weedforneed.com » cannabis lies

Balkenende’s Message To Youth: (Some) Drugs Bad, Swearing Good

kanaman — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:56:37 +0000

Is Jan Peter Balkenende’s publicist on a secret sabotage mission?

The recent photos of the Dutch Prime Minister wandering around in a ‘FUCK DRUGS!’ t-shirt and swigging from a can of Grolsch at two in the afternoon would suggest so.

He was visiting Volendam, the small fishing village where hard drug use is so prevalent it’s known as ‘Cocaine Town’ in Amsterdam. Being spiked with Rohypnol and dragged to a festival might have explained all this, as well as why the t-shirt seemed to have been forced onto the politician over the top of his shirt and tie without due care and attention.

The group of laughing blokes in the background, drinking beer and taking phone photos of the CDA leader as he grins like a twit, completes the illusion that this is the PM having it large on a day off rather than a serious flesh-pressing junket just days before a general election.

New campaign to “FUCK DRUGS”

The reason for both his visit and his t-shirt turns out to be ‘Moedige Moeders’ (lit.’Courageous Mothers’), an anti-drugs group (so probably no Rohypnol was involved). The t-shirt accompanies their new ‘FUCK DRUGS!’ campaign. According to their website the Premier was wearing it as “an example to the youth”, who can presumably now use it as justification for wearing t-shirts with the word FUCK on them, delighting Christian Democrats everywhere.

In the same article the Mothers refer to the government’s drug tolerance policy as “hypocritical” and a “co-conspirator in all the disaster” of vandalism, football hooliganism, and violence. I assume this was pointed out to him as they were giving him beer and stuffing him into the t-shirt as it was his party that instigated the tolerance policy in the first place.

Beer is apparently ok with the Moedige Moeders. Their website lists alcohol as a drug and condones 1-2 glasses per day for women and 2-3 for men, with the handy recommendation of no alcohol for two days a week to prevent building up a tolerance. A more honest campaign slogan might be ‘FUCK UNTAXED DRUGS!’

Twitter This

The goal of preventing substance abuse and addiction, especially in children and young adults, is absolutely to be applauded. A photo opportunity with a vote-hungry Prime Minister supporting this cause should be a winner for both parties. The image that was placed on Twitter by Balkenende’s top media adviser Michael Sijbom, spread across the internet faster than you can say “OMG ROFL” and appeared on the front of the Volkskrant, should be an embarrassment to all concerned.

What’s in a name?

Giving a Dutch campaign an English name might seem like a good idea to make it ‘hip’ and ‘edgy’; using an English obscenity, even more so; and the word ‘fuck’ isn’t that offensive to the Dutch (just as the word ‘cancer’ isn’t that offensive to English speakers but is one of the worst things you can say in the Nederlands).

However, the global arena that politicians now perform in has an audience that is unlikely to assume the t-shirt supports a serious anti-drug group, especially when the wearer is holding a beer. Unfortunately for ‘Moedige Moeders’ their presence is still so small that most of the Dutch audience probably won’t realize either.

What the Mothers need is a good media advisor to help them come up with a more accurate campaign slogan that won’t offend English speaking people the world over. Perhaps Micheal Sijbom will have some free time once JPB realizes that people are not, in fact, laughing with him.

The Super-Marijuana “Kush/Skunk” story

kanaman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:59:00 +0000

In the US, it seems that the word ‘Kush’ is about as meaningful as ‘Skunk’ is in the UK.

That is, the two terms are applied to most indoor weed that’s sold for profit, and both names are used to suggest that the cannabis being sold is highly potent, rather than to indicate any particular genetic heritage. Before being adopted as the strain-name buzzwords of the moment, both “Skunk” and “Kush” were fairly strictly defined strains, with clear breeding or geographical origins.

More worryingly, when the buzzwords of the youth or underground cultures seep into the mainstream, they get picked up by the hysterical MSM and turned into the latest scare story.

No doubt, all of the forum’s British members will be aware of the garbage that’s written and broadcast about “Skunk” in Blightly – as if it’s some new, child-incinerating super-weed that just dropped out of the sky, rather than a fairly common, medium-to-high potency strain that’s been around for at least 30 years.

What’s especially nauseating about this claim what it tacitly suggests. Most members of the current establishment (government and media) have personal experience of consuming cannabis, in their ‘experimental student days’ or whatever. The subtext of the “new, super-potent weed” claim is that, in hindsight, the harmless old ‘natural’ cannabis of their youth was actually fine after all (as was the hashish of the times, apparently, despite it being orders of magnitude more powerful than today, but that’s another story).

No matter that thousands were deprived of their liberty due to the draconian laws covering old-timey, harmless ‘natural’ cannabis in the 60s and 70s, it turns out that version of the demon weed was fine and harmless. Mistakes were made.
But this new “Skunk” weed … that really does live up to all the fantasies that were spread back then, about the stuff we now know to be harmless.

Anyway, it seems American prohibitionists have embraced the tactic of defining slightly more potent cannabis as a different drug deserving of even greater and more ridiculous penalties

As might be expected, US lawmakers have taken it to the next level.

Kirk and Law Enforcement: Super-Marijuana “Kush” Hits Suburbs
Monday, 15 June 2009

CHICAGO – U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group Director Larry Lindenman, Waukegan Police Chief Artis Yancey and representatives from Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran’s office today unveiled tougher penalties for a new type of “super-marijuana” hitting the northern suburbs. “Kush,” street slang for a strain of highly-potent marijuana, has a tretrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of at least 20 percent. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the THC average of seized marijuana was less than 10 percent in 2007. In the early 1990s, THC levels were less than 4 percent.

“According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 25 million individuals age 12 and older used marijuana in 2007 – significantly more than any other drug,” Congressman Mark Kirk said. “That’s why Kush and other high-potency marijuana strains are so worrying. Local law enforcement reports that Kush users are ‘zombie-like’ because of the extreme THC levels. Drug dealers know they can make as much money selling Kush as cocaine but without the heavier sentences that accompany crack and cocaine trafficking. Higher fines and longer sentences aren’t the total solution to our nation’s drug problem. But our laws should keep pace with advances in the strength and cash-value of high-THC marijuana. If you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties.”

The rise of Kush mirrors the increasing popularity of high-THC marijuana, which has become more accessible with the rise of hydroponics. Drug growers are able to strictly control light, temperature and humidity and can cross-breed to maximize THC content. It takes growers approximately four months from planting to harvest to produce the high-potency marijuana. Other types of Kush are known as Bubba, Paris, Bubble Gum, Sour and Orange Kush.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Kush has been known to sell for as high as $600 per ounce – creating the same profit potential as crack cocaine. (Er.. really?)

Kirk’s legislation, the High-Potency Marijuana Sentencing Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2828), increases federal fines and sentences for the distribution of high-potency marijuana. It defines high-potency marijuana as marijuana with a THC content of 15 percent or more. The legislation targets drug trafficking only and not possession of marijuana.

Under current law, unlawful distribution, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, importation and exportation of marijuana under 50 kilograms or 1 to 49 plants carries a maximum fine of $250,000 for an individual, $1 million for a group and up to five years in prison. H.R. 2828 increases maximum fines to $1 million for an individual and $5 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 25 years. If death or serious bodily injury occurs, sentencing would be 20 years to life in prison.

A second offense after a drug felony conviction would result in a minimum fine of $2 million for an individual or $10 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 35 years, or life if death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of the marijuana.

Top U.K government scientist says: Cannabis evidence ‘was devalued’

kanaman — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:20:35 +0000

We came across this interesting thread on the BBC website which refers to a lecture given by Professor David Nutt, of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Professor Nutt used a lecture at King’s College in London and a briefing paper to attack what he called the “artificial” separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs, accusing ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of “devaluing” scientific research. He also criticizes the scare-tactics of the U.K government on the issue and claims that the link between cannabis use and schizophrenia is hugely over-exaggerated; This story has some traction and has been on rotation on both BBC News 24 and British terrestrial television! It is a blow to the U.K government as Professor Nutt is the new chairman of the Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs – popularly known as the government’s “Drug Czar”.

Many observers are worried about the contradictory and incoherent nature of the U.K’s current drug policy which clearly hasn’t worked – The U.K has the 3^rd largest cannabis consumption rate in the western world! The Home Secretary has herself admitted to smoking cannabis as a student whilst attending Oxford University – making her a MASSIVE hypocrite – if she had been caught under her own rules, she would never have been able to hold the position of Home Secretary!

I also came across a video on the subject… enjoy!

U.K Politicians who’ve admitted to smoking cannabis

kanaman — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:31:20 +0000

Here’s a little video I found which lists some of the U.K Politicians who’ve admitted to trying cannabis at one point in their life:

Why are they still in office?! If they had been caught and criminalised they could never have entered politics in the first place with a drug related criminal record. Why are they so keen to impose the new classification when they obviously had no respect for the law themselves.

So how harmless is Skunk?

kanaman — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:39:27 +0000

With this post we want to clarify some of the misconceptions that a lot of people seem to have on skunk.

Firstly, let us point out that Skunk is nothing more then a name for (mostly indica) potent weed. It is NOT some genetically engineered super dangerous new type of weed. (special announcement for the media; did you guys notice the word NOT? )

For your information, the Dutch ska band “Doe maar” made an album called skunk back in 1981! So the term has been around for a while. However, even if it was a new kind of weed.. Will this new super potent weed be somehow more dangerous than the weed smoked 20 years ago? So what if weed is more potent? This only means that you have to smoke less of it.. Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing? And what about hash? Shouldn’t this be even more dangerous? Even in the seventies people smoked hash which is a lot more potent than any skunk you can buy nowadays.

The third argument that the anti-legalization lobby likes to use is that skunk/cannabis use somehow causes schizophrenia? Let’s pretend for a moment that this is proven to be true ( scientists still seem to disagree ) isn’t that all the more reason to have a legal and regulated market for it? What is the worst that can happen? In the Netherlands adults are allowed to buy small amounts of weed and this has worked just fine for the last 20-odd years.

Just to compare the two systems.. 9.7 percent of youngsters (15-24) use cannabis at least once a month in the Netherlands, compared to 15.8 percent in the UK.

Antonio Maria Costa just refuses to answer the question!

kanaman — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:59:41 +0000

Just over a year ago we brought you a spectacular video of ENCOD?s Frederick Polak, trying in vain to get a very relevant question answered by UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa.

Here’s the follow-up; Costa reportedly went to Amsterdam to see for himself, yet still manages to avoid the question and tell blatant lies:

For those who didn’t see the original post; here’s the link to it:

Costa vs Polak