Russell, I’m pleased you caught the difference in tone between the two articles. The CHDS one was largely “wordsmithed” by me, and the second by Benedikt.
I could just about hear Benedikt's voice :-)
I was keen for my commentary not to come off as dismissive of what he wrote, I just wanted to give some perspective on where he was coming from.
Really? It’s the first stage of a study in which they’re not yet sure they’ll see an effect at all. It surely makes sense to exclude any potential confounds. And they haven’t said “omg periodz” – one of the study team has a PhD thesis in relevant aspects of the menstrual cycle. If this first stage produces results, the study group will expand. Fwiw, I'm excluded too, for a reason it would mess things up for them to explain.
More importantly, though, the view of rule-breaking as risking contamination fits in with an attitude of fear and disgust towards rule-breakers, which I’m seeing on Twitter among people who didn’t seem to have those sorts of attitudes before.
What I keep thinking (and saying) is that we're seeing people processing their anxiety in various ways. I do hope that eases as the general sense of risk dissipates.
That said I think you could argue the high strength stuff is more like spirits or wine and the “pure” is extracts like hashish.
Hash is maybe port, and modern concentrates are the spirits. They're breathtakingly strong.
I don’t knows really because none of can kill you as easily as alcohol so the analogy breaks down on the actual harm measure.
I’m concerned that there are too many strains that are full on THC with little to no CBD to moderate it.
Thanks Ross. I think the above is one of the stronger arguments for legalisation. Per my Pearl Schomburg story, it seems that the better green fairy growers are achieving good CBD ratios, but it would be great if that was cannabis that everyone could obtain.
Here’s the 2010 ESR research, which involved growing plants hydroponically and got a remarkably wide variety of results.
Police and ESR used sophisticated hydroponic equipment to complete three cannabis growing cycles, nursing six plants at a time, 18 in total, to maturity. The study revealed the drug was more than four times stronger than it was last tested in 1996.
THC levels varied between 4.35 per cent and 25.3 per cent during the study completed under Ministry of Health licence between 2004 and 2006. When ESR last tested the Class C drug, it found an average THC level of 6 per cent.
The Drug Foundation published a response to the scare-story headings at that time about cannabis being “four times as strong” as in previous research in 1996, pointing out the inconsistency in potency and suggesting a more typical potency was 10-11%.
But that’s still more than Ross is saying now. I think 6% potency cannabis would not be popular at retail. Anyway, I've messaged him to asked if he can swing by with any more detail.
I was surprised to read this from Ross Bell.
Me too. I know that the national bragging about growing world-beating weed hasn't been true for quite a while, if it ever was, but that does seem very low.
If you have something you were planning on doing some time now’s the time to spend a bit of money (if you can) to help bootstrap our economy up and help get it up and running again
What’s the argument for no beverages? I recall a Kim Hill interview discussing the teas produced in California by a New Zealand expat – teas for relaxation and sleep and getting high or not getting high – all sounded wonderfully civilised. Why not here?
It's more of a general wariness about novel products I think. The rush to create drinks in California has a few issues.
But no looking, smelling or becoming in any way informed about the product you’re buying? Seriously? If diseminating helpful information at retail is going to be this crippled, we may as well buy via mail order.
I've updated the post. Clause 158 g (iii) would seem to allow a store operator to offer advice and information and for the customer to see and possibly smell the bud. Perils of trying to absorb a very detailed bill quickly on my part, but it could have been clearer, especially given the extremely broad definition of "advertising" in the bill.