Richard Branson
thinks skunk is worse than alcohol but hash is safer.
Hash is made from cannabis; the stronger the cannabis and the stronger the hash, if it is made carefully and cleanly; hash is usually stronger, more concentrated, than the plant used to make it.
Hash is made from cannabis; the stronger the cannabis and the stronger the hash, if it is made carefully and cleanly; hash is usually stronger, more concentrated, than the plant used to make it.
Skunk was a name
given to one particular hybrid which has now been used extensively to
produce other hybrids.
The ratio of THC and
CBD differs in different strains and hybrids, of bud and of hash made
from it.
Some people prefer
higher or lower levels of THC and CBD - over the last decade or two,
strains with high THC and lower levels of CBD were introduced into a
market that was thought to want high THC even at the "cost"
of CBD.
THC and CBD are just
two cannabinoids in cannabis and have different effects.
More recently, the
advantages for many people of the higher CBD level plants has
encouraged breeders to change their plants to other strains.
That has nothing to
do with the fact that cannabis production and supply are illegal - it
has happened also in Holland and countries where cannabis is
available.
To suggest that
"skunk" is as bad as alcohol is just ignorance - what type
of alcohol; what quantity - what type of consumer?
The effects of
cannabis are a result of set and setting; yes the chemical
constituents, yes the quantity, yes the surroundings, but also very
importantly the mental state and mood of the consumer; also whether
it is eaten, smoked or vaporised or used with tobacco.
For sure, the
variety of cannabis strains available is less under prohibition than
where supply is legal or tolerated (USA, Spain, Holland, for
example). People have less choice and are more likely to be offered
be offered contaminated cannabis or cannabis of unknown strength, or
even other drugs, under prohibition. But in those places many users
still choose the high THC low CBD varieties that others may not.
There is no way to
protect consumers under prohibition and prohibition actually
increases risk of and actual harm.
BUT IS ANY OF THAT
RELEVANT TO THE LAW?
To the question: SHOULD A DRUG USER BE PUNISHED IF THEY HAVE DONE NO HARM?
To the question: SHOULD A DRUG USER BE PUNISHED IF THEY HAVE DONE NO HARM?
Unless legalisation
includes controls on strains, which would not make sense, it would
not stop the stronger varieties being sold but would give people more
choices.
No Victim No Crime;
Justice for cannabis users. Drop the word skunk."
No comments:
Post a Comment