weedforneed.com » Quotes & Opinions

New UK Government’s drug adviser Les Iversen seems to have a selective memory

kanaman — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:21:33 +0000

Another crazy news story from the UK. As you might have read on this blog, David Nutt was sacked because of him criticizing the Government’s decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B substance.. He argued that the scientific research was devaluated and the UK government making an “artificial” separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

If you thought that was strange, wait until you hear this.. The new chairman that will replace David Nutt, Les Iversen, had exactly the same opinion with regards to Cannabis. During a lecture in 2003 he said the following;

“There have been no deaths to date caused by use of cannabis. Cannabis should be legalised, not just decriminalized, because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.”

In an article in 2003 he wrote that cannabis had been incorrectly classified for nearly 50 years as a dangerous drug and that it was one of the “safer” recreational drugs.

When he was questioned about these remarks during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Professor Iversen stated the following; “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now”

“We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

We wonder what these new facts are? Is it the fact that he will get sacked, like David Nutt, if he says that cannabis should be legalized? Or the fact that he would never have been appointed in the first place if he still had that opinion?

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.

Source: kirk.house.gov

And what a coincidence, that as medicinal cannabis laws are sweeping the USA (13 states and counting), the cannabis most valued for medicine – potent, well-grown sinsemilla – is being defined as an even harder drug than before.
Don’t forget that cannabis is a Schedule I (Class A) drug in the US…

Posted in cannabis lies, Quotes & Opinions Tagged: buzzwords, Drugs law, kush, National Drug Intelligence Center, sinsemilla, skunk, super-weed, THC

18 negative effects of the ban on cannabis

kanaman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:53:08 +0000

Here is a list of some of the negative effects of the ban on cannabis:

The ban on cannabis means that in addition to the coffeeshops and people who grow for their own use, an illegal market in cannabis also exists. There is no possibility of control over this illegal market which leads to criminality, unsafe situations, and events that disturb the peace; and to which underage people have easy access.
The ban on cannabis makes large scale crops and export of the product into a lucrative source of income for criminal organizations which can then use this income for other criminal activities, or ‘wash’ it via money laundering operations that can disturb the legal economy.
The ban on cannabis encourages criminal and antisocial behavior: rules concerning safety and security (for growing and in the marketplace) are easily broken and this goes unpunished. Conflicts are resolved using violence.
The ban on cannabis leads to an increase in prices, as the producer in an illegal market calculates their risk into the price.
The ban leads to a migration of tourists to coffeeshops near the borders of the country, and the operation of ‘drug runners’ to transport the product. Simple solutions for this problem such as the proposal for a so-called ‘Weed Boulevard’ with legal supply logistics are held back by the ban on cannabis.
The ban on cannabis puts enormous pressure on the resources of the police and the justice system, which cannot then devote them to other, more important goals. Some of the methods used to enforce the ban limit the personal freedom of civilians and are a matter of contention in court.
The costs of enforcing the ban on cannabis are not justified by the results. Although the goal of the ban (an essential reduction in supply and demand) fails to come a single step closer, the ban itself is never brought forward for discussion.
The ban on cannabis damages the credibility of the government, given that the use of cannabis continues to be firmly naturalized in society.
The (world-wide) ban on cannabis is one of the pillars of the U.S. dominated War On Drugs, which has led to sizeable global violations of human rights; and severely damages both the environment, and the security of the populations of cannabis-producing lands.
The ban on cannabis impedes the development of the industrial applications of the plant, which is capable of making a very valuable contribution to a sustainable future.
The ban on cannabis makes it impossible to carry out standardized controls on the product. Therefore demands can hardly be placed on the product in terms of consistent quality, health, or accompanying information on the contents and effects of the product.
The ban on cannabis leads to unwelcome and unhealthy practices in production which negatively affect the quality and effects of the product, and thereby damage the health of the consumer.
The ban on cannabis criminalizes the cannabis consumer (over one million Dutch people), with negative social consequences for the people in question, their relationships, their family, and their home and work environment.
The ban on cannabis is a restriction of the right to freedom of expression. It legitimizes information about the supposed evils of cannabis, information that cannot be seriously tested for durability, credibility or truthfulness and yet is used as justification for the active enforcement of the ban.
The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to make decisions about his / her own body.
The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to possess a medicine that is necessary to maintain or support his or her health and wellbeing.
The ban on cannabis dissuades doctors from prescribing it to patients who could benefit from the effects; and delays the process of recognition of its medicinal applications in the treatment of multiple afflictions such as HIV and AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, cancer, and chronic pain.
The ban on cannabis denies the government the possibility of levying taxes on the product.

Source: hashmuseum.com/cannabis-cultuurprijs/

Posted in Quotes & Opinions, Society and Cannabis Tagged: cannabis, cannabis cultuurprijs, criminal organizations, Legalisation, medical, prohabition, top 18, war on drugs

Cannabis Ebonics – Stoner Terms

kanaman — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:21:21 +0000

We found this list of stoner terms online and thought we’d share them. Some of the terms are more frequently used in America however most (if not all) have made their way into the international stoner vocabulary. We also dug up a classic clip of Ali G listing other stoner terms:

April 20th (4/20) – International Cannabis Day, everyone blazes on this day. Everyone blazes at 4:20 every day too.

Blaze – To get high!

Blunt - Either a hollowed out cigar filled with marijuana or (more commonly) a “marijuana cigarette” rolled with a blunt wrap (tobacco paper or emptied cigar).

Bowl - Can refer either to the part of a piece that holds cannabis, or to the pipe itself.

Bogart - The act of holding on to a joint/piece/blunt for too long, or one who does such an act: “Don’t bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me”.

Boo – A street name for marijuana, listed only in anti-drug literature. No one has ever heard or used it. If you are ever arrested for possession, you should use this term, saving the taxpayers the expense of correcting and reprinting anti-pot pamphlets.

Kick-Hole / Carb – The hole on the side of a piece used to regulate air flow. Hold it closed with your thumb while inhaling to draw smoke into the chamber, then release to let air in and force the smoke into your lungs. Also called a “rush hole”.

Cherry – The red burning coal of marijuana in a joint or bowl.

Chillum – A pipe with the bowl in line with the stem.

Ganja – Just 1 of many synonyms for cannabis, others include Dope, Marijuana, Grass, Draw, Puff, Blow, Weed, Gear, Ganja, Herb, Wacky Baccy, Skunk, Pot, Bob Hope and Bob – see the Ali G video below for many more

Hashish / Hash - The resin secreted by a marijuana plant. Different kinds of hash are prepared with a variety of recipes.

Hash oil - A liquid extracted from marijuana. Use mostly by dipping smokeables into the hash oil.

Hit – A drag or puff cannabis.

Hot Box / White wall - Getting high in a car or small space with no ventilation so that you are constantly inhaling atmospheric smoke.

Joint / Zut / Doob / Doobie - Marijuana cigarette. Kind Bud (chronic, hydro, sticky icky, highs) – High potency Cannabis.

Mids – Descent cannabis for the money you pay for it, if you don’t have a lot of money this is the best way to go.

Moocher – Someone who will smoke your bud in a second, but never has any of their own.

Papers / Skins – Cigarette papers used for rolling joints.

Piece - Refers to a pipe of one sort or another.

Resin - Black tar like stuff that builds up in smoking apparatuses.

Schwag – Low grade cannabis or the leftovers from the bottom of a big bag.

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

Posted in cannabis lies, Cannabis News, Quotes & Opinions, Society and Cannabis

Dr. Bob Melamede – Biology of Democracy

kanaman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:59:32 +0000

Dr. Robert Melamede aka Dr. Bob is a professor specializing in cancer treatment working at the university of Colorado.

In the video below Dr. Bob explains about Endocannabinoids and the difference between BLP’s (Backward Looking People)and FLP’s (Forward Looking People).

His theory on Endocannabinoids and how they influence everything is interesting. Have a look for yourself as he explains the basics in this video.

He also had some very interesting things to say about Cancer in a response to the Rick Simpson story (Run from the Cure), which we expect many of you have heard about. If you haven’t, we recommend you watch it right now. Click here..

White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’

kanaman — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:26:52 +0000

Good news … Finally someone in the White House who talks sense about the War on Drugs.

Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive
Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration

The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.

“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”

Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate — and likely more controversial — stance on the nation’s drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment’s role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.

The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn’t provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

During the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama also talked about ending the federal ban on funding for needle-exchange programs, which are used to stem the spread of HIV among intravenous-drug users.

The drug czar doesn’t have the power to enforce any of these changes himself, but Mr. Kerlikowske plans to work with Congress and other agencies to alter current policies. He said he hasn’t yet focused on U.S. policy toward fighting drug-related crime in other countries.

Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.

Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.

Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city’s 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement — especially for pot crimes — took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O’Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O’Neill said.

“The average rank-and-file officer is saying, ‘He can’t control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?’ ” Mr. O’Neill said.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said.

Others said they are pleased by the way Seattle police balanced the available options. “I think he believes there is a place for using the criminal sanctions to address the drug-abuse problem, but he’s more open to giving a hard look to solutions that look at the demand side of the equation,” said Alison Holcomb, drug-policy director with the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn’t support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them “part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction.“

Mr. Kerlikowske’s career began in St. Petersburg, Fla. He recalled one incident as a Florida undercover officer during the 1970s that spurred his thinking that arrests alone wouldn’t fix matters.

“While we were sitting there, the guy we’re buying from is smoking pot and his toddler comes over and he blows smoke in the toddler’s face,” Mr. Kerlikowske said. “You go home at night, and you think of your own kids and your own family and you realize” the depth of the problem.

Since then, he has run four police departments, as well as the Justice Department’s Office of Community Policing during the Clinton administration.

Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is “cautiously optimistic” about Mr. Kerlikowske. “The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner,” he said. “What’s important is the damn thing is beginning to turn.“

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

“While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gil’s focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences.“

Source: Gary Fields in The Wall Street Journal (may 14th 2009)