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.