Dutch may label some cannabis as a hard drug

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
(Reuters) - The Netherlands, famous for its liberal soft drugs policies, said on Friday it may label some highly concentrated forms of cannabis as a hard drug on a par with cocaine or heroin, because of the risk of addiction.

(...)

Now, a Dutch commission has found that hashish and marijuana on sale in the Netherlands contain around 18 percent of THC, the main psychoactive substance, and advised the health minister that anything above 15 percent put drugs on a par with heroin or cocaine.

"I've been very worried for years about the THC concentration, especially if it is so high. We will take a serious look at it," Health Minister Edith Schippers told public broadcaster NOS.

"The addictive consequences are much stronger and severe. Clearly this is a worrying development."

When asked if tolerant soft drugs policies would end if some cannabis was labeled as a hard drug, she said: "The THC concentration fluctuates widely so the 15 percent level is not common. You'd have to look at how to change this development."

cont at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-dutch-cannabis-idUSTRE75N4T220110624
 
This is stupid and the right-wing nutheads at the head of the dutch government should burry themselves in the sand.

Even hash oil is a soft drug.
 
I've taken 100% THC (marinol) and it is not as good as bud. The argument posited in this article is stupid. Where is the evidence to back these ludicrous claims?
 
Hard drug, an anti-cancerous drug is a hard drug? What is Bayer? Did they label that as a hard drug, too?
 
This would be pretty fucking crazy and stupid if they did this, cannabis is cannabis obviously stronger shit is a bit more desirable to abuse but at the end of the day its not really influencing whether people get addicted or not and no THC concentration is near on par with cocaine or heroin.
 
wow the NL is moving further and further backwards.

How can any developed country (other than America, that's a different story) put weed in the same category as heroin and coke?

By their logic anything over 8% alcohol should be considered much to strong and addicting and should be viewed the same (if not worse) than heroin and cocaine. Wow I could write a whole few pages the more i think of the hypocrisy that will be the NL drug laws if they change thier mind about weed while ignoring the terrible powerful and horrendously addictive and destructive, alcohol
 
You can vaporize a brick of pure THC but just because it's 100% THC doesn't mean it's on par with, let alone worse than, heroin.
 
Pretty soon this world will have essential vitamins and nutrients illegal so that way you have to pay out the ass at ridiculous marked up prices just to stay healthy and alive! just watch..\
 
it would be some what interesting to see what happens if they re-criminalised weed here, i recon it would be like Americas alcohol prohibition, would fail and as time goes on would be re legalized at some point
 
The idea of "hard" and "soft" drugs is ridiculous in the first place, but this is extra stupid. 2x the quantity of bud that's 1/2 the quality of "hard" weed would get you just as high.
 
psychomimetic said:
The idea of "hard" and "soft" drugs is ridiculous
Click to expand...

I wonder about this.
I agree that having to make a binary choice - hard or soft - is laughable, but different drugs remove you from consensus reality to different extents. The difference between a caffeine high and an alcohol-induced stupor, for example, is enormous.
The physical (and some would say social) effects of various drugs vary as well, from unnoticeable to extremely intense.
So, mentally and physically at least, some drugs are "harder" than others.

That said, the full extent of the physical and mental intensity depends not just on the category/type of drug, but also on the dose, the timing, the related environmental and emotional circumstances, and more.

I can see the arguments both ways...

(But, for the record, I agree with the rest of what you said, psychomimetic)
 
slimvictor said:
I wonder about this.
I agree that having to make a binary choice - hard or soft - is laughable, but different drugs remove you from consensus reality to different extents. The difference between a caffeine high and an alcohol-induced stupor, for example, is enormous.
The physical (and some would say social) effects of various drugs vary as well, from unnoticeable to extremely intense.
So, mentally and physically at least, some drugs are "harder" than others.

That said, the full extent of the physical and mental intensity depends not just on the category/type of drug, but also on the dose, the timing, the related environmental and emotional circumstances, and more.

I can see the arguments both ways...

(But, for the record, I agree with the rest of what you said, psychomimetic)
Click to expand...

I was having an interesting conversation about this just the other day. It started with us talking about MDMA.

I think that quantity, quality, frequency of use and genetic makeup are more important then the drug itself in most cases. A mild caffeine high is certainly more mild then a alcohol induced stupor, but 1 gram of caffeine would be much worse for one then having a few drinks of alcohol.

MDMA causes severe negative effects when used too often, as I'm sure you know, but it is fairly negligible when not used so much, and it often has positive effects. So should it be called a hard drug? On top of that, I know people who have rolled very frequently for years with fewer negative effects then some people I know who stick to doing it no more then once per 6 weeks.

Heroin, when used without becoming addicted, as many people do, is not harmful. In my life, heroin has played a more positive then negative role, and it has certainly played a more positive role in my life then some psychedelics, which many would call soft drugs. But others are destroyed by heroin, and it is traditionally thought of as a hard drug. Many people consider opium to be a soft drug though.

I feel that I need marijuana to function, my use of the drug controls many aspects of my life and is in many ways unhealthy. But marijuana is almost universally considered asoft drug.

So for me, many drugs considered soft drugs harm me more then many drugs considered hard drugs, I don't think I've ever seen the terms applied in a way that's relevant to my situation.

Calling something a "hard" or "soft" drug works ok as a sweeping generalization, but any close look at what makes drug use harmful or not makes those definitions break down. Some people are more sensitive to the negative effects of drugs, and drug use can almost always be responsible and thus not damaging or minimally damaging.

There are just too many variable involved in drug use for it to be described in such a simple way. The current Dutch government doesn't seem to have great marijuana policies.
 
Last edited:
If you are consuming less material to achieve your desired high, then that is HEALTHIER than consuming twice as much material for the same effect.

Same can be said of alcohol. Here in the US some of the states have placed limits on how strong beer can be, but an alcoholic is just going to drink twice as much 3.5% alcohol beer, and then not only do you have a drunk, but a smelly fat drunk on your hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top