Comments on: Exposing ‘Potent Pot’ Myths (Part 3) http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/ Working to reform marijuana laws Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:03:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Bruce Cain http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-525 Bruce Cain Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:27:25 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-525 The Solution: The Merp Model for Re-Legalization Drug Policy =========== The MERP Project The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy (MRP) Project http://www.newagecitizen.com/ReLegalization01.htm http://www.newagecitizen.com/editorial_on_the_marijuana_re.htm Bruce W. Cain Discusses the MERP Model, for Marijuana Relegalization, with "Sense and Sensimilla" http://senseandsensi.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=270029 Why Lou Dobbs Should Support Marijuana Legalization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VKf5YfQb7s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewagecitizen%2Ecom%2F Video Biography of Bruce W. Cain http://www.newagecitizen.com/Videos.htm The "Hemp Song" by Bruce W. Cain http://www.newagecitizen.com/AudioFiles/HempSongGnosticRaw.mp3 "Rainbow Farm" and instrumental dedicated to Tom Crosslin who was murdered at Rainbow Farm a week before 9/11 (09/11/2001) http://www.newagecitizen.com/AudioFiles/RainbowFarm%20050202.mp3 How Continuing the Drug War could make Nuclear Terrorism a Reality by Bruce W. Cain http://www.newagecitizen.com/Editorials/v8n1NuclearTerrorism.htm The Solution: The Merp Model for Re-Legalization

Drug Policy
===========

The MERP Project
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy (MRP) Project

http://www.newagecitizen.com/ReLegalization01.htm
http://www.newagecitizen.com/editorial_on_the_marijuana_re.htm

Bruce W. Cain Discusses the MERP Model, for Marijuana Relegalization, with “Sense and Sensimilla”
http://senseandsensi.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=270029

Why Lou Dobbs Should Support Marijuana Legalization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VKf5YfQb7s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewagecitizen%2Ecom%2F

Video Biography of Bruce W. Cain
http://www.newagecitizen.com/Videos.htm

The “Hemp Song” by Bruce W. Cain
http://www.newagecitizen.com/AudioFiles/HempSongGnosticRaw.mp3

“Rainbow Farm” and instrumental dedicated to Tom Crosslin who was
murdered at Rainbow Farm a week before 9/11 (09/11/2001)
http://www.newagecitizen.com/AudioFiles/RainbowFarm%20050202.mp3

How Continuing the Drug War could make Nuclear Terrorism a Reality
by Bruce W. Cain
http://www.newagecitizen.com/Editorials/v8n1NuclearTerrorism.htm

]]> By: ConservativeChristian http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-497 ConservativeChristian Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:42:29 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-497 There's some thought that if the government could find a way to make money off of it, legalization would happen sooner rather than later. How many people would be willing to get behind a proposal for a $100 per year Small Scale Cultivation and Consumption card that would permit the holder to pay a $100 fee in order to cultivate up to 12 plants, possess up to sixteen ounces of usable product, and transfer as a gift (not sell) up to one ounce of material to another person? The $100 would be split between the Federal and the State government, i.e., both layers of government get a cut. This would: -Increase government revenues -Reduce government spending for arrest and imprisonment -Close the so-called gateway to other drugs, as marijuana users would not need to buy from criminal dealers -Destroy the profits of organized criminal drug gangs What do you think? How much support would there be for something along this line? There’s some thought that if the government could find a way to make money off of it, legalization would happen sooner rather than later. How many people would be willing to get behind a proposal for a $100 per year Small Scale Cultivation and Consumption card that would permit the holder to pay a $100 fee in order to cultivate up to 12 plants, possess up to sixteen ounces of usable product, and transfer as a gift (not sell) up to one ounce of material to another person? The $100 would be split between the Federal and the State government, i.e., both layers of government get a cut. This would:
-Increase government revenues
-Reduce government spending for arrest and imprisonment
-Close the so-called gateway to other drugs, as marijuana users would not need to buy from criminal dealers
-Destroy the profits of organized criminal drug gangs
What do you think? How much support would there be for something along this line?

]]> By: John Stossel says Legalize Every Drug in The New York Sun | * DOCUMENTDUMP.com ^ RWCS.COM * Steal This Blog ¿©? http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-492 John Stossel says Legalize Every Drug in The New York Sun | * DOCUMENTDUMP.com ^ RWCS.COM * Steal This Blog ¿©? Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:55:38 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-492 [...] Paul Armentano at NORML is really super exhausted from spending the whole weekdebunking the potent pot propaganda parade, but he summoned the energy to produce a final post [...] […] Paul Armentano at NORML is really super exhausted from spending the whole weekdebunking the potent pot propaganda parade, but he summoned the energy to produce a final post […]

]]> By: Howard the Duck http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-488 Howard the Duck Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:46:50 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-488 If they believe that hemp is more potent than ever before then it also begins to fit the prophesies in the Bible of the Rapture! And if you know anything about the silicon that compter chips are made of then Revelations 15:2 could be about the Internet. American King James Version. "And I saw the semblance of a glassy sea, mingled with fire; and standing by this glassy sea, with harps of God, were those who came off conquerors from the beast and from his image and from the cipher of his name." And about the fight to free the human mind from the propaganda of the Beast. If they believe that hemp is more potent than ever before then it also begins to fit the prophesies in the Bible of the Rapture!
And if you know anything about the silicon that compter chips are made of then Revelations 15:2
could be about the Internet.

American King James Version.

“And I saw the semblance of a glassy sea, mingled with fire; and standing by this glassy sea, with harps of God, were those who came off conquerors from the beast and from his image and from the cipher of his name.”

And about the fight to free the human mind from the propaganda of the Beast.

]]> By: Dominic Holden » Blog Archive » First They Ignore You http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-467 Dominic Holden » Blog Archive » First They Ignore You Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:39:56 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-467 [...] Armentano: As Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then [...] […] Armentano: As Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then […]

]]> By: Lane Rizzardini http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-462 Lane Rizzardini Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:27:13 +0000 http://blog.norml.org/2008/06/17/exposing-potent-pot-myths-part-3/#comment-462 I left a comment for them, I thought I would share it with you: "The first point makes no sense. Why would the study use immature plants if they're trying to accurately gauge the potency of today's marijuana, then call it "domestic", a label that most would assume represents cannibus grown in the US? Also, why would they call it "nondomestic" if they aren't sure where it comes from? Shouldn't they label it "unknown source"? On top of that, you're the DEA, you're telling me you can't give these researchers the correct types and amounts of cannibus for an accurate study? Really? You're rebuttal makes the study come off as unprofessional and not well done. If I'm reading the second rebuttal right (which I may not be due to my shaky understanding of the word "titrating") it doesn't really address the claim. The question isn't whether the user would get high, clearly they would, the question is would they stop after smoking less with a more potent type of marijuana? You do not address this in you're rebuttal. Finally, I'm wondering why you only chose two points to try and refute, when there were many, many more you could have refuted, namely the point about how THC cannot kill you, and that we currently have a prescription pill containing 100% THC and no one seems to have a problem with this. Why not? Maybe because you have no counter argument? You'd think with billions of dollars in government funding you could do a better job of refuting an article by a non for profit organization. I guess might doesn't make right..." I left a comment for them, I thought I would share it with you:

“The first point makes no sense. Why would the study use immature plants if they’re trying to accurately gauge the potency of today’s marijuana, then call it “domestic”, a label that most would assume represents cannibus grown in the US? Also, why would they call it “nondomestic” if they aren’t sure where it comes from? Shouldn’t they label it “unknown source”? On top of that, you’re the DEA, you’re telling me you can’t give these researchers the correct types and amounts of cannibus for an accurate study? Really?

You’re rebuttal makes the study come off as unprofessional and not well done.

If I’m reading the second rebuttal right (which I may not be due to my shaky understanding of the word “titrating”) it doesn’t really address the claim. The question isn’t whether the user would get high, clearly they would, the question is would they stop after smoking less with a more potent type of marijuana? You do not address this in you’re rebuttal.

Finally, I’m wondering why you only chose two points to try and refute, when there were many, many more you could have refuted, namely the point about how THC cannot kill you, and that we currently have a prescription pill containing 100% THC and no one seems to have a problem with this. Why not? Maybe because you have no counter argument?

You’d think with billions of dollars in government funding you could do a better job of refuting an article by a non for profit organization. I guess might doesn’t make right…”

]]>