a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on from people who have no idea what it’s like to breach a door not knowing what’s in store on the other side. First, no one knows what kind of person this guy was and what kind of player he was in the drug scene. SWAT isn’t going to raid a home JUST for a little weed. There have been plenty of raids where no much was found because either he knew he was going to get raided at any moment or smart enough not to keep his stash of dope in the house. The truth of it is that most cops I know, don’t really care about marijuana. Most, if not all are not going to raid a home with a tactical team for a little weed and a pipe. Do some of you really think that they just picked a house to go raid on a whim. The had to get a warrant signed by a judge who had to believe there was enough probably cause to enter a persons home. As for the raid itself, sometimes there are aggressive animals that need to be dealt with. It sucks, but it’s a fact that they need to be shot sometimes. Also, they did not go in throwing flashbangs into kids rooms or anything. The team did their job in that no person was injured or killed. I am sure there is an internal investigation going on to sort out the details of what happened. I know someone will bring up that they do not care about an IA investigation because it will just get covered up. These days it is not easy to cover things up especially when it makes national news and videos are posted on You Tube. If one of them is in violation of law or just simple policy, I hope he get the full discipline coming to him. It’s critical incidents like these that weed out the bad cops, which is a good thing.
For those who advocate the killing of cops, grow up. You sound like a disgruntled 16 year old who just got their first speeding ticket. If you were truly an adult, you would come to the realization that society would crumble without some kind of law and order. It’s these “Fucking Pigs” that keep you safe while protesting them. To sort of quote Jack Nickolson, “…just say thank you, or otherwise grab a weapon and stand post…”
You made some nice points in your post, but whether the war on drugs is about protecting citizens from harm, giving more power to law enforcement, cow-towing to firearms and protective equipment manufacturers, big pharma, whatever. And regardless of whether it’s right or wrong,
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
The drug war isn’t about the drugs, it is about mass incarceration and stripping the rights of citizens(Jim Crow anyone?)[/quote]
I’m pretty sure this ^^ ISN’T what it’s about.
DB
For the record, I am for the legalization and regulation of pot. It should be treated just like alcohol and tobacco, imo.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
Do you even know about drugs? So do you actually believe that Alcohol has less side effects than weed or other “illegal” drugs?
Dude if you don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t comment.[/quote]
Oh you gotta love the fucking straw men in this thread.
Where did I say anything about alcohol? Where did I say I actually believe that alcohol has less side effects than weed or other illicit substances? That’s right, I didn’t. Stop putting words in my mouth. [/quote]
You must admit, you DID say that if a substance had negative side effects, it would go back to being banned. With alcohol being legal, that’s obviously false. I think that’s why he mentioned it in response to you, because it proves that you were wrong. Just saying.
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Mettahl wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.
Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.
So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.
Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]
The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]
Did you know that both of those are illegal? Yeah. That was an excellent example.[/quote]
Did you know that alcohol used to be illegal? And people made the same arguments you’re making to get it legalized? [/quote]
Alcohol was re-legalized mainly because of the fact that making it illegal formed an extremely massive criminal element overnight, and the government and law enforcement struggled with a huge increase of alcohol related murders, smuggling/bootlegging, and deaths from tainted bootleg alcohol. That seems like an excellent reason to make it legal again. That way control of the substance was back in the hands of the government rather than gangsters.
[quote]hkinurface wrote:
a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on from people who have no idea what it’s like to breach a door not knowing what’s in store on the other side. First, no one knows what kind of person this guy was and what kind of player he was in the drug scene. SWAT isn’t going to raid a home JUST for a little weed. There have been plenty of raids where no much was found because either he knew he was going to get raided at any moment or smart enough not to keep his stash of dope in the house. The truth of it is that most cops I know, don’t really care about marijuana. Most, if not all are not going to raid a home with a tactical team for a little weed and a pipe. Do some of you really think that they just picked a house to go raid on a whim. The had to get a warrant signed by a judge who had to believe there was enough probably cause to enter a persons home. As for the raid itself, sometimes there are aggressive animals that need to be dealt with. It sucks, but it’s a fact that they need to be shot sometimes. Also, they did not go in throwing flashbangs into kids rooms or anything. The team did their job in that no person was injured or killed. I am sure there is an internal investigation going on to sort out the details of what happened. I know someone will bring up that they do not care about an IA investigation because it will just get covered up. These days it is not easy to cover things up especially when it makes national news and videos are posted on You Tube. If one of them is in violation of law or just simple policy, I hope he get the full discipline coming to him. It’s critical incidents like these that weed out the bad cops, which is a good thing.
[/quote]
Surveys typically come up with a number just under 50% when they try to find out how many Americans have smoked weed before. This means that almost 50% of Americans, at some point in their life, have been in a situation where SWAT could bust in their door, kill their pets, leave, and people like you would be defending their actions because they have a dangerous and unpredictable job.
That’s great that officers are taking steps to keep themselves safe. That’s wonderful that they have the knowledge and tactics necessary to reduce their casualty rate. A dead cop is a bad situation for sure. That being said, a SWAT team member should be able to adapt himself to a changing situation. That’s part of the training of anyone, military or law enforcement, that’s going to be in sensitive situations with innocents around. Upon seeing a caged pit bull, an oh-so-dangerous corgi, a toddler, a wife, and the fact that the man of the house (who they were after) was just some chubby harmless guy that was asleep in bed, they should have been able to adapt themselves to fit the situation.
I agree that they must adapt to the situation. But I do not know if he is a “harmless guy”. That’s why I question why SWAT was used. If he was in fact harmless, then the Detectives or narcotics officers could have just knocked on the door, presented the warrant, and then searched the home. I would think that they used SWAT because they had some information not yet available to us.
I do feel bad for the child in the home but I find it hard to believe that the wife was unknowing of what her husband/boyfriend was involved in. It’s ridiculous that they killed a dog that was caged. There definitely needs to be some policy changes and or discipline in that aspect. I would not defend their actions if they just randomly picked small time dopers to raid. They do not use SWAT to serve warrants on people like that. SWAT is used for high risk warrants like for people who are known to be dangerous, carry weapons, major drug dealers, etc.
On another note, do we know how the video ended up on You Tube in the first place. It should have been locked up as evidence until the conclusion of a trial.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
You made some nice points in your post, but whether the war on drugs is about protecting citizens from harm, giving more power to law enforcement, cow-towing to firearms and protective equipment manufacturers, big pharma, whatever. And regardless of whether it’s right or wrong,
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
The drug war isn’t about the drugs, it is about mass incarceration and stripping the rights of citizens(Jim Crow anyone?)[/quote]
I’m pretty sure this ^^ ISN’T what it’s about.
DB
For the record, I am for the legalization and regulation of pot. It should be treated just like alcohol and tobacco, imo.[/quote]
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.
As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?
If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.
Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]
Good post. This whole thing turned into a debate over legalization which has nothing to do with the orginal post.
BTW I’ve lost a friend and had two injured during a “low risk” marijuana warrant.[/quote]
I’m sorry for your loss. But, I would think you would be for decriminalization of marijuana in that it would take LEO’s out of harms way. You know there is a never ending supply of this stuff right? It literally grows out of the ground. As long as there is abject poverty in our inner cities and rural areas there will be no shortage of people willing to risk their worthless lives to sell it.[/quote]
Thanks, he was a good man. Very well liked by the whole community including criminals. He was one of the most respectful human beings I’ve ever met and I miss him every day. It’s only been a year.
I have mixed feelings over legalization. If it were the same old Marijuana that was around in the 60’s and 70’s I wouldn’t care either way.
As mentioned ealier New Zealand has one of the highest rates of Marijuana use in the world.
I’ve spent a lot of time there and it’s a very interesting place to visit, especially if you want to learn more about our topic.
I spoke with the chief analyst from Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who are contracted to do all the drug testing for the Police.
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.
Most people who buy the “super weed” don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. I don’t know many smokers who would want to smoke 60 joints in one go.
Oranised crime has taken a new interest in Marijuana. The risks and penalties are a lot lighter and there’s a huge demand.
[quote]KAS wrote:
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.[/quote]
Jesus. More scare mongering?
One estimate of THC’s LD50 (dose killing half of the research subjects) for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes.
Good luck with that. The worst that could happen is that you’d pass out before getting close to a 10th of the way.
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.
As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?
If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.
Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]
Good post. This whole thing turned into a debate over legalization which has nothing to do with the orginal post.
BTW I’ve lost a friend and had two injured during a “low risk” marijuana warrant.[/quote]
I’m sorry for your loss. But, I would think you would be for decriminalization of marijuana in that it would take LEO’s out of harms way. You know there is a never ending supply of this stuff right? It literally grows out of the ground. As long as there is abject poverty in our inner cities and rural areas there will be no shortage of people willing to risk their worthless lives to sell it.[/quote]
Thanks, he was a good man. Very well liked by the whole community including criminals. He was one of the most respectful human beings I’ve ever met and I miss him every day. It’s only been a year.
I have mixed feelings over legalization. If it were the same old Marijuana that was around in the 60’s and 70’s I wouldn’t care either way.
As mentioned ealier New Zealand has one of the highest rates of Marijuana use in the world.
I’ve spent a lot of time there and it’s a very interesting place to visit, especially if you want to learn more about our topic.
I spoke with the chief analyst from Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who are contracted to do all the drug testing for the Police.
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.
Most people who buy the “super weed” don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. I don’t know many smokers who would want to smoke 60 joints in one go.
Oranised crime has taken a new interest in Marijuana. The risks and penalties are a lot lighter and there’s a huge demand.[/quote]
Organized crime is not an issue with marijuana everywhere. Especially with dispensaries, which largely are supported by domestic, gray-area legal operations.
What happens to these people who smoke “super weed”? I’ve seen people smoke the most potent weed in the West (it can be argued you will not find stronger) and all they did was lay down and watch movies before going to bed.
The fact remains that there remain to be health problems caused directly by weed, regardless of potency.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.[/quote]
Jesus. More scare mongering?
One estimate of THC’s LD50 (dose killing half of the research subjects) for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes.
Good luck with that. The worst that could happen is that you’d pass out before getting close to a 10th of the way.[/quote]
Mak where do you see in what he posted that cannibis would kill you?
He merely referred to a research study on how the amount of THC has increased.
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
I have been around just about every drug there is. The one that always scares me is alcohol. When alcohol shows up to the party you know something is going to happen. No other drug makes people as crazy and as violent than alcohol does. [/quote]
Really? Maybe you just hang around assholes. The last 10 parties I went to had alcohol. People drank, some got drunk off their ass and there were no problems. Nothing “happened”. Yeah, alcohol is worse than weed. But if people are drinking responsibly, which most of my friends do, it’s not a problem. So let’s stop with the blanket statements. [/quote]
I agree with the guy about alcohol. Its way more difficult to be responsible with alcohol than it is with weed. When I think about the STUPID shit I did in college, and watch 21 year olds in bars around here they are retarded.
With alcohol we are talking personal injury, assualt, rape, property damage. Basically you name it alcohol can contribute to it.
You NEVER see that with weed, except maybe with driving under the influence which is obviously a horrible idea. Even then weed doesnt affect motor functions the same way alchohol does so your not going to be weaving between lanes on weed. You shouldnt drive on weed but its not as bad as alcohol.
[quote]KAS wrote:
I spoke with the chief analyst from Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who are contracted to do all the drug testing for the Police.
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.
Most people who buy the “super weed” don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. I don’t know many smokers who would want to smoke 60 joints in one go.
Oranised crime has taken a new interest in Marijuana. The risks and penalties are a lot lighter and there’s a huge demand.[/quote]
The thing is that if it was legalized and regulated (and because of the social sensitivity of the substance, it definitely would be highly regulated) by the government, then they could control the growing standards, the amount of THC, how clean the plants must be, et cetera. Keeping it illegal just puts all of those variables into the hands of whoever wants to sell it for personal profit.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.[/quote]
Jesus. More scare mongering?
One estimate of THC’s LD50 (dose killing half of the research subjects) for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes.
Good luck with that. The worst that could happen is that you’d pass out before getting close to a 10th of the way.[/quote]
Mak where do you see in what he posted that cannibis would kill you?
He merely referred to a research study on how the amount of THC has increased.
[/quote]
More THC = you get to the high you want faster.
More THC = you still pass out at the same dosage of THC.
AND… I’m also referring to the fact that people who want pot to stay illegal should campaign to have alcohol banned, otherwise they are total hypocrites.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
except maybe with driving under the influence which is obviously a horrible idea. Even then weed doesnt affect motor functions the same way alchohol does so your not going to be weaving between lanes on weed. You shouldnt drive on weed but its not as bad as alcohol.[/quote]
Fuck that, if I’m high I don’t want to drive, I want to chill to some Herbie Hancock and eat Nachos. And play Call of Duty!
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Kvale wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
You have no clue what the problem is. Thanks for trying, though.[/quote]
I said MY problem, not “the” problem - which is entirely subjective anyway. [/quote]
You’re off topic. That’s your problem.
This issue – about some dude getting arrested and charged with child endangerment after his dogs are shot by SWAT team members – has very little to do with the possible adverse effects of marijuana. This is NOT a medical issue; this is a question of the standards that the state must adhere to when trying to uphold law and order insofar as it pertains the gang-run illicit drug trade.
If it had turned out there was a mountain of marijuana hiding in the guy’s mattress, I would far fewer issues with the outcome of the search warrant, which in this case was a totally trumped-up, bogus charge of “child endangerment.” The possible pharmacological effects of the substance in question is a moot point here.
Such evidence is so appallingly weak that I can’t understand why any judge would feel it’s in the best interests of society to convict this father and therefore implicitly approve of the use of a SWAT team, the shooting of family pets, and the long-standing effects upon the families and the neighbourhood where perhaps only a pipe with residue may be found.
This has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana is X number of times more carcinogenic than Player’s Light.
[quote]hkinurface wrote:
a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on from people who have no idea what it’s like to breach a door not knowing what’s in store on the other side. First, no one knows what kind of person this guy was and what kind of player he was in the drug scene. SWAT isn’t going to raid a home JUST for a little weed. There have been plenty of raids where no much was found because either he knew he was going to get raided at any moment or smart enough not to keep his stash of dope in the house. The truth of it is that most cops I know, don’t really care about marijuana. Most, if not all are not going to raid a home with a tactical team for a little weed and a pipe. Do some of you really think that they just picked a house to go raid on a whim. The had to get a warrant signed by a judge who had to believe there was enough probably cause to enter a persons home. As for the raid itself, sometimes there are aggressive animals that need to be dealt with. It sucks, but it’s a fact that they need to be shot sometimes. Also, they did not go in throwing flashbangs into kids rooms or anything. The team did their job in that no person was injured or killed. I am sure there is an internal investigation going on to sort out the details of what happened. I know someone will bring up that they do not care about an IA investigation because it will just get covered up. These days it is not easy to cover things up especially when it makes national news and videos are posted on You Tube. If one of them is in violation of law or just simple policy, I hope he get the full discipline coming to him. It’s critical incidents like these that weed out the bad cops, which is a good thing.
For those who advocate the killing of cops, grow up. You sound like a disgruntled 16 year old who just got their first speeding ticket. If you were truly an adult, you would come to the realization that society would crumble without some kind of law and order. It’s these “Fucking Pigs” that keep you safe while protesting them. To sort of quote Jack Nickolson, “…just say thank you, or otherwise grab a weapon and stand post…”
[/quote]
I agree with a lot of what you said, but it seems you don’t understand the implications of your own words when you say, “First, no one knows what kind of person this guy was and what kind of player he was in the drug scene.” But maybe you were speaking in a more figurative manner and you simply meant “knows” as in to a relative high degree.
At any rate, I’m sure everyone can agree that you don’t use a SWAT Team simply because your intel is sloppy or incomplete.
Yeah, I think someone fucked up and maybe they missed the boat on this guy… but the charge they tried to nail him with sets a really sad precedent and, if anything, it will only go to support more sloppy investigation and haphazard use of SWAT Teams. I think the implications of the outcome thus far is almost as bad for the Police as it could be for anyone else – and not just from a PR perspective.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.
As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?
If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.
Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]
Good post. This whole thing turned into a debate over legalization which has nothing to do with the orginal post.
BTW I’ve lost a friend and had two injured during a “low risk” marijuana warrant.[/quote]
I’m sorry for your loss. But, I would think you would be for decriminalization of marijuana in that it would take LEO’s out of harms way. You know there is a never ending supply of this stuff right? It literally grows out of the ground. As long as there is abject poverty in our inner cities and rural areas there will be no shortage of people willing to risk their worthless lives to sell it.[/quote]
Thanks, he was a good man. Very well liked by the whole community including criminals. He was one of the most respectful human beings I’ve ever met and I miss him every day. It’s only been a year.
I have mixed feelings over legalization. If it were the same old Marijuana that was around in the 60’s and 70’s I wouldn’t care either way.
As mentioned ealier New Zealand has one of the highest rates of Marijuana use in the world.
I’ve spent a lot of time there and it’s a very interesting place to visit, especially if you want to learn more about our topic.
I spoke with the chief analyst from Environmental Science and Research (ESR) who are contracted to do all the drug testing for the Police.
He has tested samples of Marijuana with 60 times the THC levels of regular weed. This is due to advanced growing/engineering techniques. It’s at the point now where some countries are considering upgrading weed to a higher class of drug.
Most people who buy the “super weed” don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. I don’t know many smokers who would want to smoke 60 joints in one go.
Oranised crime has taken a new interest in Marijuana. The risks and penalties are a lot lighter and there’s a huge demand.[/quote]
You know, it’s not like beer or wine went away when the Arabs invented the still back in the middle ages, even though this meant ten to twenty times more potent alcohol. People don’t even drink stuff distilled to it’s max proof anymore. I honestly doubt that the “same old weed” of the 60’s and 70’s is going anywhere either.
The fact that most people who buy this super weed don’t know what they are getting into would be a lot easier to address by legalization and legislating proper package markings than by making it even more illegal. You don’t see too many people opening a bottle of tequila and thinking it’s comparable to having a beer. Compare this to the fact that criminals selling pot won’t mind adding epoxy resin or fiberglass to the product to increase their profit margins, much less selling stuff of questionable potency.