Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
January 2011
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

Authors

No experts?

Editorial: After Marijuana, The Cold from The Bulletin (Bend, OR)

Those really don’t look like such tough questions, do they? They may not be tough, but the truth of the matter is that there are no definitive answers to them. That’s because we really have no marijuana experts. That’s why the penalty for possession of marijuana is more severe than the penalty for possession of LSD, which all the non-experts agree is a far more dangerous narcotic.

Huh?

There aren’t all that many things we know more about than marijuana.

What are they looking for? We’ve got experts. We’ve got experts in marijuana science, marijuana economics, marijuana history, marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution, marijuana politics, and, of course, marijuana consumption.

Sure, we always want to know more, but… no experts?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

21 comments to No experts?

  • paul

    This guy must be a Democrat. When you can’t think of a reason why something must be bad, just call on the “experts” for advice. If the experts are going to say something you don’t like, pretend there are no valid experts to draw from, or they’ve all been corrupted by the other side.

    Republicans, on the other hand, would just label something like marijuana “bad” because it just IS, and anybody can plainly see that. And if you can’t see that, well, you just don’t go to church enough.

    Oh, and LSD is not a narcotic. And the penalty for LSD possession is actually much greater than for marijuana anywhere you go. What’s he smoking?

  • strayan

    LSD is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting effects on brain and other parts of the human organism

    There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose.

    http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/cns-neuroscience+therapeutics_2008-passie.pdf

  • vicky vampire

    Here is a list of my fav Doc experts I PERSONALLY LIKE
    Dr.Stephan Scheule
    Dr. Carlo Pozzilli
    Dr. Andrew Weill
    Dr. Lester Greenspoon
    Google them all have done commendably working cannabis area.
    of course seen has sinners by some and ignored

    No Experts the list is very long could take pages and pages
    filled with names thinking of pages and pages empty? pages like the minds that inhabit the DEA and similiar ilk.

  • darkcycle

    There’s a guy who just started typing. All you need is a premise, doesn’t have to be a good premise, or correct, and you certainly don’t want to waste the opportunity to look like an idiot by going to Google to CHECK your premise, just bomb on in and start typing. Lah-dee-dah-dee-look at me, I’m a colossal bonehead, lah-dee-dee-dee-dah.

  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by M.. M. said: RT @ctCannabis: No experts? http://chtr.it/RrNhxx #pot #cannabis […]

  • paul

    How long do you have to smoke pot before you are an expert? I may qualify…

  • DdC

    What Is a Court Expert Witness?

    An expert in the issue at hand. The witness is referred to as a court expert witness, one who is considered an authority in the issue that is relevant to the court trial.

    A court expert witness may be considered an authority depending on his or her education, experience, or training. He or she has specialized knowledge of the issue, whether it is criminal forensics or civil liberties. The court must recognize the witness as an authority in his or her field before he or she can be called a court expert witness. The witness is usually subject to an examination of his or her credentials pertaining to his or her education, training, experience, and whatever background he or she may have. The court expert witness is usually hired and paid by one of the legal counsels of a court case.

    A court expert witness is usually called to the witness stand in a court trial to prove or disprove a claim made by the prosecution’s or defense’s legal counsel. The legal counsel will make an effort to find a well-established court expert witness relevant to the issue discussed in the case.

    Sister Somaya Kambui

    The defense put forth two credible physicians, Dr. Lichtenstein from the Veterans Administration, and Dr. Eidelmann, a specialist in alternative medicine.

    Scott Imler testified as an expert, as he runs the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center. He had written a declaration that he was called on to explain. He knew Somaya, he knew that it helped Sickle Cell patients, and he knew that she had grown marijuana.

    Meanwhile, Elvy Musikka waited in the hall, ready to testify on the Federal IND program and the amount of marijuana that the government gives to her and only six other patients in this country. She was never called.

    Then court-qualified cannabis expert Chris Conrad showed up and was able to help the attorney draft a line of questioning to better establish the facts of the case:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Anyone can be an “expert” in court if they can show they obtain more knowledge than the “average” person. I met Chris Conrad at a Hemp Fest and he told me he was an “expert” in court trials and I ask where you go to get a certificate. He said there are none, if memory serves. Titles are handy or writing a few books. But basically almost anyone can testify as an expert. That said, any fool can screw up a case too. The judges ruling is what determines who is qualified. Smoking for 40 years only qualifies one as an expert law breaker. But if you’re in court you have already fucked up. Stay out of the system is the best advice.

    On another forum the “expert” was mostly ignorant, but the “title” is what sold the article for the publisher. The Ganjawar is notorious for using “NIDA” and Dept. of Justice “experts” or FDA janitors war stories become FDA rulings to the press. Rupert Murdock is the first to admit he is a Newsman. He sells stories. He never claimed to sell fact or truth. Yet 95% of the media is controlled by 5 corporations, all sharing Ruperts philosophy. The readers are given stories based on a 5th grade education. The more simple the message the more people you will reach is a typical fascist mo. Fascism goes back to the Romans. Its a way of doing business. NIDA by definition, and by their own title disqualifies themselves as non-bias experts. They can not by law conduct medical research. Or aid and abed any part of legalization. Yet they are the source of “exp[erts” used by the 5 major media censors leaving out the other side.

    The internet has exploded the information to the internet users. But it isn’t “new” information. At least not all of it and none of it legally since there is still a ban on research in spite of reality doing research. Many “oldsters” have known of the full page petitions to legalize in 1969. The various decriminalizing in Ann Arbor and the bits and pieces collected by Jack Herer and Chris Conrad into reference books. But information are words. Words can sway people but they can’t physically do a damn thing. All of the information on the internet is silent as long as individuals don’t communicate them to those we elect to govern. Thats nearly impossible from the closet.

    That’s why the penalty for possession of marijuana is more severe than the penalty for possession of LSD, which all the non-experts agree is a far more dangerous narcotic.

    No its the same schedule#1 “narcotic” even though they are both hallucinogens. But what the hell, burlap is the same. LSD has harsher penalties because the paper is weighed and time served is measured on a scale by weight in micrograms. Its not as if reality plays a part in it. Its not like its about your safety or your kids safety. Its about profit using hobgoblins to get it.

  • Sick........!

    Just sounds like more propaganda to convince the unknowing public that cannabis is dangerous. Tell a lie long enough….

    One day people like him will wake to find their freedoms gone and have no one to blame but him self.

  • experts don't know their ass from their elbow

    It is all the fault of one Harry J. Anslinger.

  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Herbal Vaporizers, WeedPlaces.com, Legalize 420 and others. Legalize 420 said: No experts?: That's because we really have no marijuana experts. That's why the penalty for possession of mariju… http://bit.ly/fp2ymZ […]

  • Duncan20903

    The really interesting thing is that clowns like this don’t even get high. Seriously, it appears to me that it’s a congenital pathology.

    @Pete G, I do hope you understand that the reason the article’s writer thinks there are no “experts” is because the experts don’t validate these people’s perception of reality, which they would certainly do if they really were experts. If I’m not an expert on everything Cannabinoidian it’s not possible that there ever will be one.

    @pete, I had been enjoying cannabis for 12 years before I ever bothered to start learning anything about cannabis other than where to buy it or how and where to grow it. The only reason I decided to examine the facts was because I got busted, was being forced to quit and sent to “treatment”, and I figured if I learned the facts about all the negatives that come from enjoying cannabis that it would be easier to quit. Needless to say that plan backfired. Perhaps more accurately than “backfired”, the entire engine exploded in a spectacular fashion. The point is that had I been left alone I very likely would never have had the inclination to study the subject. So I’m proffering the thought that the number of years of being a pothead is irrelevant. Sheesh, how many 20 or 30 year practicing alcohol addicts believe that alcohol isn’t a drug? Less than there used to be but people that have that belief aren’t hard to find.

    I can verify from personal experience that LSD is a very benign substance. About the only problem with it is that its so damn all consuming for such an extended number of hours when you’re high. It’s certainly not addictive. I haven’t had any this century, and that’s because I lost interest in it. When I broke up with cocaine, and later decided to leave the drinking alcohol alone both substances objected and did their best to remain in my life. I actually had either 10 or 12 hits that I kept around for over a decade before I finally just threw them away. The last time I dosed The Grateful Dead were still touring with Jerry Garcia in the band. Jerry passed away in 1995.

    The promise of random flashbacks from taking LSD is also a complete fiction so don’t get your hopes up if you decide to take a trip.

    On House MD in one episode Dr. House dropped acid because he had a migraine which he had self induced to prove an anti-migraine medicine was a fraud. Since he was correct about the medicine being ineffective he was left with a very annoying migraine after taking it. They never explained how a doctor in New Jersey could snap his fingers and find a dose on demand but I guess sometimes fictional drama requires a leap of faith. Dr. House does very much enjoy getting high.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    Let’s not nitpick the meaning of the word narcotic. It’s been widely used and is the broad definition that includes anything used to get high is widely accepted by enough people that the use of the word in the article is an appropriate and legitimate use of the word.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcotic

    World English Dictionary
    narcotic (nɑːˈkɒtɪk) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

    — n
    1. any of a group of drugs, such as heroin, morphine, and pethidine, that produce numbness and stupor. They are used medicinally to relieve pain but are sometimes also taken for their pleasant effects; prolonged use may cause addiction
    2. anything that relieves pain or induces sleep, mental numbness, etc
    3. any illegal drug

    — adj
    4. of, relating to, or designating narcotics
    5. of or relating to narcotics addicts or users
    6. of or relating to narcosis

    [C14: via Medieval Latin from Greek narkōtikós, from narkoūn to render numb, from narkē numbness]

    It’s like the word ‘disease’ which many think is incorrectly applied to ‘addiction’, but using the broadest definition of the word it fits. A broken bone is a disease using the same parameters.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disease

    dis·ease
       /dɪˈziz/ Show Spelled [dih-zeez] Show IPA noun, verb, -eased, -eas·ing.
    –noun
    1.a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
    2.any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
    3.any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
    4.decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.
    –verb (used with object)
    5. to affect with disease; make ill.

    For crying out loud a guy that can’t get a boner has a disease. I must say I’d have had a much more peaceful life if I wasn’t bothered by the darn things. I think they’ve got this one bass ackward.

  • […] No experts?Drug WarRantThat's because the chastisement for receive of pot is some-more serious than the chastisement for receive of LSD, that all the non-experts determine is the distant some-more …and more » […]

  • Mike R

    This is good. We need less experts. 10 experts, 10 different stories. Allow the laymem to do their thing and the natrual order of the univers will take care of things. Let the experts worry about peak oil and global warming and extraterresterials and such.

    On a serious note, though, this entire issue has always been based on a lack of knowledge, and not of the scinetific variety. The people with the power to make / influence laws tend to have very little personal experience with marijuana, and wouldn’t share if they did. It so much more about a moral imperative than about actaul reality.

    People need to come out and be honest about their use, but how? As long as insurance companies provide group benefits discounts for orgs that drug test, the intellegent, free-thinking people in America are gagged. Who can afford to get slapped with a random whiz-quiz? As long as universities and schools enforce suspensions and expulsion for marijuana offenses, you’ll never know that practically every one of the student body government, or the national honor’s society enjoys to partake. Don’t even get me started on criminal records…

    I think of things like these when I see the scene in Fight Club when they corner the police chief and kindly inform him that he’s attacking the very people that make his every day life possible.

    Of course, that strictly the stuff for movies.

  • vicky vampire

    Yup Mike R I agree people in America are gagged that’s the problem. everyone’s elses comments excellent has always also yeah just try try and speak freely about your pot usage even at a town hall meeting your license and facial recognition then a visit with or with out warrant to our home and your in trouble if your in possession there is no real genuine freedom that the religious right keep endlessly chirping about freedom in this country its a joke.

    My young adult kids were talking about how I think France is the only country where you can actually drink AUTHENTIC ABSINTHE ever where else it is weakened. not sure about Canada.

  • Maria

    So, what pray tell are the qualifications to become an expert in anything involving Wine? Because it seems the only difference between their experts and our experts is that unlike our lovely plant grapes are still fucking legal.

    So I guess, we mostly have illegal experts. And that somehow voids their years of experience, study and expertise? Or what? I’m having a hard time following this writers bastardization of logic.

    I wonder if this writer would consider Dr. Tashkin and expert?

    Oh, we also have experts in industrial hemp, fiber, feed. We even have experts who are culinary geniuses. 😛

  • Maria

    “People need to come out and be honest about their use, but how?”

    I’ve been struggling with that in my own life. I would have so much to lose with any legal issues involving cannabis. But then again, who doesn’t have a lot to lose in this environment?

    We’re all terrified. I’ve spoken plainly against the war on (some) drugs. I’ve engaged with others, confronting myths and trying to deflate absurd opinions of friends and family. But… So, how do you come out?

  • Duncan20903

    Mike R, after my wife and I bought our current home and decided that buying some term life coverage so if either one of us passed the other wouldn’t have to worry about the mortgage or have any truly pressing financial issues to deal with while grieving. Since this was before I became aware of synthetic urine and since we were buying policies large enough for the company to send the professional urine collector over to our house we quit getting high for 5 weeks. (Why yes, we do wake and bake. What’s your point?) But in a most annoying turn of events they tested for nicotine and cocaine and nothing else.

    C’mon, tell me they would have skipped testing if cannabis truly lowered your life expectancy on the actuarial table. Gotta love those things, they never actually get to 100% death rate. If you make it to 50 they might schedule you to expire at 75. But if you make it to 65 it won’t happen until your. Turn 75 die at 85. Turn 80 and you get 89. The chart topped out at 110, if you made it to that age they expected you to live until 113. This is more supporting evidence for the theory that the inevitability of death has been exaggerated.
    ………………………………………………..

    You know, from time to time I wonder what the career path to being a person who collects urine for a living must be. Certain jobs require truly weird people to fill the position. Another example is proctology. Why in the world would anyone want to specialize in diseased assholes?

  • paul

    Duncan,

    Hordes of people specialize in diseased assholes. The entire Washington press corps, to begin with. Everyone with a poli-sci degree. CNN.

    You make it sound so…creepy.

  • John

    I just don’t get how that last sentence becomes legitimate, when considering his first few lines…

  • DdC

    We the People use cannabis for various reasons. One might say using medicinal cannabis would out rank recreational. If it was a narcotic or potent enough to kill or had side effects producing flippers. One might consider it a worthy precaution. Narcotics are toxins, toxins can not reside in human fat cells. Cannabis can, that is why bogus pisstaste are politically motivated and serve no other service. The toxins are also responsible for the addictive properties, not with cannabis or any hallucinogen. When the politicians use the sick people as pawns and even targets. It has nothing to do with the patients safety. These opportunists place sick and even terminally ill American citizens in harms way. There are no ethics or morals left in government concerning the Ganjawar. Define this run amuck capitalism with government intervention, but its still just plain old fascism. Manipulations, adulterations, sabotage and fabricated tales of woe and future doom if we dare do what we are and have been already doing. The politikops running the Ganjawar. Take their time eating up tax dollars stalling and tweaking citizens initiatives. Each state and states county’s and municipalities all tweaking away at what the original says. Until its not for the people. SCOTUS forgets the 4th amendment is for probable cause and not cops paperwork or making quotas. The CSA is a lie, they know it, the press knows it, the teachers in the schools know it, the kids know it and yet its been around so long until we can replace it then it must go on…

    Let’s not nitpick the meaning of the word narcotic.

    Reverse engineering and the appeasers going along with it…

    If you can’t make cannabis a schedule#1 on its own merits,
    simply classify it as something worthy. Then get the gullible to agree. Cannabis is not a narcotic in spite of the drug worriers and their lapdogs.

    Appease : pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.

    They appeased the drug czar by accepting his demands in an effort to pass laws.

    Psychedelics (classical hallucinogens)
    The term “psychedelic” is used interchangeably with “psychotomimetic” and “hallucinogen”[4], thus it can refer to a large number of drugs such as classical hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc.), entactogens (e.g. MDMA), cannabinoids and dissociative drugs (e.g. ketamine).

    Legal status and attitudes
    European countries no longer actively pursue anti-drug policies, and rarely enforce extant legal penalties for personal-use quantities of hallucinogenic drugs. This is especially true with mild hallucinogens such as cannabis, which is rapidly gaining acceptance in western Europe as a harmless and socially acceptable intoxicant,

    Pharmacological classes of hallucinogens
    Cannabinoids (CB-1 receptor agonists)

    Hallucinogenic organisms
    # Quasi-psychedelics
    * Cannabis (contains THC)