Reefer madness has once again raised its ugly head in the UK. Following a study on a limited number of mental health patients,it
has been announced that 25% of them took strong varieties of
cannabis. That is 25% of those diagnosed with problems, itself a small
percentage of people.
Of course there is no data on people with
such problems that found help using cannabis and never had to go to a
doctor or psychaitrist in the first place!
So the
gutter press pick up on the report and in their usual way misrepresent
the data to suggest that strong cannabis poses a significant risk to teh
generaol population, a greater risk than would weaker strains.
They also choose to perpetuate the "skunk" myth.
I
don't know anyone that smokes skunk, it's just a particular strain
isn't it?
Calling all strong varieties of cannabis "skunk" is
like calling all vacuum cleaners "hoovers" or calling all ball-point
pens "bics" - some may know what we mean but it is the sort of
inaccuracy that experts and journalists ought to avoid
If supply was legalised, people would have choice and buy
the strains most suitable to them, just as those that drink have choice
of flavour, alcoholic content and brands. In the last ten years or so,
in the UK and elsewhere, many growers have chosen big-return and
powerful crops, the likes of Cheese, that contain high levels of THC but
low CBD ratio. This seems not to suit some users that enjoy and
benefit from varieties with a higher CBD ratio. Most buyers then do
not have a choice and may buy "bud" not even knowing what it is at all -
it smells, they call it skunk.
That is no excuse whatsoever for
those conducting studies and writing reports to make the same mistake -
they are supposed to know better - was it really skunk those poor people
smoked? I doubt it, even if they called it skunk.
On
the other Colorado shops or Californian clinics, cannabis social clubs
and cannabis clubs, Dutch coffeeshops - there is choice and there seems
fewer claims of incidences of psychosis associated with cannabis - if
they don't like it they buy something else.
And
because the whole supply chain in the UK is illegal, there is no
quality control, advice on THC: CBD ratio, no tax derived from profits
and no lower age restrictions.
If
indeed there is such a bad influence on mental health, albeit for a
tiny percentage of the population, it is indeed a reason to legalise.
It is ludicrous to propose differentiating a drug by the perceived "strength" of a mythical "strain" called Skunk. It might follow a perverse logic if they talked about Sinsemilla products, but that doesn't guarantee the strength of it's leaves or flowers. Strength of what anyway? There are 10s of thousands of different active chemicals in marijuana. Talk about reefer madness? These guys need a calming cookie or three.
ReplyDelete