U.S. attacks Canadian pot laws

fungus44

Bluelighter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,436
Location
Toronto, Canada
From today's Toronto Star:

Mar._11, 2005. 01:00_AM

U.S. attacks Canadian pot laws
Canada's `lax attitude' criticized
High potency of pot adds to crisis


TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON—A surge of high-potency marijuana illegally smuggled into the United States from Canada is fuelling a rise in drug dependency among young Americans, the Bush administration's drug czar says.

A frustrated John Walters, the director of the U.S. National Drug Control office, yesterday signalled Washington's ongoing irritation with what it sees as a lax attitude toward drug crimes north of the border, something that has forced it to redeploy drug patrols from the Mexican border to its northern flank.

Walters conceded yesterday American authorities are making no dent in the flow of Canadian pot and he said Canadian police and prosecutors have told him lenient Canadian courts are a root of the problem.

"The big new factor on the scene ... is the enormous growth of high potency marijuana from Canada," Walters said.

"This is a problem. It requires joint action and we will continue to work with Canadian government on this.

"But right now, the trend (does not show) this is getting smaller."

The Bush administration has been vocal in its concern over Canadian "grow ops," ecstasy manufacturers and a move by the past Liberal government to decriminalize marijuana possession, but Walters' message takes on a special urgency now.

The problem U.S. President George W. Bush has with drug smugglers on both his southern and northern borders is expected to be raised when he meets with Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox at a trilateral summit in Waco, Texas, on March 23.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — who has still not set a date for a Canadian visit — also raised drug-related violence on the Mexican border when she met yesterday with Fox in Mexico City.

Walters also mentioned the slaying of the four Alberta RCMP officers last week, offering condolences to their families and community members of Mayerthorpe, Alta., on behalf of the White House.

But he said the proliferation of grow ops is cause for concern not only in Western Canada, but also Toronto.

He was careful not to criticize the Canadian judicial system, but he repeated complaints he has heard from prosecutors and police officials in British Columbia and Toronto.

"I've talked to prosecutors in Canada over the past several years and they have stressed to me they don't believe they have sufficient sanctions against those involved in trafficking," Walters said.

"The law in some provinces is that unless you actually commit a violent crime against another individual, the tendency is for you not to get serious jail time."

He said the same trafficking crimes bring serious consequences in the United States and traffickers are often prosecuted under conspiracy and money-laundering laws because they often do not get their hands dirty in the actual transit of drugs where the violence occurs.

U.S. courts often impose mandatory minimum sentences — a practice Walters acknowledged is controversial — but a measure he said was needed to hold accountable "those who cause pain.

"Without the ability to use more extensive enforcement pressure, they (Canadian authorities) are concerned about how this will continue to grow," he said.

Last weekend, The New York Times published an extensive article chronicling the flow of so-called "B.C. Bud," a high-potency Canadian-grown marijuana now much in demand in the U.S. and Europe, across the British Columbia-Washington border.


The newspaper pegged the value of the Canadian cultivation and smuggling operation at $7 billion per year and Walters called the B.C. pot "dangerous and addictive."

Walters said the THC content in typical marijuana found in the United States over the past five years has gone from one to two per cent to a THC content of eight to nine per cent.

THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the active ingredient in marijuana that creates the "buzz" users seek.

Some varieties go up to 14 to 15 per cent THC level and some specially cultivated pot grown in Canada can offer THC levels of 25 to 30 per cent, Walters said.

Walters stressed that marijuana cannot be classed as a "soft drug" as it was in decades past.

"Of the 7 million people we have to treat in the United States, from the age of 12 and up, for dependence or abuse, over 60 per cent have marijuana as their primary dependence," he said.

Of the 5 million Americans aged 12-17 who use marijuana, he said, already 1 million are at the point where they need intervention or treatment.

"That is not the way marijuana use was a decade ago, a few decades ago. That's why the ignorance of people who think this is not a drug you have to be concerned about is a problem."

Walters said the main repercussion for both countries is the health and well-being of its youth, but he said the Canadian drug traffic has forced the U.S. to institute heavier border surveillance at a time when the two countries should be working toward freeing restraints at the border to try to speed commerce between the two nations, he said.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968350060724&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
 
A surge of high-potency marijuana illegally smuggled into the United States from Canada is fuelling a rise in drug dependency among young Americans

Together now, sing along:

Blame Canada ..."


8(
 
Man, they need to worry about other shit than Marijuana.

I just got out of jail (charged with possesion of a small quantity of Marijuana), and they stuck me in a holding cell with two people that just robbed a bank and another that just stabbed someone in the neck (his coat was soaked in blood). This happened in Pittsburgh.
 
"That is not the way marijuana use was a decade ago"

Umm yea.. back then folks had to smoke TWICE as much pot to get high. Anyone that has smoked the stuff to the point of intoxication knows that the law of diminishing returns applies to the way the drug effects you at high doses.

Ah the smoke and mirrors..... why don't they just hire someone to explain the real reason there is a genocidal war on drugs in this country? Or are the warriors more afraid of their own hypocrisy than they are of the "drugs" they "fight"?


Jeeze Piper, they throw you in the clink for a little pot in PA? You need to move out west man, all we get is a ticket (and that is only if the cop is in a bad enough mood)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know why they call walters a "czar?" that just seems like some totalitarian communist leader or something. Oh well....fuck the government.
 
Asshole!

Hey, how about this: you stop the flow of guns that actually KILL our people into our country, and we'll stop the flow of marijuana into your country.

I want to meet this Walters douche.
 
I know! Canada should fully legalize it, and thus avoid tragedies such as the recent deaths of four RCMP officers.

Just a thought.
 
See John Spin,
John can Spin,
Watch him spinnnn!

the Bush administration's drug czar says: "fuelling a rise in drug dependency among young Americans..."


A frustrated John Walters, the director of the U.S. National Drug Control office, yesterday signalled Washington's ongoing irritation with what it sees as a lax attitude toward drug crimes north of the border, something that has forced it to redeploy drug patrols from the Mexican border to its northern flank.

Walters conceded yesterday American authorities are making no dent in the flow of Canadian pot and he said Canadian police and prosecutors have told him lenient Canadian courts are a root of the problem.


There are a lot of people who have smoked pot. Does John really think that by using phrases such as "drug dependency" that the office of National Drug Control will be able to convince people that marijuana is addictive?

Even worse, I've occasionally seen people post on BL who have claimed to have "recovered" from a "marijuana addiction."

I mean, give me a fucking break! Anyone who claims to have been addicted to marijuana is either a complete ass, or is some agency plant trying to affirm the false notion that marijuana is addictive.


I am really over this administration thinking that people are so stupid that they will believe anything (even when their personal experiences show otherwise).

And just for the record, I have not smoked pot in over 10 years. I personally don't like it, but I damn well know that it isn't addictive. :\

Legalize, regulate, educate!

World without myth,
AMEN.
 
It's easy to put a spin on something false to turn it true. This is what the goverment/media alliance does. This is how they continue to thrive. This IS their livelyhood. A whole industry made up by some of the best liars in the country.

Im sorry i said that. They really suck at lying. But they're good enough to easily convince all the viceral-minded apes and chimps.
 
"This is a problem. It requires joint action and we will continue to work with Canadian government on this.


i'm tired and it made me giggle :D :D :D ;)
 
Invalid Usename said:

I mean, give me a fucking break! Anyone who claims to have been addicted to marijuana is either a complete ass, or is some agency plant trying to affirm the false notion that marijuana is addictive.

well in that case i must be a complete ass since i'm defenitely not some agency plant :\ i though i was addicted to weed, but now i know, i'm just an ass... and i'm not the only one...
thank you for clearing that up

Invalid Usename said:

And just for the record, I have not smoked pot in over 10 years. I personally don't like it, but I damn well know that it isn't addictive. :\

well maybe there's a chance that some people who actually DO like pot (a lot) MIGHT get addicted to it..???
jesus...
 
Chemical dependence is difficult/nearly impossible to achieve with THC; However there are plenty of folks who have made using it a habit to the point that it detrimentally effects their lives. Call it a habit if you are uncomfortable with the term addiction.

Although there is an argument that *most* of the "detrimental effects" are due more to the prohibition of the drug than the effects that it causes. Loss of job, spending too much money, getting arrested, etc. etc.
 
teetmanike said:
well in that case i must be a complete ass since i'm defenitely not some agency plant :\ i though i was addicted to weed, but now i know, i'm just an ass... and i'm not the only one...
thank you for clearing that up
I first smoked pot when I was 16 years old, that was in 1969. Since that time I have known literally thousands of people who smoke it regularly. None of them were "addicted" to it.

It has only been within the last couple of years that people have talked about being "addicted" to marijuana. And if you believe that you are addicted to it, it is simply a by product of your belief structure, not the direct effects of THC itself.

If you like to get high and do it often, that is a far cry from developing a real drug dependency.


teetmanike said:
well maybe there's a chance that some people who actually DO like pot (a lot) MIGHT get addicted to it..???
jesus...
Yeah, I like pizza and lobster A LOT, too (separately, of course). But that doesn't mean I am addicted to them.

Like I said, your belief that you are addicted is just that, a self applied belief. I've had far too much experience, for too long, with people who use marijuana. It isn't even possible to get lab animals to develop a dependency.

You might like to do it, but that is a far cry from developing a drug dependency.


EDIT: And incidentially, people who romanicize about being "addicted" to marijuana serve no purpose other than playing into the hands of the drug prohibitionist movement. You simply give them fuel to further restrict access. So whether you may agree with that or not, the prohibitionists need people like you for their statistics model, so that they can continue to convince congress and the senate to continue to maintain its illegal status.
 
Last edited:
jdude3 said:
Chemical dependence is difficult/nearly impossible to achieve with THC; However there are plenty of folks who have made using it a habit to the point that it detrimentally effects their lives. Call it a habit if you are uncomfortable with the term addiction.

Although there is an argument that *most* of the "detrimental effects" are due more to the prohibition of the drug than the effects that it causes. Loss of job, spending too much money, getting arrested, etc. etc.
I completely agree.

The term "addiction" gets used far too often by people who do not understand what a chemical dependency is. Nicotine produces a chemical dependency, and will result in high risk taking behaviors when it is not available.

About 10 years ago I was camping with some friends and one of them smoked cigarettes (who had left them in the car). Two bears came into our area and all of us ran into the cabin, and watched the bears tear our tents apart to get food we had in them. This guy that smoked was having a terrible nicotine fit. And while we were all still in the cabin, the bears had left, but we didn't know were they were or how close. This guy says that he's going to make a run to the car to get his cigarettes and runs out of the cabin (the cars were a couple hundred yards from the camp site).

This guy risked his life so he could have a cigarette. That is an example of a risk taking behavior resulting from a chemical dependence.
 
I know pot doesn't cause a chemical depenency but what about psychological dependency? I guess i may have a bad "habit" instead of a "addiction" but that doesn't change shit... i'm still struggling with it, and so are a lot of people.
I've been addicted to tobbacco for years, so i think i know what an addiction is... but it's all semantics anyway, call it a habit if you want to
 
Last edited:
Top