LOL, and be laughed at.

 

[TechBoyJK]

ok i posted links from studies done by university lab testing and Federal testing proving that pot today is more potent than "back in the day" but for some idiotic reason you know better and want to argue it.

ill play your silly game, post your facts and sources. prove me wrong.

It's because you can't just say 'pot is stronger'. You just can't say it, and be on sound scientific ground because it's way, way too vague of a statement. That's what I'm taking issue with. Trying to claim pot is stronger, in such a general statement, either shows lack of understanding in regards to the diversity of cannabis, or shows an attempt to purposefully paint a specialized subject with a broad brush. You just can't take random samples of 'alcohol' over the years and say one is stronger than the other. Is it wine? Vodka? Beer? What is it? If you go into a bar 20 years ago, and sample a beer for potency, then come back 20 years later and sample tequila, of course one is stronger!

There's way too many factors to say that with certainly, pot, in general is just flat out stronger. There was killer strong weed long before the United States was conceived.

Does fruit taste better today than it did 20 years ago? I mean, I'm sure I find a study where 20 years ago people claim apples were sweet and today people claim apples aren't sweet at all.

Nevermind they could be two completely different kinds of apples. Nevermind they could be from different parts of the world. Nevermind they could have been in/out of season. Nevermind the people testing it could have different measurements.

Yes, pot 'on the market' today is generally stronger but that is due to many factors. Factors, that if regulated, would actually push many cannabis grows to be less potent.

Also, if anything, the argument can be spun, easily, into saying that due to prohibition and LACK OF REGULATION, the potency of marijuana has been able to skyrocket. It makes sense, considering you get in trouble according to the weight of the drug, not the potency, so obviously if you're going to risk transport, the black market is going to push more potent pot. And it's due to this lack of regulation, that people are having trouble with highly potent marijuana.

If you sell me beer, and it's as potent as whiskey, you know I just might have trouble with it too. With a regulated cannabis market, we can put controls on the market and provide people with a safer, properly labeled, lab tested product.... product with a label that says just how potent it is. And with this arrangement, guess what? You can CHOOSE not to buy potent marijuana, therefore making the entire concern moot.

So if we want to contain the growing potency of marijuana, we need to legalize it, regulate it, and properly label it. None of this will happen under our current federal regime.

 

[touchstone]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_War_on_Drugs

PokerGuy, here is an article for you to read. If you can. Next time maybe you won't get owned in such a public way if you hide your ignorance and not post.

 

[PokerGuy]

To the rest of the people I this thread: The reason the scheduling is unconstitutional is because the drug is already prescribed for medical use in 24 states. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to on the one hand allow states to run MMJ businesses, and then prosecute patients under federal law.


Or you can take this guys stance, LOL, and be laughed at.

Nobody can possibly be this stupid, it can only be a troll account. Good job sir, well done

 

[PokerGuy]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_War_on_Drugs

PokerGuy, here is an article for you to read. If you can. Next time maybe you won't get owned in such a public way if you hide your ignorance and not post.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahah

You're a comedian too? Seriously, some wiki page about the arguments for/against the legality of the war on drugs? Perhaps you could link us up with rulings by the SCOTUS on the matter? I'm sure with the war on drugs ongoing for decades obviously the SCOTUS has already smacked every aspect of it down as unconstitutional! ....... or not. Idiot.

 

[touchstone]

That's not the argument we are having. You are suggesting that this judge could not legally overturn this drug scheduling. Which she could have 100% legally.

Your name calling and exclamations only serve to show us how ridiculous you are, and how little interest you have in the truth.

 

[nickqt]

That's not the argument we are having. You are suggesting that this judge could not legally overturn this drug scheduling. Which she could have 100% legally.

Your name calling and exclamations only serve to show us how ridiculous you are, and how little interest you have in the truth.

What, exactly, makes the classification of any substance inherently unconstitutional? To answer that, you need to actually point to the constitution, or at least a USSC ruling that addresses that topic.

You could make arguments that the commerce clause legislation is unconstitutional, for example, because X, Y, and Z, and even point to legislation that limits the powers of the commerce clause. But just saying it is unconstitutional because of racism means you'd have to point to the 5th/14th Amendment with regard to equal protection and due process. And I'm not sure you could necessarily point to anything written there or USSC decision that would make Congress classifying something illegal, unconstitutional.

If congress can regulate whether wheat consumed on a farm can be regulated, then it can probably regulate whether cannabis can be grown, consumed, etc. Not that I agree with it. (Wickard v. Filburn is a good starting point).

Morally, making cannabis or any drug for that matter illegal is reprehensible as my personal ownership of my consciousness should give me the ability to change that consciousness however I see fit. Laws that make it illegal to do so in various places, or to be inebriated in certain situations would be OK, since I am free to change my consciousness at home, or certain designated locations, or as long as I'm not doing X that might put people in danger (driving, for example).

 

[Victorian Gray]

China allows over the counter purchase of antibiotics and their civilization hasn't collapsed yet due to a 'superbug'. But I'm sure we should have that doomsday scenario any day now right?

Here ya go.

"With this joint promotion by both physicians and patients, antibiotics are excessively prescribed in the Chinese medical system, even to children. Newborn babies are often given intravenous injections. It is shocking that in China the overuse of antibiotics results in 80,000 deaths every year, directly or indirectly, as well as immeasurable human organ damage and the production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This issue has drawn much attention from the international community."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opi...isk-due-to-overuse-of-antibioti-30207488.html

"Chinese are on average taking 10 times as many antibiotics as other nations' populations, a leading drug official said yesterday.
This raises serious questions about antibiotics abuse and associated health risks, said Wu Zhen, vice director of the State Food and Drug Administration."
"Antibiotics are the top cause of adverse reactions in the city. Local hospitals recorded 20,000 cases of adverse reactions in a year. Of these, 40 percent were caused by antibiotics, followed by cardiovascular drugs and traditional Chinese medicine."
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-12/17/content_21563175.htm

"Chinese doctors routinely hand out multiple doses of antibiotics for simple maladies like the sore throats and the country's farmers excessive dependence on the drugs has tainted the food chain.

Studies in China show a "frightening" increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as staphylococcus aureus bacteria, also know as MRSA . There are warnings that new strains of antibiotic-resistant bugs will spread quickly through international air travel and internation food sourcing.

"We have a lot of data from Chinese hospitals and it shows a very frightening picture of high-level antibiotic resistance," said Dr Andreas Heddini of the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control.

"Doctors are daily finding there is nothing they can do, even third and fourth-line antibiotics are not working.

"There is a real risk that globally we will return to a pre-antibiotic era of medicine, where we face a situation where a number of medical treatment options would no longer be there. What happens in China matters for the rest of the world."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-health-by-unleashing-waves-of-superbugs.html

 

[touchstone]

What, exactly, makes the classification of any substance inherently unconstitutional? To answer that, you need to actually point to the constitution, or at least a USSC ruling that addresses that topic.



You could make arguments that the commerce clause legislation is unconstitutional, for example, because X, Y, and Z, and even point to legislation that limits the powers of the commerce clause. But just saying it is unconstitutional because of racism means you'd have to point to the 5th/14th Amendment with regard to equal protection and due process. And I'm not sure you could necessarily point to anything written there or USSC decision that would make Congress classifying something illegal, unconstitutional.



If congress can regulate whether wheat consumed on a farm can be regulated, then it can probably regulate whether cannabis can be grown, consumed, etc. Not that I agree with it. (Wickard v. Filburn is a good starting point).



Morally, making cannabis or any drug for that matter illegal is reprehensible as my personal ownership of my consciousness should give me the ability to change that consciousness however I see fit. Laws that make it illegal to do so in various places, or to be inebriated in certain situations would be OK, since I am free to change my consciousness at home, or certain designated locations, or as long as I'm not doing X that might put people in danger (driving, for example).

The judge herself said she had the power to rule it unconstitutional, she just didn't want to do it at this time:

some point in time, a court may decide this status to be unconstitutional,” Judge Mueller said from the bench. “But this is not the court and not the time.”

End of argument. Even the anti pot judge thinks she can rule against the scheduling, she just didn't feel like it that day. I wonder why?