Features

George Harrison discusses the pros and cons of weed and its legal counterparts
Availability and risk
 
To those of us who have often struggled to find real weed, fake weed of the “puff”, “illusion” and “chronic” varieties have been a revelation. Well, that’s putting it a bit strongly. But it’s definitely been useful. Clearly the availability of legal weed is one factor weighing strongly in its favour. When once one had to go through at least four degrees of separation before any legitimate marijuana would materialise, now all you need to do is drop into Cosmic Corner or the Willowbank, hand over your $20-$25 (yes, some varieties are even cheaper than your average Dunedin tinny!), and you’re sorted. So it’s easy to get and the risk is next to nothing. Conversely, part of the whole appeal of weed is the fact that it is illegal and subversive and that you can’t get it at a moment’s notice. The whole “will we get it, won’t we get it?” is part of the experience, as is the fact that you’re doing something officially deemed “naughty”. In this respect weed has a particular history that the legalised highs lack. Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles didn’t smoke puff. They were about alternative culture and mind expansion. In this respect many feel that legal highs lack the history, culture and authenticity of the real ganja.
 

Consistent legislating? 
Although sold as “incense”, legal highs are essentially a derivative of weed and one questions whether the fact of their being legal is consistent legislating, especially considering the fact that their effects are relatively similar to those of marijuana. However, it’s actually not that easy to ban these products. Again, they aren’t sold as a drug. They also do not come under the legal definition of a drug, per the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Their exact chemical structure has not yet been determined and clearly it is impossible to ban something you can’t define. Parliament can’t simply illegalise these products under their brand names – the companies who produce them will just change the name. And if they ban the particular structure, a marginally different structure can be developed with essentially the same effects, but that does not fall under the definition.

 
Regardless of what the government makes illegal, weed will continue to be consumed, thus funding New Zealand’s gangs. I would argue that legalisation, or at least decriminalization, is the realistic response to this state of affairs. Per the Recent Trends in New Zealand Drug Use Survey 2007, black market weed currently has an estimated annual dollar turnover of $131-$190 million. Small business could profit from legalisation, money would also not be wasted on the detection and prosecution of offenders and the government could reap the benefits via taxation. The hypocrisy of legalising alcohol but not marijuana is also notable. Alcohol is often closely associated with violence (the Police National Alcohol Assessment found that at least a third of recorded violent offences in 2007/08 were committed under the influence of alcohol) and can be far more dangerous for the user than weed – cannabis is not physically addictive in the same way as alcohol is and I don’t know of anyone who’s ever blacked out from smoking a joint. What is also interesting is that the fact of weed being illegal hasn’t actually amounted to a significant deterrence in usage. In fact, compared to the Netherlands where pot is actually legal, New Zealand has a higher rate of cannabis use (according to the NORML website).  
 
 
 
Effects 
Both weed and fake weed can give you a good buzz and their effects vary from person to person. However, on the whole, fake weed is way harsher to smoke and although intensely fun for about 20-60 minutes, leads to a feeling of total lethargy far more quickly than real weed. So it really depends on the kind of high you’re wanting. Real weed is definitely a more mellow buzz and the effects last for a lot longer (up to eight hours). But if you want some crazy intensity the legal highs are the superior alternative. Just watch out for that paranoid edge.
 

Natural vs. artificial 
When Bob Marley talked about the herb revealing you to yourself, he was not referring to a chemical derivative thereof. The “natural” aspect of weed (assuming it hasn’t been laced with P or rat poison, as per Dunedin drug lore) is one of its appealing characteristics, and not just because of its cultural associations. One wonders at the negative health effects of these legal highs. Although smoking a joint is about as bad for you as smoking five cigarettes (unless you use a vaporiser), the fact that a lot of the legal highs state that they are “not for human consumption” is worrying to say the least. Their acrid, plastic taste also contributes to this sensation of artificiality. Whether the legal highs are substantively worse for you than legitimate marijuana, or whether it’s just a matter of how they feel, real weed is definitely superior in this respect.
 

So which trumps? 
To be honest, it really depends on what you’re looking for. Pure marijuana is way less harsh, lasts longer and doesn’t give you the fear or that feeling of utter exhaustion so easily or quickly as fake weed does. The fact that fake weed made me immune to the effects of real weed after only a few weeks of semi-regular usage was also kind of worrying. However, it is more intense, technically by the book and easy to get. Alternatively you could mix the two together. Actually, I haven’t tried that yet... 
 

 
Disclaimer: Critic and OUSA do not promote illegal drug use. See page 24 for details on agencies where people can seek help if they are concerned about drug issues.