Firstly, let us point out that Skunk is nothing more then a name for (mostly indica) potent weed. It is NOT some genetically engineered super dangerous new type of weed. (special announcement for the media; did you guys notice the word NOT? )
For your information, the Dutch ska band “Doe maar” made an album called skunk back in 1981! So the term has been around for a while. However, even if it was a new kind of weed.. Will this new super potent weed be somehow more dangerous than the weed smoked 20 years ago? So what if weed is more potent? This only means that you have to smoke less of it.. Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing? And what about hash? Shouldn’t this be even more dangerous? Even in the seventies people smoked hash which is a lot more potent than any skunk you can buy nowadays.
The third argument that the anti-legalization lobby likes to use is that skunk/cannabis use somehow causes schizophrenia? Let’s pretend for a moment that this is proven to be true ( scientists still seem to disagree ) isn’t that all the more reason to have a legal and regulated market for it? What is the worst that can happen? In the Netherlands adults are allowed to buy small amounts of weed and this has worked just fine for the last 20-odd years.
Just to compare the two systems.. 9.7 percent of youngsters (15-24) use cannabis at least once a month in the Netherlands, compared to 15.8 percent in the UK. ( source )