The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A big stick is not the only way to fight cannabis use > Comments

A big stick is not the only way to fight cannabis use : Comments

By Rob Moodie, published 12/4/2006

Prevention, education and treatment: preventing cannabis-users from turning into dopes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
those on the cusp will be effected greatly by any drugs, it is just thay marajuana is the scapegoat becuase it is readily available.

Marajuana is prevalent in society, moreso than people think.

It is bad, can have dire effects for some, yet some seem to be not effected and use it for recreational purposes.

Either way, it is bad. But it should be decriminalised, the state should grow it and keep its strength at safeish levels, make it available like smoking so the massive industry is shut down.

It can be worth almost as much an ounce as gold, and it grows on trees. Being tough will not change anything, just like any addiction. it just drives them underground more, and makes them smarter.

It is like cigarettes, it is a smoke, so it should be governed by the same tough laws with licences to grow it, make it heavily taxed and assist with the prevention by warnings.

Chop Chop.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 10:39:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed inform, not the nanny state the new right so derides (exceptions when suited to their purpose, tell the truth but lie about Iraq and prevaricate about West papua, the ethnicity of Indonesians!)
Yes information and warning similar perhaps to warning of the youth's need for fast motor cars. (never fostered by industry? No better not put an exclamation mark see other post!) Yes a particular view of morality, viewing drugs and sex Unless married, as evil the lilkely view of the new right. Useless and corrupting of officials as well, fills the jails but boy don't the moralists feel good?
How damaging to society and why do people use drugs? Some quoted data shows a sharp rise in Thatcher England. True or just another debating point? Heroin of great purity can it is claimed be used for a very long time, addictive yes harmful yes but the individual still able to function as a member of society, apparently.
So yes inform warn and decriminalise after all harm to ourselves is an element of our freedom if the choice is rational. Ah you saw Rational don't I mean informed? No the thrust is to ask what is rational and then examine externalities for there effect if figures for Thatcher and figures on relative increase in use are true what drives this "rational" choice. A love of pleasure? If so then is it morally correct to deny the experience? The lofty self elevating speech of the politician is that to be subject to jail term it is presumably pleasurable or is it a necessary duty? If the latter truth and responsible presentation of facts might aid the claim.
No better not. I was going to ask is not religion in a somewhat similar category to drugs?
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 11:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There must be sanctions against the growing, supplying and even use of cannabis while there is still a chance of keeping it away from young people who are yet to try it.

When the use of any substance reaches the addictive stage, however, criminal sanctions are not the answer. Addicts are the only people who really know what it is like to be addicted and, unless they wish to throw off that addiction, no law or coercion will make one iota of difference, and there does not seem to be a place for governments in the problem. Witness the stupidity of trying to stamp out addiction to petrol sniffing with the introduction of Opal petrol. If the sniffers want to sniff petrol, they will find the real thing somewhere, just as with alcoholics, hard-drug and cannabis addicts.

How hard did many of us find giving up cigarettes? How many times did we try and fail? The only way with any drug, is to get rid of it. ‘Harm reduction’ and education is a waste of time. It is doubtful if tobacco and alcohol would be allowed if they were introduced today.

The author uses statistics to claim addiction percentages. For instance, only about 10% of those who try cannabis will become addicted. Oh yeah? What about all the users who fell outside the surveys? It’s a bit like the old chestnut that 1 in 10 drinkers are alcoholics. This is based only on those who present as alcoholics. The figures could be much different if some of these ‘social’ drinkers and wine ‘buffs’ stopped taking their one or two drinks per day and kidding themselves that they didn’t need their drug of choice.

All drugs, including alcohol (which does more harm than hard drugs, and costs the community much more) should be treated in the same way as tobacco, and their users made aware that there is something wrong with anyone who needs them.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 11:22:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a novel approach. Let us satisfy left and right; meet at the interface of communion. Discard the bread and wine as the celebrating medium, and pass around the bong. Goodness-me, the mind boggles. Then again, there could be an outcry from the conservative alcoholic set.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 12:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personnel freedom, personnel choice, personnel responsibility, all drugs should be legal. Doing so would stop 50% plus of crime. Why should smokes and drink be legal they are just as bad for you.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 1:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This is based only on those who present as alcoholics". Not so. It's a statistical measure. Researchers don't find shabby winos and compare their numbers to the general population; they take surveyed results from an anonymous group (including boozehounds, tee-totallers, and wine buffs), then compare the "drinks per day/week" stated with the medical threshold for alcoholism. That's what makes it science and not moralism.

Only the size of the sample group or an erroneus definition of addiction would skew the results.

And be careful not to confuse people who need drugs with people who simply like them.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 1:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a bit illiterate drug wise - I have used dope in the past to no great effect or interest. Yes, I did inhale!

I have wondered though whether the negative effects of dope are more to do with the high levels of THC in modern "artificial" weed ? Would naturally grown weed be safer with a lower THC and less likely negative side effects ?

If that was the case would allowing commercial sale of low THC weed be a more effective way of controlling it ? You could set the levels of THC and ensure purity. You could make it available only at pharmacies (I am not paid by the Guild!). Commercial interests would be more vigorous and aggressive in pursuing any unathorised competition (this is Mullboro country...) . You could tax it and use the money to combat more lethal drugs like speed, coke, heroin etc. You could use funds raised for improving mental health care and education.
Posted by westie, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 2:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not condone the use of pot. However I would rather see a much friendlier society, so the pressure is not so great to "escape" for a little while. Also if we use a big stick on this drug, let's use it on the legal drugs as well, wine, beer, whisky and tobacco.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 2:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Moodie.
It would nice to believe that the Victorian Government would not make the same "hash" of changes to drug laws as they did by decriminalising prostitution in Victoria. There started the rot which would subsequently spread throughout other states of Australia,and lead to the sordid rot now classified as the "Sex industry".
In the case of brothels, those changes would lead to a fourfold increase in the existence of illegal brothels, and a wink and a nod to every enterprise associated with it.
Now , as you would know, that outrageous situation was a direct response to your Governments inability to control the corruption and vice of their own police force. You tell me that your article is not a testing of the waters for the legalising of drug runners and drug barons. Something similar to your legitimising of "Pimps"; a low life class who are now , thanks to your progressive laws, legitimate business men.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 4:53:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cannabis should be legalized , taxed, controlled and offered only to those who have reached a minimum age - similar to tobacco and alcohol. As others above have stated this will allow the provision of a consistent or measured (and taxed) strength of the drug.

Where there may be a legitimate concern about THC inducing mental illness in the not fully developed brains of our younger population then the minimum age of consumption should be raised to a safe level as determined by independent studies

Taxes collected should flow only to the states health system to fund our medical system.
Posted by Bruce, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 5:11:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our drug problem is not simply cannabis use,it is also alcohol, cigarettes, pharmaceutical drugs, esctasty, etc.
Stats can be used to prove or disprove anything. What good is it that cannabis use is declining if the cannabis is 'heavier duty' than it was 30 years ago, or other drugs are being preferred.
All things considered is drug use increasing? Yes.

Government throwing money at the problem is not the solution because we are the problem, and until we accept that little will change. We create youths who resort to drugs for various reasons (and not all come from down and out families).
Why wouldn't our kids look for an alternative to avoid feeling anxious, guilt ridden, lost, alone, lonely, isolated, bored, unwanted. Parents, schools,media, music, literature all contribute to this constant message of doom and gloom and offer no promise of a hopeful future. I'm surprised and thankful so many of our kids are so resilient. Think on it.
Posted by Cynthia2, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 5:14:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What should we do about cannabis use mr Moodie? Well, gee, I thought that was simple.

The first thing we must do is to objectively deturmin if cannabis use in our community is harmful or not. Since contemporary research appears to confirm that cannabis use is causing serious problems in OUR community, then we as a community must unite to combat it.

That means showing zero tolerance to any "youth culture" media that actively promotes illegal drug use to our youngest generation. Any reference to illegal drug abuse as "cool" or "hip" should be banned outright. Today's movies and youth orientated media constantly promote drug abuse to our young. Even popular disk jockey's make casual references to drug abuse, while nobody knows whether today’s pop stars are musicians on drugs, or drug addicts trying to be musicians.

The endorsement of illegal drug abuse is so notable in the pop music industry, that one suspects that the pop stars are getting kickbacks from the narcotrafficantes to promote their wares to kids. They will continue to be the advertising arm of the illegal drug industry until we as a community stop it. The “youth culture” industry is only concerned with making mega bucks by exploiting teenagers so they will come to heel if we insist upon higher standards.

Anybody who is silly enough to claim that the media has no effect upon youth behaviour should stop and listen very hard. They will hear the advertising executives of Saatchi and Saatchi, Mojo and RJ Reynolds laughing their heads off.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 6:42:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eating meat on Fridays used to mean hell and perdition; drinking during Prohibition in America meant the same, plus a criminal record here on earth. Same with mj. Our society is turning kids into criminals by maintaining its stupid laws about mj.

It's not the mj destroying the kids' future....it's the criminal record which the law and order wowsers in our community insist is imposed, which destroys any chance of overcoming youthful misadventure.

Hijacked
Posted by hijacked, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 8:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lordy, Diver Dan. Your views on prostitution belong in the 19th century.

The reason the sex industry can't extricate itself from organised crime is because neo-puritans won't allow it any legitimacy. The idea that banning prostitution will eliminate brothels is as naive as believing prohibition has rid Australia of drugs.

There will always be prostitutes. The choice we have is between an open and accountable industry which protects the health and rights of its workers, and an illicit underworld of sexual and emotional abuse. The latter is simply what happens when the lives of individuals are sacrificed so that the self-righteous can live in an artificial bubble of virtue.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 10:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho my man………Great criticism. I refer not to prostitution so much but to the decriminalisation of brothels. For the purposes of comparison between the soft approach on drugs and the soft approach on prostitution, I simply say to you , research for yourself the negative impact on our communities by decriminalised brothels. In short , Government sponsoring of prostitution by the act of decriminalising of brothels and the resultant exploitation of women and children in the illegal sector, which , as I stated above, has resulted in a fourfold increase in illegal establishments.
Sancho, Governments would love to be handed an easy way out of the drug problem. The same easy way out they chose in the past, to deal with crocked police and entrenched corruption in the police force.
These are the cemented “trio”, drugs, prostitution and organised crime. To the detriment of women and children, the Victorian Government lead the way in Australia , attempting to solve prostitution and organised crime (particularly within its police force) by simply legalising it. The final move for a facilitated life of ease for the Government is to legalise drugs. I am sure the mafia and other similar exploitive groups will be extremely happy sancho.
Be careful to not hand “soothsayers” the easy way out. It is the community “good”, your kids and it’s my kids, that matter in the end. Drugs, prostitution and organised crime are always to be discouraged. No more thinking needed.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 13 April 2006 12:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prohibition ,I think it causes a lot of problems basically ,why you might ask ,heres me take on it . Because Pot is Illegal it is risky to produce (risk of being caught ), this leads too the price being high (no pun intended ) and making it worth while too produce by the less savory elements because of the attraction of a quick buck.

Also as it is illegal and therefore the people who produce it want nothing to do with the police and legal system , they tend to take the law into there own hands when it comes to dealing with people who rip them off , this leads too violence ,turf wars etc .

I also think that as the price is high due too its illegality a lot of crime in the area of stealing to make money to pay for it (and other drugs) .

In other words could it be that some for of legalisation would 1. devalue it making it not worth while to produce by large criminal elements (resulting in less violence ), as well as reducing the rate of burgularys (no need too find the money for it as its realitively cheap) .

As for the harm of the drug itself ,education of its pitfalls is the key to reduceing its harm .
Posted by tassiedave66, Thursday, 13 April 2006 1:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm at a point in my thinking and reading to agree that there is good evidence pointing to a number of serious deleterious psychological effects in the use of cannabis in some young people in addition to exacerbating latent illnesses. There may be tests soon to identify those most at risk. These tests could help in educational efforts and allow potential users to make a more informed choice provided that the tests are accessible.

In our increasingly authoritarian society one should realize that it is not in the states interest to 'decriminalize'. The 'war on drugs' provides yet another convenient pretext (smokescreen?) for increased police presence, the exercise of authority and intrusion into civil liberties.

An individual’s choice to inflict potential self-harm needs to be weighed against the cost to 'repair' harm. A regulated system could see a tax covering the harm but the cost of the product would be so high that it would in effect be prohibitive and most users would seek black market alternatives and the scheme would fail. This is unfortunate as it would be a progressive form of user pays. Such a scheme one could say is a pipe dream.

In absence of state regulated cost signals the impact of law enforcement on black market cost signals is a poor second alternative. Under a decriminalised model perhaps a licence fee for personal growing-I don’t think so in the current climate. A decriminalized approach for personal amounts with progressive civil penalties-fines, community service etc is certainly cheaper for the taxpayer.

The notion of dependency and addiction to cannabis is questionable. The issue about the modern strength of cannabis is a red herring as users titrate the dose to the level they feel comfortable with.

Objective, unbiased, informative educational campaigns and the predictive testing mentioned above offer the most cost effective and responsible course of action.

After saying all of this I wish there was someway that users could legitimately and safely experiment.

And he disappears in a puff of smoke….
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Friday, 14 April 2006 2:49:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prohibitionist "leaders" want us to think no major studies have been done to inform us about the nature of marijuana. The truth is, there have been several exhaustive government studies - including the LaGuardia Commission in the 40s (U.S.), England's Wooten Report in 1968, the Shaffer Commission in the 70's (U.S.), Australia's 'Legislative Options For Cannabis' in 1994, and the 1999 Institute Of Medicine Report (U.S.). Canada has added it's tremendous efforts with the Le Dain Report (1970) and the recent Canadian Senate Report.

These are just the stand-out studies. There are more in these and other countries. So why don't they want us to know about all these prestigious government research projects? Because they all came to the same conclusion - that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol, and, morever, has beneficial uses.

In the U.S., chief propagandist, ONDCP head, John Walters was right about one thing when he said their number one enemy was marijuana. That confession of their mad Inquisition over the least harmful recreational drug has America scratching it's head. The demonization has been effective (not hard with decades-long prison terms), so citizens have been intimidated to nervous silence - just like the subjects who were afraid to point out the emperor wore no clothes. We must end the fat bureaucrat's trading in the misery of peaceful citizens. We don't need any more studies to do the right thing and end marijuana prohibition. They're all right here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm
Posted by JayTee, Saturday, 15 April 2006 12:59:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fifty year prohibition of cannabis has bee an absolute failure, sucking up billions of dollars of taxes, and incarcirating thousands of people daily. Cannabis has been used as a medicene for centuries and as more research proceeds, more uses are found for it.It only takes 30% of the water used on cotton to reap the same results from cannabis products.It is Australias second biggest cash crop,after wheat and yet(according to CIA figures) the total yield is just 4,000 acres. Cannabis doesn't always lead to harder drugs like beer doesn't always lead to metho. This 'one size fits all' legislation simply bans those who might get some benefit from cannabis use or research.
Posted by aspro, Sunday, 16 April 2006 1:46:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With Mardi Grass, Nimbin’s annual cannabis law reform protest-ival a matter of weeks away the NSW police have declared that after 12 previous years of peaceful protest, this year will see the introduction of “zero tolerance policing” of the event.

Interesting to note it is approaching three years since Bob Carr, (then NSW Premier) said “The complexity of an issue does not provide a licence to walk away while ordinary people suffer and acquire criminal records simply for treating their illnesses and relieving their suffering in the only way that works for them. With a sensible mixture of compassion and common sense we can make a medical cannabis regime work in this State, as it works in other jurisdictions around the world. That is this Government’s intention and I look forward to introducing the draft exposure bill at the earliest opportunity.” (Bob Carr - Hansard May 20, 2003).

I wonder how “zero tolerance policing” of a political rally whose sole objective is to change cannabis laws fits in with this stated government goal?

It doesn’t.

I also wonder why the South Australian opposition isn’t flouting a statistic showing a dramatic increase in mental health problems across the state when the cannabis laws were relaxed in the first instance?

There isn’t one.

As a long term user of cannabis, (23 years, 10 years daily) I am surely addicted to cannabis, but I make no apologies for being so and firmly reject your need to “treat my condition”. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement here in Australia I have grown into a man as a member of Australia’s cannabis culture.

I am tired of the legislated bigotry and the continuing attempts at cultural genocide we, Australia’s cannabis culture, are subjected to.
Posted by generic_hippie, Sunday, 16 April 2006 1:54:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-- generic_hippie

-- "I am tired of the legislated bigotry and the continuing attempts at cultural genocide we, Australia’s cannabis culture, are subjected to."

Right! The excuses and "harms" spewed by the prohibitionists are so lame and so regularly refuted, that at times it seems what they really hate is they associate cannabis with the "dirty, rebellious hippies." Hippies too, have been demonized to the extreme. What hippies were/are really about was/is a noble experiment.

http://www.hippy.com/php/article-198.html

http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow.html
Posted by JayTee, Sunday, 16 April 2006 8:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look JayTee and others,

do you have any positive solutions to some of the problems associated with cannabis use? If you believe simplistically that there are no problems whatsoever with cannabis you are sadly mistaken.

The reports referred to have, by and large, looked at issues such as toxicity, neurotoxicity and immediate psychological issues. Newer research reveals that there is some real harm for a set of people, namely some kids/teenagers and some young adults. Recent research about brain development and behaviour shows changes well into the early twenties.
Except for the case of latent psychosis being activated, which is quite dramatic, it's not a case that people just noticeably 'flip out' in pandemic proportions. Depression and personality changes are subtle and insidious for enough of a subset of people that it is a real concern.

To deny that some have an adverse reaction to cannabis is callous.

So what should be done?

Kids and young adults are not very good regulators of their own behaviour even when facts are 'presented' to them. Young males and cars being a good example. Kids turning up to school so stoned that they can't add up is a worry, isn't it? So what do you do?

I suggest make the recent research on cannabis well known. i.e., it should be discussed in Schools. Counselling for kids and their parents needs more support. And when it arrives make the cannabis susceptibility testing available and accessible. I would certainly endorse TV advertisements if they were objective and unbiased-'drugs are bad' is not good enough.

While hemp has received a bad deal due to association, things are changing on that front and it is now being commercially trailed in Australia. The medical and hemp debate is irrelevant to the general cannabis use argument.

Arguing for radical solutions like 'let it rip for free' only makes it harder to make 'small' gains like decriminalisation and the introduction of solutions to help those who are vulnerable.

I for one wish that the evidence that is available now was available when I first started using cannabis.
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Sunday, 16 April 2006 8:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I firmly believe that continuing the criminalisation of the cannabis industry is no solution. Scarring people for life with criminal records for experimentation or even dependence on cannabis causes more harm to the wider community than making treatment available for those who request it. Note request it as opposed to being legislatively forced into it.

Further, I believe that the continuing persecution of the cannabis culture to safe guard "a subset of people" whilst allowing the monopoly on mind altering substances that is the retail alcohol industry a free reign on the state of mind of recreational drug users across this country is a mistake, as with any mono-culture.

Your suggestion to make well known the research on cannabis, to teach it in schools, is a good one, how ever the chances of truth making it though to the education system without a healthy dose of manipulative fear are minimal.

A good book: www.justaplant.com

But can you really see a book that honest, sensible and forthright being introduced into our education system?

The reality is no. Look at the reasons why not, you begin to see the blatant bigotry we as cannabis users are subjected to on a daily basis.

You ask for positive solutions?

End the bigotry of cannabis prohibition, that would be a positive step. Then perhaps when the fear of persecution has gone, perhaps then we can discuss any necessary "treatment" options you have in mind for me...
Posted by generic_hippie, Monday, 17 April 2006 6:45:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
generic_hippie

lets see if we can take it a step at a time.

Do you believe there should be no controls over cannabis use?

I looked at the book and I thought it was crap.
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Monday, 17 April 2006 8:30:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Deus_Abscondis

What problems are you referring to? I imagine most of them are the same old myths - with variations. The only harm associated with cannabis is some minor throat irritation. Perhaps bronchitis for very heavy consumers. Even this small problem is eliminated by cooking with it, in beverage form, or, probably most effectively with vaporization.

Trying to argue over consumption by children is a straw man argument. NO ONE in reform is suggesting that children be allowed to smoke pot - any more than they should drink alcohol. There is no significant problem with young adults.

The brain is always changing. What makes you think the change is bad?

Psychosis? I assume you are referring to the near infinitessimel proportion of the population that are latent schizophrenics. Who ever said marijuana is for everybody? Some people die if they eat anything made from peanuts. Death is much worse than a schizophrenic episode, and we don't ban peanuts. Besides, I have heard that some schizophrenics successfully treat their symptoms with marijuana. The hysteria over this is just warmed-over Reefer Madness.

Depression is a myth. And you use the old prohibitionist "subtle and insidious" effects. That's what they use when they can't nail down any real harms. U.S. DEA Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young conducted a long and thorough investigation of possible harms and concluded, "Marijuana is the safest therapuetically active substance known to man."

Who denied anyone had an adverse reaction? Like I said. It's not for everybody. That doesn't mean you should put most people in jail for the problem of a very few. That's nonsense.

--- "So what should be done?"

Legalize and regulate it like alcohol, of course. And let adults determine what risks they will take. Prohibitionists want to make adults children of the government.
Posted by JayTee, Monday, 17 April 2006 11:03:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- "Young males and cars being a good example."

Yes it is. There is a slight impairment with marijuana - as opposed to alcohol. But the funny thing is, people who have smoked pot OVER COMPENSATE for their light impairment by driving slower and more cautiously. Some studies have shown they have fewer accidents than straight drivers.

The recent, as well as the large government studies over the decades show there are no significant problems for the vast majority of people.

--- "I for one wish that the evidence that is available now was available when I first started using cannabis."

Are you implying you have been harmed by cannabis? If so, what happened? Marijuana should be taxed and regulated like alcohol - even though it isn't near as harmful as alcohol.

I thought "It's Just A Plant" was great. I bought one and it was a great aid in discussing the subject with my son.
Posted by JayTee, Monday, 17 April 2006 11:04:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much sense here, and sadly so little chance that anything will ever change.

The key to minimizing the harm from drug use is to educate users so that they choose not to use, or choose to use in a less harmful way. Culture/society is the key - this is why less people use marijauna in Holland (where its legal) than in America, where the laws are severe.

Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is achieved by stupid scare campaigns, which people eventually realise are untrue and disregard completely as government propaganda. Tell people the truth, regulate the availability of these substances, keep severe penalties for anyone who supplies drugs (including alcohol and tobbacco) to children, and we would have a lot less problems. For the people who do still have problems, use the extra tax money raised to help them get their lives back on track before they screw up too badly.
Posted by hellothere, Monday, 17 April 2006 4:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do I believe there should be no controls on the cannabis plant?

I believe there should be age restrictions in place, similar to alcohol, but with legality of consumption beginning at 21 years of age.

I do believe that there should be an instant and total removal of all criminal sanctions for cannabis use and or possession, except where supply to children is concerned.

I believe the monopoly on Australia’s recreational mind altering substances market has been held too long by the retail alcohol trade, an industry with proven disregard for the well-being of the people.

Deus_Abscondis,

What is it in particular you found so “crap” about the book “It’s just a plant”?
Posted by generic_hippie, Monday, 17 April 2006 8:41:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my opinion, marijuana is rubbish. It is by far the most unpleasant drug I've ever had the misfortune to imbibe, with the exception of ketamine. It stifles creativity, fosters paranoia, and makes people participate in drum circles and hacky sack (which is in itself a compelling argument for its continued criminalisation). But the fact is, if you're prone to addiction for whatever reason, you are going to mess yourself up on something, and marijuana's widespread availability means it gets unfairly demonised. Most users I know enjoy the occasional joint like most people enjoy the occasional glass of wine, and exhibit no ill-effects whatsoever. So I'm for decriminalisation and education, but please kids, don't do dope. Do ecstacy instead.
Posted by KRS 1, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 4:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- KRS 1

--- "It stifles creativity,"

Funny. First I've heard that one. Most musicians, artists, etc. will testify to the contrary. Like these folks:

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/read.html

--- "if you're prone to addiction for whatever reason, you are going to mess yourself up on something,"

Addiction is not a disease looking for a substance. It is a function of addictive drugs, which marijuana isn't - as your friends demonstrate.
Posted by JayTee, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 6:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All things in moderation should be our motto and this is why we should be tackling our biggest addiction,alcohol.Too many of our young over indulge and there is just too much advertising pushing it's consumption.

Could there be too many self interest groups such as Govt and the industry who are addicted to our addiction?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 9:16:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayTee: "same old myths - with variations"

no just the best available science to date, see the dramatically titled:

Marijuana and Madness: Psychiatry and Neurobiology
edited by David Castle, Robin Murray (you can view most of it at Google books)
also
Hall W, Degenhardt L, Teeson M. Cannabis use and psychotic disorders: an update. Drug Alcohol Rev 2004;23:433-443 (you can get this online via journalsonline.tandf.co.uk)

JayTee:

"The only harm associated with cannabis is some minor throat irritation"

and higher levels than tobacco alone of all of the cancers associated with smoking.

"most effectively with vaporization"

yes of oils–but not commonly used which is a shame as it's relatively easy to produce.

JayTee:
“the near infinitessimel proportion of the population that are latent schizophrenics”

There is a duty of care in policy formulation to include what is known. Even if you consider it’s not important to you that a 'small' harm is unimportant. Regarding your falacious argument about peanuts. It is a legislated labeling requirement on products that might contain traces of peanuts to say so-good eh!

JayTee:

“Besides, I have heard that some schizophrenics successfully treat their symptoms with marijuana”

There is a level of correlation between schizophrenia and attempts to self medicate using cannabis but the results aren’t good (see Castle and Murray above). A component of cannabis Canabidiol (appears to counteract THC) is being investigated for potential antipsychotic effects. See: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn6324-brain-may-produce-its-own-antipsychotic-drug.html

JayTee:

“Depression is a myth”

JayTee with a statement like that you are an asset to the prohibitionists

JayTee:

“the old prohibitionist "subtle and insidious"”

No, insidious is used by medico’s/researchers in a less pejorative way, see also ‘morbidity’.

JayTee:

“Legalize and regulate it like alcohol, of course”

As if it’s that easy eh? It would be electoral suicide for any government in Australia in the foreseeable future to try, that’s just a political reality. Decriminalise perhaps on a State basis but don’t hold your breath.

Let's get back to topic-If there were TV ads about cannabis what should be in them?
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 10:55:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
generic_hippie

The “It’s just a plant” book is unbalanced and simplistic. It is a drug in a plant, Datura is a plant too! Smoking anything is problematic. The kid appears just too young to be meaningfully educated about such a topic. The fact that the parents were alone in their bedroom says something doesn’t it? Maybe it should be treated the same way as ‘other’ adult things?

“I believe there should be age restrictions in place, similar to alcohol, but with legality of consumption beginning at 21 years of age.”

That sounds more reasonable. What about any considerations about quantity restrictions, trade, driving?

JayTee

“…OVER COMPENSATE for their light impairment by driving slower and more cautiously”

Wish to try to ‘overcompensate’ yes but when in traffic there’s no evidence that users actually slow down. Whilst motor co-ordination and reflexes are not as effected as alcohol users on particular dose relationships, driving stoned in my opinion is a foolish thing to do. It is difficult for users to estimate dosage of cannabis. I recall a study that pertained to show cannabis users are less attentive–more likely not to see a red light because ‘executive functions’ are effected.

There are quite a number of assertions made by Dr Moodie in his article that started this thread that need to be addressed and perhaps he might like to comment? For instance it is said:

"...Research...also advised against saying using marijuana isn't fun or doesn't have upsides (because it can be, and it does have upsides for many users)"

Don't you think that this ploy will be seen through and that a more factual approach such as quoting the statistics (and sources which were not mentioned in the article tsk tsk) would be seen to be more honest?
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Thursday, 20 April 2006 1:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unbalanced - no, it presents the dangers informing the child that it is an adult thing, it presents society's attitude by showing the arrest of the "offenders", and it presents the good side of the plant.

Simplistic – Obviously, the intended audience is children, when we educate our young children about sex in the first instance, we use simplistic terms so as not to overload them with fear and information. The same thing applies here. What would a child know about cannabinoid levels, or what would a child need to know about them? Hence the simplistic approach.

Given the reality that our country’s future is regularly decided by drunk politicians, I don’t think restrictions on quantities and random drug testing for cannabis use is such a huge issue, it comes back to basic bigotry.

The seasonality of cannabis growing, (given the current moves to legislate more heavily against hydroponically grown cannabis) would seem to require large quantities be produced during the growing season to self-supply all year.

I’d also like to point out that it is only through government manipulation of public opinion that we have the situation where cannabis use is again being frowned upon. This extract from the Australian Illicit Drug Report 1996/97 clearly shows the beginnings of this latest manipulation of public opinion; “Unless a major change in attitude occurs, the level of acceptance of cannabis by the general population will continue to increase. This may lead to an increase in disregard for the law and widespread demands for law reform.”

We hear continually that “this is what the public wants” when the reality is that this is what already vested interests want.

Continued bigotry against the cannabis culture.
Posted by generic_hippie, Thursday, 20 April 2006 5:37:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Deus_Abscondis

--- "just the best available science to date, see the dramatically titled: Marijuana and Madness: Psychiatry and Neurobiology"

I know you won't, but others can trust me. I have been a marijuana reformer for a decade. In that time I have pored over every bit of research available, with the TRUTH as my principle weapon. This is a project that I devote several hours each day to in keeping up with every "new finding." If there were any validity to your information, our (U.S.) Drug Czar's office would be shouting it from the highest rooftop. You presented the ideas. I refuted them. Bring more, and I will refute them. As DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young concluded after two years of investigations, "Marijuana is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man." Did you even bother looking at the link which contains the great body of research about marijuana? I doubt it. Like all prohibitionists. You run from the facts.

---"and higher levels than tobacco alone of all of the cancers associated with smoking."

Now I know you're blowing smoke from your nether regions. There has not been even ONE case of cancer that has ever been attributed to smoking marijuana.

(ME) "most effectively with vaporization"

--- "yes of oils–but not commonly used which is a shame as it's relatively easy to produce."

And there you show your ignorance. There are several vaporizers on the market that vaporize raw marijuana. No processing necessary (other than removing stems and seeds). Just put a small amount in the vaporizer and turn it on. http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1272.html
Posted by JayTee, Thursday, 20 April 2006 12:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Tee-

The tedious set of links you referred me to were a poor argument for the creative benefits of weed. Personally, I find weed-inspired art/music/literature tends to lean towards self-indulgent, naive drivel, and Doctor whatsisface's site is a case in point. And as for your addiction argument, I couldn't disagree more. The 'all-powerful addictive drugs' myth is pushed by whining junkies to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions, and is eagerly seized on by god-bothering drug prohibitionists who want to tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies. Drugs don't abuse users, users abuse drugs. marijuana is addictive, but only for losers who can't handle reality without it.
Posted by KRS 1, Thursday, 20 April 2006 3:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are dead right about alcohol Arjay, I have seen some shocking things and some serious injuries happen because of alcohol, but you don't tend to hear about this in the media.

As for marijuana, each to their own, but I find it tends to make people very boring. Not usually likely to make people beat someone up or rape them though!
Posted by hellothere, Thursday, 20 April 2006 10:14:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Deus_Abscondis

---"Even if you consider it’s not important to you that a 'small' harm is unimportant."

Yes. Throat and lung irritation and possibly bronchitis are important. That's why vaporizers were developed. But these minor effects are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a basis for maintaining the counter-productive fraud of prohibition.

---"Regarding your falacious argument about peanuts. It is a legislated labeling requirement on products that might contain traces of peanuts to say so-good eh!"

You somehow think you have refuted my comparison? You just veered off into a new thread about labeling that is irrelevant. Peanuts have killed many people. Marijuana has killed none. Peanuts aren't banned, so neither should marijuana be.

+++(me) "Depression is a myth"

---"with a statement like that you are an asset to the prohibitionists"

No. The research proving it is all there in the link I gave.

+++(me)"legalize and regulate it like alcohol, of course"

---"It would be electoral suicide for any government in Australia in the foreseeable future to try, that’s just a political reality.

I doubt Australia is so different. No politician has ever suffered a decrease in support because he backed reducing penalties for marijuana consumption. We saw just yesterday where the wise core of Alaskan legislators tossed out Governor Murkowski's underhanded attempt to recriminalize marijuana. The people are ahead of the polticians when it comes to marijuana.

+++(me)"Marijuana consumers OVER COMPENSATE for their light impairment by driving slower and more cautiously"

---"Wish to try to ‘overcompensate’ yes but when in traffic there’s no evidence that users actually slow down.

There is actually. -- http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html --- http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html ---http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html

---"It is difficult for users to estimate dosage of cannabis."

Wrong. One of the benefits of smoking cannabis is the user can easily titrate the dose.

---KRS1

Your pooh-poohing the information I brought does not invalidate, or even diminish it in any way. In a debate, anecdotal stories, or opinions, carry close to zero weight. The research supports my positions. Addiction is continuing to use an addictive drug primarily to avoid the severely uncomfortable/painful withdrawal symptoms. Marijuana doesn't have them.
Posted by JayTee, Thursday, 20 April 2006 10:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayTee:

"Did you even bother looking at the link which contains the great body of research about marijuana?”

D_A:

Yes. Did you look at mine? From one of the sources you referred me to in (druglibrary.org) supports linkage between cancer and smoking.

Show me one peer reviewed med/biomed journal article that shows as you claim “The only harm associated with cannabis is some minor throat irritation”–your statement is inaccurate.

"There is reasonably consistent evidence that THC can produce cellular changes such as alterations in cell metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (Bloch, 1983). There is even stronger evidence that cannabis smoke is mutagenic in vitro, and in vitro, and hence, that it is potentially carcinogenic for the same reasons as tobacco smoke (Leuchtenberger, 1983)". [typo in vitro and in vivo? D_A] http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-probable.htm

More recently,

“THC is very likely to have protective effects against the carcinogens present in smoke in humans too, but cannabis smoke remains nonetheless carcinogenic” Cannabis Smoke Is Less Likely To Cause Cancer Than Tobacco Smoke Dr. Melamede
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm

In general, there are difficulties in establishing the effect in the population (epidemiologically) due to the high correlation in users between cannabis and tobacco use.

The combined carcinogenic load is higher than either alone. While it is contended there may be some offset of carcinogenic action due to the protective function of cannabidiods the research in this area is thin. Additional confounding factors include bong vs joint.

JayTee

(ME) "most effectively with vaporization"

--- "yes of oils–but not commonly used which is a shame as it's relatively easy to produce."

OK I should have said yes especially with oils. Oil is readily extractable, compact, stores well and makes for better dose control-this is why it’s preferred by medico’s.

If you’re an experienced ‘reformer’ you should know invective …“And there you show your ignorance…”, “Like all prohibitionists etc” is self destructive to your argument.

I believe a particular decriminalization model could be workable and free up funds for education and treatment. Or do you equate dicriminalisation with prohibition?

Check out this up to date info about cannabis and driving http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s838743.htm
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Thursday, 20 April 2006 11:41:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayTee-

A. Show me research that proves marijuana enhances creativity.

B. Addiction has both psychological and physiological elements, as any smoker, nail-biter, compulsive gambler or pot-smoker will tell you. Unfortunately, people such as yourself tend to downgrade the psychological elements to avoid having to take personal responsibility for their actions. This has a corrosive effect on society as a whole.
Posted by KRS 1, Friday, 21 April 2006 12:40:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Deus_Abscondis

(The post limits on this forum are maddening and a tremendous obstacle to communication. -- Bother!)

---"Did you look at mine?"

I have seen excerpts from that study before. Like this one: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521819407&ss=exc

Like I said, I keep up with all research on marijuana. The funny thing about research that purports to find great "harms" of marijuana - it doesn't bear up when compared to statistics of populations trends. Take the new marijuana/schizophrenia "discoveries." If marijuana did play some role in causing schizophrenia, then when looking at schizophrenia rates in the general population over time, there should have been an explosion of schizophrenia occurring in the sixties and seventies, at the time when the explosion of marijuana consumption began. There wasn't.

---"From one of the sources you referred me to in (druglibrary.org) supports linkage between cancer and smoking."

That observation validates Shaffer's drug library, and the studies therein, as being inclusive. The relevance of the data is not found in the body of the research, but in the conclusions. None of the studies have concluded marijuana consumption is a significant cause of cancer. Yes, several studies have shown that marijuana, among it's myriad other benefits, appears to protect against cancer. That's part of the reason. The other is that typical marijuana consumers don't consume anywhere near the volume of smoke of typical tobacco smokers. As a matter of fact, a typical marijuana consumer consumes more vehicle exhaust, smoke from campfires and other sources, etc., then he does from marijuana. It's quite logical then that the miniscule amount of smoke involved would not result in cases of cancer. Because the use of marijuana is so widespread - an estimated 50 million lifetime users in the U.S. alone - there is really no problem separating the effects of those who smoke only marijuana from those who smoke marijuana and tobacco. A large group of marijuana only smokers would be easily found. Indeed, most marijuana consumers I know, do not smoke tobacco. It's unhealthy, don't you know? 8^)
Posted by JayTee, Friday, 21 April 2006 2:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again. The posting restrictions on this forum are so restrictive, they prevent effective communication. I've NEVER seen such an impossible situation in a forum. I only posted a fourth of what I had written yesterday, and then I have to wait 8 hours before I post another fourth - RIDICULOUS!

I invite all to the New York Times Drug Policy Forum where you can post as much as you want, whenever you want. (Free Registration) http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/national/drugpolicy/index.html

Another poster there just zapped the marijuana "mental illness" nonsense. TIMEMACHINIST says:

"The reefer madness correlations are the best-funded government research programs regarding cannabis. Try proposing research that might undermine the current laws and you'll find there isn't any money available for that. But this excerpt below shows the kind of caveats one should keep in mind when reading such reports:"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3098

* They found that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder (a milder version of schizophrenia) at age 26 than non-users.

* But when the number of psychotic symptoms at age 11 was controlled for, this increased risk dropped to become non-significant. This suggests that people already at greater risk of later developing mental health problems are also more likely to smoke cannabis.

"In other words, the cannabis didn't actually "cause" the mental illness after all -it was more likely an attempt to self-medicate, even if not consciously motivated as such. People who feel bad take various drugs to change those feelings, but the drugs are not therefore the "cause" of those bad feelings they started with."

--- COME JOIN US AT THE NYT DRUG POLICY FORUM! ---

Free MARC EMERY! http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3298.html
Posted by JayTee, Saturday, 22 April 2006 3:24:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

I can make this clearer and simpler for you.

Your so called source for 'zapping' and your 'refuting' the research is just plain wrong. For example, the New Scientist reference.

If you look at the actual research paper you’ll see the NS journalist has taken the quote out of context. Check your facts!

Look at the paper in the British Medical Journal

Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study: Terrie E Moffitt et al. BMJ, Nov 2002; 325: 1212 - 1213 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com.....

Now what do you think about that?

Your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. They're naive and simplistic. You misquote, fall back on opinion, misinterpret the best research available or evade points. For very point you've made there’s current research from peer reviewed journals that show you don't know what you are talking about. Your approach is more 'activist' or evangelical than scientific. Try reading current primary source peer reviewed journal articles.

And about a book containing a compilation of recent research Marijuana and Madness: Psychiatry and Neurobiology edited by David Castle, Robin Murray (you can view most of it at Google books) you say

JayTee: I have seen excerpts from that study before….

Then you rant on about the incidence of schizophrenia as if this isn’t a well know issue that the researchers don’t know about and haven’t addressed when in fact the debate and research has moved on. Epidemiological studies don't show causal relationships they show correlations and risk factors.

And then there's the conspiracy stuff "Try proposing research that might undermine the current laws and you'll find there isn't any money available for that"

Dear oh dear.
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Sunday, 23 April 2006 3:24:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Following is a summary of recent points in scientific though on cannabis and psychosis, psychosis symptoms.

There's a clearly defined schizophrenia (a hard core if you like) and a wider group of people who are susceptible to schizophreniform disorders which some researchers refer to as 'schizophrenic symptoms' which can be triggered by regular use of cannabis.

Hard core schizophrenics who use cannabis get worse. When they stop they show improvement but they remain schizophrenic. Changes in the incidence of 'hard core' schizophrenia in the population is debatable but appears roughly static.

People who have latent schizophreniform conditions have an increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms if they use cannabis. When they stop they improve and their symptoms diminish. It has not been established if there is a permanent functional change. Schizophreniform conditions are not as easily diagnosable as schizophrenia, less people come before health professionals. It is an under represented class.

There appears to be a two way relationship for both groups: people with psychosis are attracted to cannabis and some cannabis users who have latent unmanifested conditions are attracted to cannabis (at a higher incidence than the general population) and then manifest a range of psychotic symptoms without becoming hard core schizophrenics.

There's a gene called COMT and it has two forms, MET type and VAL type. Most people (approx 50%) have both MET and VAL types, approx 25% are VAL/VAL and and another 25% are MET/MET.

The VAL/VAL type predisposes cannabis users to psychotic 'symptoms'.

These genes regulate neuro receptors in part of the brain where cannabinoids (both the brains own cannabinoids and those imbibed) also have a function. Young people (up to about mid 20’s) are most susceptible as the part of the brain in question is still developing.

It is hope a genetic test can become accessable so that parents and users can make an informed assessment of their risk.

The earlier the initiation, the higher the use, the higher the risk. Light, occasional use does not appear to be a risk factor.

Articles supporting this summary can be found in my previous posts
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Sunday, 23 April 2006 3:38:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deus_Abscondis

You insist on getting down and dirty in the details, while avoiding my major points.

A tremendous case has also been made that marijuana smoke is cancerous. There are likely ten times as many studies supporting that than there are with the schizophrenia malarky. But in all the millions of people who have smoked cannabis over the last four decades, no one has developed a case of lung, or other, cancer from marijuana.

Same with this schizophrenia hysteria. These supposedly "objective" studies shout how cannabis is a causative factor, so there must have been a tremendous increase in schizophrenia in the Western world, right? -- Wrong.

http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2001/Feb/Decline5.asp

* There have been many studies using various methodologies that have examined the changing rates of schizophrenia over the last 40 years. Most have reported a decrease in incidence...

* This is the first reported Canadian study to demonstrate a decrease in the treated prevalence rate of schizophrenia. The results support the observed decreased incidence rates in many other parts of the world.

Hey, maybe cannabis reduces the amount of schizophrenia occurances. 8^)

Much sound and fury signifying nothing
Posted by JayTee, Sunday, 23 April 2006 5:32:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In discussing drugs, or anything that especially affects young people, it is important to steer clear of ideology and focus on the truth. The statistics connecting marijuana use with mental illness are ideological and scientifically deceptive.

e.g. the intro article says "Regular cannabis use appears to increase the likelihood of psychotic symptoms occurring if the user also has a personal or family history of mental illness. ."

I believe you could make similar claims about tattoos, F.J. Holdens and musical instruments. The fact that stressed out people seek escape and relief should not be surprising.

I was recently at a mental health clinic and noticed that 3 out of 5 people in the waiting room were wearing rubber thongs. Can I make an educated statement about the correlation of mental illness and rubber thongs?

I would love to see one of these health surveys that asked all the cannibas questions, except about McDonald's hamburgers instead. Because the burger shops are in public places where people with mental illness are likely to gather, I bet there is a stronger correlation between McDonalds and mental Illness than cannibas.

If we surveyed healthy individuals and found out what percentage of them use cannibus, what would those statistics tell us, that cannibas assists mental health.

subjective surveys that guess at links between different elements (e.g. pot and mental illness) do nothing to give clarity and only concretise ideological preconceptions.

Surveys with some impirical integrity should be used such as the quote in the article "While there was a marked increase in cannabis use among the Australian population from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, there has been no change in the incidence of schizophrenia among the population during that time."

surveys that simply note a correlation between elements. like thongs and mental illness, are no basis for proper understandings.

p.s. lots of people have died from throat cancer through smoking pot. I say tell the truth on that matter too.
Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 23 April 2006 11:09:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and I forgot to say,
what is the correlation of mental illness and alcohol use? If as I suspect, because it is legal, that more stressed out people drink grog than smoke pot, why don't we ban alcohol? You are even allowed to publically advertise alcohol to alcoholics in this double standard.

We have more reliable statistics for how many people are killed by grog than pot, statistics tend to indicate that pot can't kill you (except throat cancer) why the obsession with the condemnation of pot?. You can die of an alcohol overdose, as many mentally ill people accidentally do. Withdrawal from grog can lead to suicidal tendencies in the vulnerable. Withdrawal from pot just puts you in a bad mood.
Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 23 April 2006 11:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- King Canute

Pretty good post until this:

--- "lots of people have died from throat cancer through smoking pot."

Better try backing that up with some verifiable facts. The truth is, no one has developed cancer of any kind from smoking marijuana. I imagine you're thinking of people who ALSO smoked tobacco. Now THAT is a different matter all together.

For those who are concerned with the irritating effects of smoke, they can easily consume marijuana by eating, drinking or with a vaporizer. In the future, vaporization will most likely be the most popular method. This then, is a non-issue
Posted by JayTee, Monday, 24 April 2006 3:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayTee,

You’re not addressing the argument. Sure you don’t have to, you can keep up the rhetoric and avoidance of the points I've made but the discerning reader can see through your tactics.

I repeat the incidence of schizophrenia is up a little according to some studies, down a little according to others and static in yet others.

Cannabis doesn't appear to effect the prevalence of 'hard core' schizophrenia but almost all schizophrenics get worse if they smoke dope
and for some strange unknown reasons schizophrenics gravitate towards cannabis use but it leads them to back to the clinic - so much for 'self medication'.

If you think cannabis may reduce schizophrenia i.e., is therapeutic you are wrong and avoiding a major point - schizophrenics and other people with psychoses get better when they stop using cannabis.

It has been the _relationship_ between schizophrenia and cannabis use that has lead researchers to look more closely at the neuro chemistry of cannabis and psychoses. This lead to a discovery that a component of cannabis a cannabidiol has some antipsychotic properties and the major psychoactive ingredient THC makes schizophrenia worse. If this research is 'hysteria' and not “objective” let's have more of it!

Perhaps it would be better for your cause (as you are having difficulty interpreting the thrust and results of current cannabis science) if you turned your attention towards studies that elucidate the effect on juveniles of the criminal justice system and the comparative inefficacy and costs of punitive laws vs harm prevention via education, responsible use guidelines and treatment for those who find cannabis a problem in their lives etc. What sort of message do you think that responsible use guidelines should contain?

Personally, I find the Pennington prescription in Drugs And Our Community Report Of The Premier’s Drug Advisory Council March 1996 (Victoria) a reasonable starting point.

But do you think that a decriminalization model is still prohibition and that there should be no controls or cannabis related laws at all?
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Monday, 24 April 2006 4:13:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Deus_Abscondis

No. You were the one avoiding my major points, trying to distract with cherry-picked details of suspect studies. Discerning readers can see through your attempts to inflict your tunnel vision on them.

I have shown evidence the incidence of schizophrenia is generally down, which again, you avoid and ignore.

---"If you think cannabis may reduce schizophrenia i.e., is therapeutic you are wrong"

LOL!! A couple of studies and you have closed the case on cannabis and schizophrenia. You probably closed the case on cannabis smoking and cancer too after you found a couple of studies that supported your prejudice. Never mind NO ONE has ever developed cancer from cannabis. Your agenda is showing.

These inconclusive schizophrenia studies would not even be news except for the fact that prohibitionists are using them to launch Reefer Madness again - which is likely the source of funding for the studies (and thus, their bias).

---"What sort of message do you think that responsible use guidelines should contain?"

No use by children. Adults should maintain balance with ALL recreational activities. Many marriages have been destroyed by a husband's golf obsession. I will concede the driving prohibition for now, simply to assuage the public's fear until they are allowed to obtain real knowledge of the nature of cannabis.

---"do you think that a decriminalization model is still prohibition?"

Of course. It prohibits the cultivation, sale and distribution. This is absurd if we are going to say it is okay to consume it - especially since it is less harmful than alcohol. "Decriminalization" is acceptable only as a STEP toward sanity.

Legalize and regulate cannabis like alcohol, even though it is much less harmful than alcohol. Again this is simply for the public's comfort level with change after being bombarded with lies and propaganda for decades. After the manufactured hysteria has subsided, a regulation system more tailored to the reality of the least harmful recreational substance can be fashioned.

In general, let adults determine what risks they will take. Prohibitionists want to make adults children of the government
Posted by JayTee, Monday, 24 April 2006 6:06:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

JayTee says:

-- "....cherry-picked details of suspect studies."

--"These inconclusive schizophrenia studies ...blah... prohibitionists are using them to launch ..blah... the source of funding for the studies (and thus, their bias)"

D_A: Well get busy pick your own peer reviewed journal studies or show HOW the studies are suspect. You can't or more likely can't be bothered. You fall back on conspiracy theories-the Government is out to get us dope smokers by funding anti-dope scientific research, sounds PARANOID to me, which is one effect that smoking cannabis has on some users some of the time.

What about this?: http://www.aic.gov.au/research/drugs/publications/cannabis/paper1.pdf

J_T: "I have shown evidence the incidence of schizophrenia is generally down, which again, you avoid and ignore"

D_A: Now you're not paying ATTENTION to what I said: Some studies have Schizophrenia down, up, or static.

So what? It's the psychotic effects in the general population outside the 'hard core' Schizophrenic users case that is the concern of a current line of research. These people won't get classified as Schizophrenics as their symptoms are less severe and mostly resolve once they stop using cannabis.
But you haven't addressed this. Nor can you provide your own peer reviewed journal studies that show cannabis use is good for schizophrenics or those with latent psychoses.

J_T: A couple of studies and you have closed the case on cannabis and schizophrenia

D_A: You can't even acknowledge let alone differentiate between schizophrenia and schizophreniform symptoms.
And as far as depression you think it's a myth! What sort of callous, heartless person are you to deny that people with depression have mythical symptoms?
I fear your going to get into alien abduction theories next.

J_T: ....cannabis smoking and cancer...NO ONE has ever developed cancer from cannabis...

D_A: Show me a respected and repeated longitudinal study (>25 yrs) of daily _cannabis only_ smokers say, n= >10,000, that supports your claim. I guess you claim that for some miraculous reason that the fact that cannabis smoke IS carcinogenic is of no consequence? 2+2=4? Look at how long it took to prove the tobacco causality.
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 6:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

J_T: "No use by children"

D_A: Why not? You think it's 'therapeutic’. Stoned kids what's the problem? What about 21 and over?

J_T: Adults should maintain balance...blah blah

D_A: Why? What sort of "balance"? Daily, weekly, monthly, what quantity?

J_A: I will concede the driving prohibition for now, simply to assuage the public's fear until they are allowed to obtain real knowledge of the nature of cannabis.

D_A: How gracious of you. So you think driving stoned is good-duh! With this recent news it would seem the morals of dope smokers is no better than drunks. Have you seen this?

Ban is no deterrent to stoned drivers
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19025484.500.html

J_T: "Prohibitionists want to make adults children of the government"

D_A: When adults start acting as adults there less likely to be treated as children. The Easter Road toll a case in point. Why would we need road laws if people could look after their and others interests?

D_A: Do you think that a decriminalization model is still prohibition?

J_T: Of course. It prohibits the cultivation, sale and distribution blah blah..

D_A: So YOU DIDN'T, you know, R--E--A--D the fact that the Pennington model DOES allow personal cultivation. 5 Plants. And what about South Australia and ACT?

I know someone like you, also a cannabis advocate, who has given up on arguing the case, he uses a tactic called 'meme warfare' which is a variant on the old 'big lie', say it often enough and some people will believe you. Unless you can argue with current science and legal research and you are at risk of sounding like a crank which is hardly helpful for your case.
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 6:04:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hard core schizophrenics," what makes them that way,tell me do?
Because I was given "Largactil," as a child & young adult, for "anxiety attacks," & "ramblings etc" I have been searching the whys! Been reading, and recommend you do also, "Mad In America," by Robert Whitaker,Perseus Publishing. I was shocked to read an essay from a "sisters-inside," speaker at their 2005 confrence, that they still forceibly drug women prisoners, & no doubt this practice will continue while the arrogant minister says, they misbehave, they must be controlled/punished. With legal drugs 100Xstronger than the lolly water just mentioned, 'Pot' diminishes to mint patties, in comparison.
Posted by ELIDA, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 10:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

--- Deus_Abscondis

---"pick your own peer reviewed journal studies"

Already did, of course. Here they are again.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.HTM

---"or show HOW the studies are suspect.

Already did. I gave evidence that during the grand explosion of marijuana consumption over the last forty years, schizophrenia rates did not go up, but, on the contrary, went down.

---"conspiracy theories-the Government is out to get us dope smokers by funding anti-dope scientific research,"

No. I said their goal is to maintain prohibition, which is very profitable for politicians, bureaucrats and many industries, AND is a great population control tool.

---"sounds PARANOID to me,"

It's true. You're just bigoted, or in league with the persecutors.

---"which is one effect that smoking cannabis has on some users some of the time."

No. The fear comes from having a police state and neighbors with a grudge trying to put you in prison for an activity that harms no one.

---"What about this?"

What about it? Pretty large document. Better narrow what you want a response to down to a point or two.

---"Some studies have Schizophrenia down, up, or static.

The evidence I gave said the majority of studies showed shcizophrenia rates were down.

---"It's the psychotic effects in the general population outside the 'hard core' Schizophrenic users case that is the concern of a current line of research."

That's even more baloney than the schizophrenia nonsense.

---"you haven't addressed this."

I haven't addressed the moon being made of green cheese either.

---"Nor can you provide your own peer reviewed journal studies that show cannabis use is good for schizophrenics"

I never said it was. I said some schizophrenics self-medicate with cannabis. Evidently they get relief with it, or they wouldn't do it.

---"as far as depression you think it's a myth! (blah, blah) to deny that people with depression have mythical symptoms?"

I said cannabis causing depression is a myth. Don't put words in my mouth.

---"Show me a respected and repeated longitudinal study (>25 yrs) of daily _cannabis only_ smokers say, n= >10,000, that supports your claim."
Posted by JayTee, Thursday, 27 April 2006 11:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part Two

You don't define the parameters. The proof is here: http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_04_1095.html

---"Why not?... Stoned kids what's the problem?"

Same reason kids shouldn't drink, only to a lesser degree since marijuana is less harmful.

---"What about 21 and over?"

No problem, when consumed responsibly. Just like with alcohol.

---"What sort of "balance"? Daily, weekly, monthly, what quantity?"

Depends on the person. I wouldn't deign to define it. They should limit it to the degree it doesn't interfere with other important activities.

---"So you think driving stoned is good-duh!"

No. Just not as bad as alcohol.

---"it would seem the morals of dope smokers is no better than drunks."

First, you (and the biased article) are generalizing. That's ALWAYS a mistake. Second, you can't seperate cannabis drivers from alcohol drivers in your mind. There is a huge difference. I've known people who smoke every day and have been driving for thirty years without an accident. Plus, are medical cannabis users supposed to lose their driving priviledges? Especially when it is not proven that cannabis consumption is a significant contributor to accidents.

---"When adults start acting as adults there less likely to be treated as children."

If some people are abusing cannabis and being a danger on the road, that does not mean you punish all cannabis consumers - just like you don't punish drivers who had one beer three hours ago.

---"the Pennington model DOES allow personal cultivation."

You didn't say "the Pennington model." You just said "decriminalization." In most of the world that concept does not allow cultivation. Even if we include that, it still leaves the prohibition of more than five plants, and sales and distribution of large amounts. Why? When we allow it with alcohol which is more dangerous?

---"Unless you can argue with current science and legal research and you are at risk of sounding like a crank."

I have been. You just haven't been paying attention, apparently. My "case" is simply this. MARIJUANA IS CLEARLY NON-ADDICTIVE AND LESS HARMFUL THAN ALCOHOL. -- THEREFORE, LET US HAVE JUSTICE
Posted by JayTee, Thursday, 27 April 2006 11:23:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well where to start; Cannibis is not the big demon all are saying.
Aren't there much bigger fish to fry as usual? What about the gov stance on Heroin? Just give 'em more addictive Methadone and while we're at it let's hand it out for free (so people can actually sell it?) Cuse that's what happens. How contradictory is our gov? I can't have a joint but I can go to a public "gallery"? and shoot up??
Come on, put them to sleep for a week and try to rehabilitate them not make a whole generation addicted to the needle.
And what about Alcohol the meanest most destructive drug of them all that is completely legal unless your a native of this country and then it's probably banned from the comunity? Try that one in a majority white town oh and the up roar!Different strokes for different
folks. I enjoy marijuana and I don't pop pills or drink though i used to smoke those horrible cigarettes another bad drug that's completely
legal. Now that is one addictive drug to give up. I gave up ciggies
two years ago and haven't looked back, yes I still smoke good ole Sativa; It takes the edge off life and also compensates for the nongs that are running our country.(I don't get so upset when i'm watching the news mr. yes man howard.)Then there is the legally Prescribed "medicine"....shall I go on?Ps this elida's daughter in law as I cannot wait for verification.Princey1099@yahoo.com.au
Posted by ELIDA, Thursday, 27 April 2006 2:41:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get to the Library and look this one up;
Is Marijuana the right medicine for you?A factual guide to the medical uses of Marijuana by Bill Zimmermann Ph D,Rick Bayer MD and Nancy Crumbpacker MD (that's really her name on cover& I don't no if she changed it)An excellent book on the uses of Marijuana and diseases like glaucoma;It reduces the pressure on the retina, and for cancer and bulimia patients it can help their appetite.
Now the Governments of today are so hard lined against marijuana they have come up with a THC pill!Marinol.. The big problem here is that's alot of THC for someone whose never smoked herb.How can that sort of thing be regulated to the patient,(via smoking;instant effect or eating takes a good half hour to hour to take effect*warning eating is not a soft option and can make you sick if you've consumed too much.)as it's in a capsule and can/does cause Phsychosis(too much THC for the patient). This is because people aren't allowed to smoke it! They could have a puff and see if it's enough THC and have more if needed. You can't do it like that with tablets. There is no way of knowing how people will react with any drug so go slowly slowly.(Dupont had a hand in the prohibition of MJ because Marijuana doesn't need chemicals to protect it from bugs;Sativa is good for paper, hemp fibro, clothes, masts,hats,rope and whats more it doesn't mould. What more could you want in such a beautiful plant.It is the abuse not the use that is the problem like all things. Lets ban Alcohol before we put anymore restrictions on poor old and good old Marijuana. I love it.We should be thankful that we have all these Natural Medicines.God's own.
Posted by Princey@yahoo.com.au, Friday, 28 April 2006 4:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Princey,

the phrase "hard core schizophrenic" I was using to describe the prevalence of schizophrenia as a whole, and that it does not appear to be changing substantially. Some studies report it up a bit, down a bit or static-I just don't think there is a consensus amongst experts. There term schizophrenia is a bit of a catch all as there are clusters of different symptoms which has lead to the idea of subtypes eg., paranoid, catatonic etc. The ability to diagnose it depends partly/largely on the experience of the doctor. The term schizophreniform arises because of fuzzy boundaries and while cannabis science researchers abandoned the idea that cannabis causes schizophrenia long ago there is evidence and debate about schizophrenic like symptoms in some users that wouldn’t have developed if they hadn’t regularly used cannabis particularly in teenage years.

There is intense interest in the cannabis science community with the possibility that a combination of genes may predispose as much as 25% of the population and especially teenagers in this group to mental health problems. The genes are also believed to play a role in schizophrenia.

This line of research may feed into policy and education. At some point in the future it may be possible to get tested to see if you have a vulnerability to cannabis. It is simplistic to say that cannabis is harmless. Comparison to other harmful drugs is irrelevant when it comes to advising what actual or potential risks are associated with cannabis especially for a sizable group of young people who may suffer. It is about informed risk. Almost all cannabis advocates ignore this.
So while cannabis is not, and I agree, a ‘big demon’ as you say this new research is worthwhile. It is also opening up knowledge about schizophrenia and like psychoses. It appears that cannabis contains several compounds, some which improve psychotic symptoms and some which make them worse _in some potential sufferers_. This does not mean that smoking dope (all the compounds) is therapeutic.

Thanks for the references (Crumbpacker-LOL) I shall have a look. Running out of space.

Cheers
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Saturday, 29 April 2006 12:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Princey, Elida, How are you girls. Marijuana, it is also good for pain. I cannot take narcotics, they make me sick, I've taken so much , ibuprofen, and aspirin that I'm in danger of severe damage to my kidneys, and stomach. I drink. I'm not proud, but it is a pain killer. Until I can obtain Pot legally I restrict my usage to those times when I can acquire it without putting myself at undue risk for police intervention. Getting a Doctor to prescribe it is still not easy despite being in a state that claims to allow medical usage. You are still subject to Federal prosecution and confiscation of assets.

This war against pot is insanity itself. There are many benefits from this plant, the average person would be amazed if they only knew.

Pot does not promote aggression like alcohol. You never hear of as pothead going on a rampage and killing people. It is a nice mellow way to kill the pain, and increase quality of life. Why do our governments want to keep that from us?
Posted by Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist, Saturday, 29 April 2006 3:34:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist

---"I drink. I'm not proud, but it is a pain killer. Until I can obtain Pot legally"

That's simply atrocious! And it is repeated by millions of people! I have known many people who have left problems with alcohol thanks to cannabis. They tell me it saved their lives!

A new reform group in the U.S. called SAFER is using that wonderful difference to change the marijuana laws. They made Denver the first U.S. city to make marijuana legal for private adult use. And they are beginning to sweep the country!

http://www.saferchoice.org/
Posted by JayTee, Saturday, 29 April 2006 5:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JayTee, I'm not sure how to take your post. In the interest of making a choice that is positive for both of us, I will take your post as a positive. Yes, I drink to alleviate my pain. It is not my first choice, but it is legal and a less sickening choice. I have a pain disorder that I've lived with for a decade. For that decade I've had to radically change how I make my living. I can no longer do what I love, I do what I'm good at. Sitting on my butt. Being a pain to other people, namely my husband. Yes, marijuana relieves my symptoms like no other substance can. When I can obtain it, I have some productive days. In the interim, I'm unreliable at best. Pain is exhausting. Pain shrinks the brain. I've also noticed I'm not as good at mental tasks that I once was.

I do not want to make excuses, I only want the quality of life I had before I got sick. Alcohol, is believe it or not, the lessor of two evils. I've wanted to die, I've tried to die many times. It is not my path in life. I've given up on death. Death will come when my time is up.

Thank you for the link. I'll check it out.
Posted by Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist, Saturday, 29 April 2006 8:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist

I certainly meant it as positive. Not only is marijuana more effective at pain relief than alcohol, but it doesn't do any of the damage that alcohol does to the body.

MEXICO MOVES TOWARD LEGALIZATION!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/ts_nm/mexico_drugs_dc

MEXICO CITY - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by the Mexican Congress.

The measure given final passage by senators late on Thursday allows police to focus on their battle against major drug dealers, the government says, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.

"This law provides more judicial tools for authorities to fight crime," presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said on Friday. The measure was approved earlier by the lower house.

Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

People caught with larger quantities of drugs will be treated as narcotics dealers and face increased jail terms under the plan.

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

Hundreds of people, including several police officers, have been killed in the past year as drug cartels battle authorities and compete with each other for control of lucrative cocaine, marijuana and heroin smuggling routes from Mexico into the United States.

The violence has raged mostly in northern Mexico but in recent months has spread south to cities like vacation resort Acapulco.

Under current law, it is up to local judges and police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted for possessing small quantities of drugs, a source at the Senate's health commission told Reuters.

*

¡VIVA MÉXICO!
Posted by JayTee, Saturday, 29 April 2006 9:24:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we daily share roads with interstate truck drivers useing far worse workplaces are in trouble because of this drug.
No saint myself I question the need given days or even weeks notice tests are to take place up to 40%, yes 4 in ten have failed tests then admited use the night before!
An answer to over use must be found feather dusters are not the way, that is to sweep it under the carpet or flogg ofenders with.
We surely must be accountable for our own actions?
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 30 April 2006 7:35:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Belly

---"While we daily share roads with interstate truck drivers useing"

How do you know? And how do you know it's a significant problem?

---"far worse workplaces are in trouble because of this drug."

Why are they "in trouble?"

---"No saint myself"

What does that mean?

---"I question the need given days or even weeks notice tests are to take place up to 40%, yes 4 in ten have failed tests then admited use the night before!"

So? What about all the employees who had a beer the night before?

---"An answer to over use must be found feather dusters are not the way,"

Who are you - or anybody - to define what "over use" is? Especially if the consumption is in the privacy of the home?

---"We surely must be accountable for our own actions?"

We surely must, but what accounting does a person have to make who consumes cannabis in his own home? Where's the problem?
Posted by JayTee, Sunday, 30 April 2006 9:38:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am accountable for my own actions, I smoke Marijuana; I don't apologise for smoking it as I enjoy it. Recreational use is a personal choice and should always be a personal choice.
Re; tests and forwarning. Miners don't get forwarned about testings.
Motorists that drive too fast do;and we all know that speed kills.
Please don't categorise Truckers as their all different like you and I,also they have enough people riding them; namely their bosses pushing them too hard.So belly be accountable whats your vice?
Princey1099@yahoo.com.au
Posted by Princey@yahoo.com.au, Sunday, 30 April 2006 11:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist,

I too suffer from a chronic pain condition. Components of cannabis have a role for some in coping with pain. Personally I find that being stoned to beat pain is not the best solution for me nor most people trialed in medical cannabis studies–they complain about being stoned and often drop out of trials.

Personally, I need to be as clear headed and as pain free as I can and dope doesn't do this, I end up feeling like I just want to vege-out which is OK when I want to vege out but when I need to concentrate and get on with my life I want to be clear headed.

Specific components of cannabis are better choices for pain issues than others and some of the chemicals in cannabis have antinauseant effects which help with narcotic use. So maybe you should consider using a little of both? Until more clinical research is done I wouldn't hold out much hope for a generally available cannabis 'solution' particularly when there are well trialed conventional solutions e.g., Stematil, Maxalon in the case of opiate nausea.

There is no magic bullet for dealing with chronic pain. A combined treatment is often the best choice. Unfortunately, both patients and doctors are not well educated about this. Nor are combined (also referred to as holistic) approaches easy to follow, especially from a psychological perspective and especially when you are in pain, there's a Catch–22 in there.

In general, and I mean In general, I don't believe there is a chronic pain condition that can't be treated with a well adjusted opiate-holistic regime.

Personally I find Oxycontin to be great analgesic. It has an added benefit of a slight stimulatory effect which helps to overcome the sedative effects of opiates. A balance of Oxycontin, a NSAID and exercise does the trick for me, though I find the exercise bit the hardest.

The difficulty I have with dope and pain is separating what I want–to be pain free and functional or stoned, pain free and dysfunctional.

Cheers
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 6:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again, Deus; I'm not sure what ails you though I am sure there is a natural remedy somewhere. Some natural pain relievers are Cinnamon, Meadowsweet, Myrrh, Peppermint, Red pepper, Spearmint, Vervain, White Willow (aspirin),Horsetail (can be brought at Health food shops in dried form;it has a very high Silica content and is good for bones and bone disease); and also Swedish Bitters is said to have pain relieving properties. There will be doses in herb books; to go into all that I'd run out of space. I think maybe you should cut down on all the synthetic "medicine" as most of it damages some other part of the body/organs. Which herbs don't do. Actually quite the oppposite (they might have positive effects on four or five parts of the body.)Start with Sage tea (steeped 5-10 min, 3 or 4 fresh leaves) Sage is a good 'tonic' it's good for indigestion, constipation, colds, brochitis, mouth ulcers, sore throat, nervous conditions, fevers (I have got my childs (2yrs & up)fever down with this.)Also my Herb books state that if mixed with olive oil it's good Rub for arthritic and rheumatic conditions.Sage is my favourite tea. Personally I think that as children we are way over medicated; (i can still remember the disgusting banana flav penicillin I was given all the time. As I suffered from tonsillitus alot. Simple Sage tea would have cured that. If only mum knew...)
We should all start educating ourselves about the real "Medicine" that can be grown in our own backyards, and would be accessable anytime.Health and Happiness (cause that's all that matters.)
Princey
Posted by Princey@yahoo.com.au, Friday, 5 May 2006 11:03:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Princey,

"I'm not sure what ails you" you tell me your's and I tell you mine :-) I don't want to curb your enthusiasm but I'm a sceptic when it comes _most_ 'naturals' preferring well structured controlled studies–e.g, good science. Which is not to say that science hasn't isolated useful compounds from flora & fauna on the lead of _some_ naturals users. It is also not to say that many 'synthetic' drugs don't have side effects-they do. Naturals do too e.g,. comfrey.
If you can point me to good studies I'll look.

When it comes to many forms of chronic pain a lot of doctors are opiate phobic, are in the dark ages, and think that patients will start to resemble rats fed heroin on a bar press feeder. This view is not helped by religious fundamentalist countries such as the U.S. which seem to think that if a pill gives you any incidental pleasure/wellbeing it must be evil, forget the pain relief. Thus chronic pain is undermedicated–is a far worse problem and more worthy of debate than medical cannabis IMO which is often pumped up by cannabis advocates who's real agenda is their stoned culture. Apart from the unnecessary human suffering under treated pain costs the economy billions.

The beauty about opiates is that their mode of action are very well understood. They don't cause organ damage in therapeutic dose ranges. One of synthetic ones is effective in sub mg doses and available in patches. Slap it on get on with life. The difficulty is trying to find doctors who are well educated in modern pain processes and management. Can you tell this is one of my hobby horses?

Ciao
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Friday, 5 May 2006 2:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Health through God's Pharmacy;Maria Treban, The Handbook of alternatives to medicine;Mildred Jackson & Terri Teague; one of my favourite is Herb Growing for Health by Donald Law,The New Healing Herbs;Michael Castleman, Culpepper; there is a list alot longer than the most recent "statistical studies" and people throughout history and every nationality have been using herbs for medicine since the beginning of time.That was the original/first medicine.Why else do they grow, so that we may reap the benefits. Maybe you should read a bit more on the real medicine. As the Stuff they put in pills is extracted from plants, (majority of it)and if it's not extracted it's "synthetically reproduced".Re:Opium; does it have more side effects than Marijuana? Is it more addictive?Would it slow you down more than Sativa?
H & H Princey
Posted by Princey@yahoo.com.au, Saturday, 6 May 2006 6:46:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prohibition is surely one of the most socially destructive, futile and immoral social policy failures Australia has ever been subjected to. It has failed our society on so many levels.

I enjoyed a full and open-minded experience as a young adult. Whilst at university in the early/mid 90's I spent many a weekend enjoying a flourishing rave/dance scene in Australia. I totally enjoyed this time of my life and have been left with absolutely no negative effects on my health. This is a story repeated by the probably hundreds of thousands of young Aussies who were raving it up in the heady 90's scene.

I now enjoy a highly successful career, have travelled the world and live a full, happy and healthy life.

The only thing that would have ruined all of this would have been a criminal record, had I been unlucky enough to be caught.

I can tell you first hand that those I saw who were unfortunate enough to be caught had there futures destroyed by the arcane and crazy laws this country so ignorantly persists in upholding.
Posted by Daniel06, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nimbin's annual Cannabis Law Reform Protest Rally was the subject of a very bigoted attempt at "zero tolerance" this year.
A very bigoted and completely failed attempt I might add.
We saw police in full riot gear patrolling the streets of a small rural village in packs of six and eight, (a small rural village desperate for funding in so many other areas). There were police horses in full battle regalia, I personally saw four grouped together at one time, I heard reports of as many as eight in the village.
All this money for 50 arrests, mostly for poverty based traffic offences around the event as opposed to any real crime.
After 12 or 13 years of peaceful protest, this tactic of intimidation shows quite clearly the contempt with which my culture is held by those in authority.
More importantly it shows the complete lack of understanding the powers that be have of the cannabis culture, the cannabis plant itself, or anything beyond the limited view of life from within the confines of their own rectums.
Posted by generic_hippie, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 7:07:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread on this forum typifies the astounding lack of knowledge most people have inregards to cannabis. Hydroponics is a growing method! End of story ,no correspondence entered into.There is NO such thing as "genetically modified" cannabis,that's rubbish,if you think otherwise ,where are these laboratories manned by the evil mafia scientists?Sound like a silly idea? Thats because IT IS!Outdoor cannabis ,grown in full sunlight will ALWAYS be superior to identical seeds grown under sunlight from millions of years ago(coal powered electric HID lights)that is BASIC horticultural knowledge.There is no such thing as cannabis 20x or 30x the strength that our hippy forefathers smoked,modern "super" & "dangerous" strains are the same strains smoked 30 years ago,SKUNK#1 is a 3-way cross of traditional strains from 1978 it is ,1]Afghani Hash plant(Indica)xColumbian Gold x Acapulco Gold(both Sativas)(Acapulco Gold you know as in the Cheech&Chong song from 35 years ago). So how is it when normal horticultural practices like selective breeding becomes "genetically modified" when applied to cannabis? Cannabis does not cause nor is it a "trigger" to any mental disorders! If you think otherwise please supply links to PEER REVIEWED studies to back up your position.Cannabis does not and could not cause brain damage as the way it works is by stimulating the brains ENDO-CANNABIS system, cannabis does not get you high your bodies own hormones do, THC triggers the release of Anandamide and this hormone an exact mirror of the THC molecule does the trick.For 100 years LIARS have attempted to "prove" cannabis as dangerous,People with BSc's on elite dole (study grants)can only get more funding for cannabis research if the study "proves" some alleged negative aspect,so they LIE to get more elite dole then real scientists with PhD's and peer reviewed studies with empirically collected data refutes the elite dole bludgers claims,this pattern has been going on since the phony criminalisation of previously legal drugs for no other reasons than racist social control and corporate profits,prohibitionists are evil perverts they have a mental condition created by there insane intolerance of drugs in particular the least dangerous drug known to mankind CANNABIS.
Posted by Jess Stone, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 1:43:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy