Home › Opinion › Opinion
Don't buy government propaganda
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionRe: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?":
Dr. Jamison should do some serious research before repeating anti-marijuana propaganda coming from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
ONDCP's claims that marijuana is 10, 20 or 30 times more potent than it was in the 1960s are not supported by science or the government's own ongoing Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project.
Samples of pot from the early 1970s that came from stale, low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" left in police lockers for months, whose potency had deteriorated to subsmokable levels of less than 0.5 percent, were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marijuana, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed.
A careful examination of the government's data shows that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of 2 or so during the '70s and has been more or less constant ever since.
Moreover, there is nothing new about high-powered pot. During the 1960s, it was available in premium varieties such as Acapulco Gold and Panama Red, as well as hashish and hash oil, which were every bit as strong as today's sinsemilla, but were ignored in government potency statistics.
Perhaps Jamison still believes the racist fictions used to outlaw marijuana in the first place:
— "The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
— "Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality and death."
— "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
— "[Smoking] one [marihuana] cigarette might develop a homicidal mania, probably to kill his brother."
These examples are from "U.S. Government Propaganda To Outlaw Marijuana," http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/t3.htm. Repeating the Drug Enforcement Administration's myth that pot has dramatically increased in potency shows poor journalism.
— Redford Givens of San Francisco is the Web master of the Drug Reform Coordination Network Online Library of Drug Policy.
Posted by shaver_one on May 5, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Legalize pot. Tax pot. Cure the national deficit.
Posted by jw1000 on May 5, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Makes sense Shaver! That is why it will never happen.
Posted by del on May 5, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy's research must not have included the variety, "Humboldt Heaven".
Posted by lmcventura on May 5, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah yes, we can drink ourselves to death, we can drink ourselves to jail, we can can beat and abuse our families while drunk, we can smoke ourselves to an emphysema death (NOT PRETTY!!!).....But we can't smoke Pot. IMHO this is the worst hypocritical political debacle regarding intoxicating substances, smoking and drinking are much worse, (I speak from experience) than smoking pot and yet, the standard continues. Don't know why, but I agree with shaver_one...legalization would crumble the drug traffiking trade and would FATTEN the Federal/State Coffers to a surplus!!!....And now pass the bong please...
Posted by lthrnek on May 5, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel the same about nicotine since I still don't believe all the bad press given to smoking by the politically influenced medical folks. I'm from the old school when if you saw your friend lying wounded on the battlefield, you'd give him a cigarette to settle him down and keep him from going into shock. I also liked the oil paintings of the old pipe smoking sea captains and the Americana paintings of old Grandpas sitting around smoking their pipes in peace. At 74 years old excuse me but you won't find me walking away from a thick juicy steak or a good cigar and I wish folks would just leave me in peace.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 6, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I essentially agree. If you want to make irresponsible choices, you should be able to do it with the substance of your own choosing. The difference is that noone is espousing the medicinal value of a good cigar.
Posted by Minter on May 7, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A physician parroting government propaganda. How sad. Doctor's are suppossed to use critical observation & closely scrutinize empirical evidence. Hey Doc, maybe you don't know anymore than what the government tells you. Fact, marijuana users can use vaporizers to safely inhale their marijuana. Fact, marijuana users quickly learn to inhale only enough to achieve the desired effect. therefore, they use smaller amounts of higher quality marijuana. Isn't that good news for people who are freaked out about how much is used? Fact, MMJ patients don't need a doctor, pharmacist, or drug company to tell them how much to use. They're smart enough to figure it out for themselves. Two recent government scientific studies say that, marijuana is rarely addictive. That withdrawal is short-lived & mild. Say that for opiates used for pain. The far more dangerous pain medicine of choice for many Doctor's. Why would any Doctor be against a better, safer, & rarely addictive medicine, marijuana? Marijuana in the 70's was usually anywhere from 3-7% THC. Today it's usually around 7-14%. Some seed sellers claim a potential of up to 23% for some strains. This depends largely on the growers skill. But, it depends on freshness, storage, etc. It can be far lower. If we took the low figure of 3% & multiplied it times 30. Then, we'd have an almost pure THC plant. Well, we can dream can't we? The government figures are just more scare tactics. Some people will buy anything the government spews forth as truth. But, Doctor's? Come on. Does he have a NIDA research grant or some such thing. Scientific American article titles, "Marijuana Research." Says that a scientist asked the NIDA for a research grant to study marijuana's potential medical benefits. He was turned down. That scientist rewrote the grant request to emphasis finding marijuana's negative effects. The study was funded. Proof of government bias. I can't imagine where this Doctor could have got his bias from. I just hope he never get's a disease like MS, which only MMJ really treats with the greatest efficacy & minor side-effects. By the way, many government reports are merely surveys with no factual basis. I would highly suggest that Doctor's Google MARIJUANA BREAST CANCER. Marijuana prevents the spread of breast cancer cells to the rest of the body. Plus, marijuana has anti-cancer properties. God gace us a wonderous plant to heal & recreate with. It's time for marijuana legalization. No, it won't send the wrong signal to our kids. Merchants card for age. Drug dealers don't.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.