REEFER MADNESS?!

Cannabis crusaders try to blow smoke on some of the points in last week's
column

Well, I'll say this for marijuana smokers, they're able to react faster and
more forcefully than I gave them credit for.

After last week's column expressing my misgivings over decriminalization
and possible legalization of pot, I've been crushed, rolled, twisted and
set on fire (metaphorically of course) by cannabis crusaders.

To all those folks, may I say, respectfully: chill.

Of course, many were incredulous over my statement that pot today has been
found to be up to 2,500 times more potent than it used to be. They were
right. The number, which came from one of our sister papers, isn't correct.
The reference is from an RCMP document entitled "Taking a Balanced
Approach: Canada's Drug Policy from the National Police Perspective," by:
C/Supt. Tim Quigley of the Mounties' Drug Enforcement Branch. Here's what
it said:

"The type of marijuana ... baby boomers may have used back in the 1960s is
not the same type of marijuana that is smoked today by our youth. Marijuana
potency levels have dramatically increased. This new marijuana is now, on
average, up to 700% stronger. This does not include the omnipotent
sensimilla brand of marijuana ... or hashish oil, which on average, is up
to 2,500% stronger than the 1960s marijuana cigarette."

So you see, it's 2,500%, not 2,500 times, and he's talking hash oil vs.
pot. Mea culpa. However, Quigley goes on to say: "The concern lies in the
fact that parents are generally unaware of marijuana's increasing potency,
and thus, do not assess their child's potential marijuana use given the
current situation .... It is our belief that a drug is a drug. For example,
we know that one dose of high-potency marijuana is equivalent to one dose
of LSD."

Now, I can already hear the response to this - it's a police document,
after all. Cops can't possibly have a "balanced approach," now, can they?
Hey, tell it to the RCMP. I have other things to deal with.

Like, for instance, all those who took issue with my lighthearted
observations about what I dislike about the pot-smoking experience. For
instance, the way time stretches out and you start giggling about something
that was said 10 minutes ago.

"What evidence do you have of this 10-minute delay in reaction time?" one
writer demanded. Oh, lighten up.

Several writers hotly denied my saying some pot is practically
hallucinogenic (see LSD comparison above). Yet one sent me an essay from
the late scientist (and pot advocate) Carl Sagan, who enthused that it
helped him see "pictures on the inside of my eyelids" back in the '60s.

Others dismissed my call for more studies to determine the long-term
effects of pot use and exactly how much it impairs one's ability to, say,
drive a car.

The issue has been studied to death, and no serious effects have been
found, they said. (Though a number of writers cited several studies that
concluded just the opposite.)

That's all well and good, but I was thinking of an authoritative Canadian
study from which we could develop standards and a breathalyzer-style test
for marijuana impairment. If there's no such impairment (though most of my
e-mailers conceded they, personally, wouldn't drive stoned, duh!), what's
everyone so defensive about?

Hey, tobacco and booze have been studied to death, too. Yet there are still
folks out there who swear smoking cigarettes isn't harmful either.

And speaking of booze, many writers were insulted that I would personally
prefer relaxing with a glass of wine to getting stoned, since, with today's
high-potency pot, it's difficult to control just how whacked out you're
going to get. In some folks' books, that makes me no better than an
alcoholic, even though I acknowledged the misery demon drink can cause.

One correspondent, however, gently suggested that "inexperienced pot users
tend to overdo it" and practice makes perfect. Perhaps, but I'm still not a
big fan of smoking anything - and, I note, most of the known health risks
with pot come from combustion, not the mind-altering cannibinoids.

This same person also summarized the lengthy reasons of Ontario Justice
John McCart in a 1997 medical marijuana case, who concluded, among other
things, that marijuana was "relatively harmless" compared to booze, tobacco
and other drugs; there's no evidence of it causing irreversible physical or
mental damage; that it "would not be prudent" to drive a car while stoned;
that pot doesn't "induce psychoses," is not addictive and does not lead
users to crime or harder drugs.

That judge, in turn, cited the concern of B.C. Justice Francis Howard, who
lamented the "lack of open communication between young persons and their
elders" about their use of pot and other drugs, along with the risk that
young pot users "will be associating with actual criminals and hard drug
users who are the primary suppliers of the drug" and "the lack of
governmental control over the quality of the drug."

Well, I'd agree with both judges' observations entirely. But obviously
they're not advocating a marijuana free-for-all - they're saying we need
more study and discussion on how to control and regulate it.

I welcome the debate. To that end, while I appreciate the advice, I do hope
the level of discourse rises above the note I got from a stoner who
instructed me to "remove the pickle."

Peace, everyone.