# Panorama, Next Sunday, Cannabis



## tobyjug (Jun 14, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4082196.stm
Cannabis: what teenagers should know    
BBC One, Sunday, 19 June 2005 at 22:15 BST 
Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects of cannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look at the growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness in young people.


----------



## Miss_Nice (Jun 14, 2005)

really looking forward to watching this, however I think it may just be completely negative crap about how everyone who smokes skunk gets psychosis.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 14, 2005)

Miss_Nice said:
			
		

> really looking forward to watching this, however I think it may just be completely negative crap about how everyone who smokes skunk gets psychosis.




I don't think anyone in any recent research is suggesting anything like that.


----------



## laptop (Jun 14, 2005)

Miss_Nice said:
			
		

> everyone who smokes skunk gets psychosis.



Why are you saying that?

Are you winding me up?

I was worrying about that just now.

Are you reading the thoughts from my mind?

Why do you want to wind me up?

I know, I'll thing of something totally unlikely and see whether you can read that...


----------



## poet (Jun 14, 2005)

Reefer Madness, anyone?


----------



## exosculate (Jun 14, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Why are you saying that?
> 
> Are you winding me up?
> 
> ...


That aint even funny...............


----------



## poet (Jun 14, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> That aint even funny...............



No it's not, especially considering a lot of people on this forum have mental health issues.


----------



## narky (Jun 14, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Why are you saying that?
> 
> Are you winding me up?
> 
> ...



lol


oh wait.


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 15, 2005)

Miss_Nice said:
			
		

> really looking forward to watching this, however I think it may just be completely negative crap about how everyone who smokes skunk gets psychosis.



i once read a story in the daily mail (i found it on a long train journey, i didn't buy it) that a straight A school girl tried skunk and a week later was hooked on heroin.


----------



## laptop (Jun 15, 2005)

joustmaster said:
			
		

> i once read a story in the daily mail (i found it on a long train journey, i didn't buy it) that a straight A school girl tried skunk and a week later was hooked on heroin.



Every parent’s nightmare!

I remember a _Morning Star_ story about a straight-A school girl who tried the _Independent_ just the once and a week later she was hooked on the _Mail_. 

She was telling her parents the total truth about everything she'd ever done, too.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

poet said:
			
		

> Reefer Madness, anyone?



"Groundhog Day" innit ...  

Still waiting to try some of this "super strong skunk" I keep hearing about ... by my reckoning at "25 percent THC" it must look more like a slime mould than a normal plant ....


----------



## poet (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> "Groundhog Day" innit ...
> 
> Still waiting to try some of this "super strong skunk" I keep hearing about ... by my reckoning at "25 percent THC" it must look more like a slime mould than a normal plant ....



Aye, some hack's gone on the net and found some dodgy seed merchant bragging about their wares and taken their figures to be remotely factual. Yes, you could hypothetically coax some very good genetics in a very, very good hydro environment to yield 25% THC, but no commercial grower's going to try when they can knock out lockups full of very average Big Bud with very little effort and make a killing.

It's the brand new lie for the generation of parents that smoked a bit of hash in their student days and escaped unscathed, and seems to be working well. "Cannabis is 20 times stronger than the stuff you smoked! Wuurgh!!!". The DEA's own studies reckoned that the totally average mexican/thai/other grass with bits of seeds and shit that did the rounds in the sixties & seventies averaged out at 3% THC. Your modern commercial skunk is about 8%, so it's none of the scare stories of 'wildly varying potencies' but just the difference between commercial pisslager and a good hardy real ale.

Remember boys and girls, anyone uttering the words 'what every parent needs to know' is invariably going to follow it with a catalogue of scaremongering lies.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)




----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2005)

Having said that, after so many years of putting up with crappy hash and wishing I could get weed, I now have the opposite problem: There only ever seems to be very strong 'knockout' bud/skunk and I have started to wish I could get more mild stuff! Ironically the stuff I like the best is when someone gives me a bunch of sweepings and leaf that's left over from the main crop and which they don't actually sell.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Having said that, after so many years of putting up with crappy hash and wishing I could get weed, I now have the opposite problem: There only ever seems to be very strong 'knockout' bud/skunk and I have started to wish I could get more mild stuff! Ironically the stuff I like the best is when someone gives me a bunch of sweepings and leaf that's left over from the main crop and which they don't actually sell.



  just smoke less of it then   

(better for your health)


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2005)

Well you would have thought that it would be as simple as that but in fact I find that different weed gives different "highs". I am sure someone more expert than me can set us right on this...


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well you would have thought that it would be as simple as that but in fact I find that different weed gives different "highs". I am sure someone more expert than me can set us right on this...



Horses for courses I suppose, some people actually think instant coffee is coffee .... 

You could always knock the trichomes off and give them away to a friend ... 

But then if you're getting the waste material cheap in any case ....

Do you smoke it with tobacco ?


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2005)

Sorry I don't understand that last post.   

What are trichomes?

I don't smoke it with tobacco. 

What's coffee got to do with anything?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Weed _is_ stronger now than it was 18 years ago.  Anyone who denies otherwise is a fool.  Back in the late 80's all that was available (to me as a teenager anyway) was hash and shit commercial weed and _very_ occasionally skunk.  That all changed in the early 90's with the boom in hyrdoponics grow kits, mail order seeds and people homegrowing in a serious way - strong bud is all that seemed to be available after that.  It was too strong for me, I used to just buy the tipleaf off my mates who were growing.  Fuck knows what is available now, I haven't bought any for about 8 years.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Sorry I don't understand that last post.
> 
> What are trichomes?
> 
> ...



Good gawd, this is what the internet is for !

Trichomes are where 99 percent of the canabinoids are - it's what gets turned into hash. It's not at all clear from the literature that there is *ANY THC at all * in the leafy material.







The coffee analogy is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who think that "soapbar" is actually "cannabis" and millions who think Nescafé is "coffee".

I suppose it _might _ be said that it _was _ rather bland coffee that was made yesterday and reheated ....
.
.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

poet said:
			
		

> Aye, some hack's gone on the net and found some dodgy seed merchant bragging about their wares and taken their figures to be remotely factual. Yes, you could hypothetically coax some very good genetics in a very, very good hydro environment to yield 25% THC



As i tried to point out to toby on another thread (but he got his knickers in a twist), growing hydroponically is all about yeild, & yeild only. It has absolutely no affect on potency, or cannabinoid content. 

Seed banks will slap any old rubbish about THC content on their seed packets to promote sales. Figures of 25% THC 46% THC are utter nonsense & is sales patter.



> What are trichomes?



Sticky resin glands that the female plant produces to catch male pollen.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Sticky resin glands that the female plant produces to catch male pollen.



er sorry but no - no one actually knows why cannabis plants exude cannabinoid-containing resin - possibly to protect the seeds from dessication but catching pollen that might otherwise pollinate the flowers would not be beneficial to the plant's survival !


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> catching pollen that might otherwise pollinate the flowers would not be beneficial to the plant's survival !



If a female plant isn't pollinated how can it possibly produce seeds to enable its survival? Without pollination there would be extinction.



> Trichomes are where 99 percent of the canabinoids are - It's not at all clear from the literature that there is ANY THC at all  in the leafy material.



The "whole" female plant contains cannabinoids. Some landrace sativas don't produce many resin glands at all, but are high in potency. Stronger than any indoor bred Dutch hybrids ever will be.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> If a female plant isn't pollinated how can it possibly produce seeds to enable its survival?.



As with any other wind pollinated plant (or insect pollinated come to that)  the pollen is not "attracted" to anything until it makes contact with the female flower parts when chemistry takes over. Plants produce _way _ more pollen than is needed.



> The "whole" female plant contains cannabinoids. Some landrace sativas don't produce many resin glands at all, but are high in potency. Stronger than any indoor bred Dutch hybrids ever will be.



No, they produce _fewer _ trichomes but the cannabinoid balance is more towards THC.
If you look up "bubble hash" on the net you'll find that connoisseurs *throw away *  the plant material no matter how "sativa" the plant is.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Weed _is_ stronger now than it was 18 years ago.  Anyone who denies otherwise is a fool.  Back in the late 80's all that was available (to me as a teenager anyway) was hash and shit commercial weed and _very_ occasionally skunk.



Real hash is, & always will be stronger than any commercially grown Dutch hybrids. You're not smoking any plant material when smoking real hash. 

Landrace sativas have been growing for thousands of years & are far more potent than todays "skunk" ever will be. It's just that these plants are not accessable to all.

What research fails to mention time & time again in all this is, that commercially grown weed today may have far greater health implications due to organophosphates being used as pesticides & fungicides, not the cannabinoids themselves. OP's are deadly nerve poisons which may contribute to mental health problems in some smokers.

I'll try & dig the link up Blag, but there has been some research recently that suggests certain cannabinoids may actually help people with some forms of mental illnesses.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> As with any other wind pollinated plant (or insect pollinated come to that)  the pollen is not "attracted" to anything until it makes contact with the female flower parts when chemistry takes over. Plants produce _way _ more pollen than is needed.



Yes i know, but the reason a female cannabis plant (which relies on wind pollination) produces a sticky resin is to catch male pollen - to produce seeds for the survival of the species. It's a very clever mechanism in the plant world.




> No, they produce _fewer _ trichomes
> If you look up "bubble hash" on the net you'll find that connoisseurs *throw away *  the plant material no matter how "sativa" the plant is.



Oh gwad - fewer, not so many, it's the same to me.

And of course they throw away the plant material after it's been through the bubble bags after the trichs have been collected. But that doesn't mean to say that what is left over is "devoid" of any cannabinoids. The whole plant contains cannabinoids mate.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Blag - The full story is in the Journal 3/6/5 www.icnewcastle.co.uk - full story only available to subscribers, but i've been able to get a copy.

Cannabis Hope For Mental Illness:

Cannabis could be used to effectively treat illnesses such as manic depression and scizophrenia, according to a groundbreaking study by North-East scientists. Experts at Newcastle University believe spraying a form of the drug under the tongue could offer fresh hope to sufferers of mental health problems.

The findings contrast sharply with recent warnings that smoking cannabis can seriously damage mental health. A series of studies have linked the drug to psychosis and suggested it could trigger schizophrenia in people already at risk.

But prof Heather Ashton, who led the study by the Department of Psychiatry, said the medicinal use of the cannabis was "entirely separate" to recreational use of the drug. "If you are using known substances in known amounts rather than a mixture, you get definite effects", she said. "You don't get the associated risks. Recreational users of cannabis take much higher doses, and the mental effects of smoking cannabis are strongly related to the dosage taken. The higher it is, the more likely you are to have problems".

The Newcastle University review was undertaken by the Department of Psychology after anecdotal evidence from sufferers of bipolar disorders suggested taking cannabis could help. The scientists believe certain substances from the drug, known as cannabinoids, may hold sedative, antidepressant, antipsychotic effects. And they are now calling for a controlled study examining the properties of two specific substances - 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).

Prof Ashton said: "Anecdotally, people with certain bipolar disorders, such as manic depression, say taking cannabis can help with their symptoms. If they are depressed it can bring them up, and if they are manic it can calm them down. They often say it is better than their usual medication, which is often a mixture of lithium. It works in a way but they hate it because it justs keeps them flat. We think it's worth trying, because treatment for schizophrenia and manic depression is not 100% what it could be. There's room for improvement. CBD is a very interesting drug which seems to have anti-psychotic properties. If you use the right combination it could well be therapeutic".

The university team is hoping lead the study, which is likely to be held in Canada. A firm specialising in cannabis-based medication is lending support. The government was strongly condemned by mental health campaigners after downgrading the drug from a Class B classification to Class C. It is thought fashionable, and more potent forms of the drug, such as Skunk, can lead to serious mental health problems, such as schizophrenia. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has since asked Sir Michael Rawlings, chairman of the Advisory Councul on the misuse of Drugs, to conduct a review into the drug. he is professor of clinical pharmacology at Newcastle University.

Dr Philip Robson, director of the Cannabis Research Institute, and clinical director of GW Pharmaceuticals, which developed a cannabis treatment for multiple sclerosis, described the university review as 'cutting edge'. He said "I don't think anyone else is working on treating mental illness with cannabis extracts. They are possibly the leaders on this. We are in contact with them. The plan is to collaborate with the study that they are going to do. It is not being sponsored by GW, but we are looking at it. We are offering our support, and if something comes from this we will certainly be interested".

GW Pharaceuticals recently gained a licence to market cannabis-based spray Sativex, which helps sufferers of MS, in Canada. They are now hoping licence will be granted for its use in the UK. GW spokesman, Mark Rogers, said: "It would not be the first time in medicine that a substance in one form or dosage could harm you, and in another form of dosage could do you good. It's not unusual for something to have both beneficial and adverse effects".


----------



## Addy (Jun 15, 2005)

Kids, take note of Uncle Bishies sound info


----------



## bmd (Jun 15, 2005)

I was just speaking to Heather Ashton last week, she was really helpful, a real nice lady, even if she has got the haircut time forgot.

Is there any research into whether these supposed mental illnesses disappear when the weed is withdrawn?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Is there any research into whether these supposed mental illnesses disappear when the weed is withdrawn?



It's still very new research Bob, one to keep an eye on.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Yes i know, but the reason a female cannabis plant (which relies on wind pollination) produces a sticky resin is to catch male pollen - to produce seeds for the survival of the species. It's a very clever mechanism in the plant world.
> .



cannabis, tomatoes, wheat, pollen that "lands on sticky ground" is pollen lost !


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> And of course they throw away the plant material after it's been through the bubble bags after the trichs have been collected. But that doesn't mean to say that what is left over is "devoid" of any cannabinoids. The whole plant contains cannabinoids mate.



Maybe, but it's presumably the sort of cannabinoids that people who smoke soapbar favour over THC ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

> the reason a female cannabis plant (which relies on wind pollination) produces a sticky resin is to catch male pollen - to produce seeds for the survival of the species.



Are you disputing this fact?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Maybe, but it's presumably the sort of cannabinoids that people who smoke soapbar favour over THC ...



You've lost me gg


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Are you disputing this fact?



yes !

or rather do you have access to research that I have been unable to find ?
Every time I check, the function of the resin and its aromatic precursors is a bit vague ... it's generally thought to protect the developing seeds from dehydration - a lot of plants in hot places exude resin (I have no -ologies at all - just Google !)

pollen has to touch the stigma *intimately* for pollination to occur. Pollen that gets stuck to other parts of the plant is pollen lost.








To be perfectly honest, the aerodynamics of the final few millimetres of pollination and whether a cloud of aromatic terpenes has any effect is probably the stuff of a phD thesis and of purely academic interest since pollination is usually something that is avoided by growers ...
(except for industrial hemp where pollination is OK ?)


----------



## Yetman (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Real hash is, & always will be stronger than any commercially grown Dutch hybrids. You're not smoking any plant material when smoking real hash.



Almost any hash you get is gonna contain SOME plant material, even Grade 3 Iceolator - the highest purity hash in the 'Dam is not 100% trichomes (damn close though), pure melted trichs provide oil, combine this with freshly shaken trichs to get lovely soft hash, yet you will still have some plant material in there.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Landrace sativas have been growing for thousands of years & are far more potent than todays "skunk" ever will be. It's just that these plants are not accessable to all.



Damn right, try smoking a native haze thats gone the full 12-14 weeks flower and has been cured for another month, you aint getting up for a while after a j of that    (Makes me para though, too strong)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 15, 2005)

poet said:
			
		

> Reefer Madness, anyone?



Exactly, I expect nothing less from the BBC on the subject of cannabis.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

Yetman said:
			
		

> Almost any hash you get is gonna contain SOME plant material,


Bollocks.  The, ehem, _"hash"_ round here's never been anywhere near a plant in it's life.   

Unless it's a tyre manufacturing plant.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> or rather do you have access to research that I have been unable to find ?
> Every time I check, the function of the resin and its aromatic precursors is a bit vague ... it's generally thought to protect the developing seeds from dehydration.



No, just an interest. And i do understand pollination 

THC has high UVB absorption properties, which acts as a sun block to protect the developing seed.

But......

"Non glandular trichomes" have no psychoactive properties at all, so can not block UVB using THC. They're present for a reason, a mechanism to catch male pollen. Thousands of years of evolution here.

"Bulbous trichomes" are very small & only 15 microns across, they help to produce the smells and may produce small amounts of psychoactive substances. These could very well act as a deterrent to predators for plant survival.

"Capitate sessile trichomes" are a little larger (about 30 microns across) & appear to be attached directly to the leaf surface. A large surface area covered, but serve no purpose in protecting the developing seed. To reduce transpiration is the likely function of these trichs.

"Capitate stalked trichomes" are what we associate with trichomes & are the main producer of psychoactive resin - hash production.



> Almost any hash you get is gonna contain SOME plant material, even Grade 3 Iceolator - the highest purity hash in the 'Dam is not 100% trichomes (damn close though)



Using a 25micron bag for the final sieve ain't going to allow any plant material through. If it does, you sure as hell can't see it 



> Damn right, try smoking a native haze thats gone the full 12-14 weeks flower



At least 16 weeks for equatorial/tropical landrace sativas. One reason you won't find these ladies for sale from your local dog bar dealer.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Stronger than any indoor bred Dutch hybrids ever will be.



Yeah, I remember when hydroponic stuff first turned up in NZ and it was different to the outdoor stuff I'd been smoking, but not stronger. Less pleasant buzz IMO and not as nice to smoke.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

> Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects of cannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look at the growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness in young people.



And will researchers ever explore the effects that "soap bar" has on young minds? Seeing as a large percentage of young people can not afford weed prices, they're more likely to buy soap bar which has the lowest percentage of cannabis in it, if at all!

This is where they need to direct their fuckin' research!


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> "Non glandular trichomes" have no psychoactive properties at all, so can not block UVB using THC. They're present for a reason, a mechanism to catch male pollen. Thousands of years of evolution here.



... so the notion is that they act as an intermediate landing zone so that less pollen is ultimately wasted ?

neat


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

We're getting there gg!


----------



## soluble duck (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> And will researchers ever explore the effects that "soap bar" has on young minds? Seeing as a large percentage of young people can not afford weed prices, they're more likely to buy soap bar which has the lowest percentage of cannabis in it, if at all!
> 
> This is where they need to direct their fuckin' research!




then that wouldnt be an investigation into cannabis, more an investigation into the effect of petrol, brick dust, plastic and a dash of weed on young minds

i would be interested to know if cannabis causes mental illnesses or does it just bring out, or enhance pre-existing mental problems


----------



## rorymac (Jun 15, 2005)

Well you might explain it properly next time Mr Johnny Come Lately  
Your name sounds like an ecstacy tablet BTW


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

soluble duck said:
			
		

> then that wouldnt be an investigation into cannabis, more an investigation into the effect of petrol, brick dust, plastic and a dash of weed on young minds



Well it fuckin' should be as this is what the kids ARE smoking!



> i would be interested to know if cannabis causes mental illnesses or does it just bring out, or enhance pre-existing mental problems



The media & anti-dope loons would like you to believe that weed does cause mental health problems, but at this present moment in time there is no evidence to support this. People who have an underlying predispostion to mental health problems, then yes, weed could well trigger an episode.

Fuckin' hell on a stick, peanuts & socks kill more people


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

"Despite a steep rise in cannabis use among teenagers over the past 30 years, there has been no rise in schizophrenia."

Cannabis: Too much, too young?


----------



## bmd (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The media & anti-dope loons would like you to believe that weed does cause mental health problems, but at this present moment in time there is no evidence to support this. People who have an underlying predispostion to mental health problems, then yes, weed could well trigger an episode.
> 
> Fuckin' hell on a stick, peanuts & socks kill more people



I would be very surprised if this research came to the inescapable conclusion that the only possible explanation for a research subject developing schizophrenia was that unadulterated weed caused it.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the chemicals used to grow weed were a factor. How they test that on a human subject is beyond me though.

Ediied to add: DUR! I suppose they'd just have to use 'organic' weed Vs 'chemical' weed. Hands up who thinks that's unlikely?


----------



## bmd (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> "Despite a steep rise in cannabis use among teenagers over the past 30 years, there has been no rise in schizophrenia."
> 
> Cannabis: Too much, too young?



Cheers for that Bish, someone here was just asking for that very info last friday.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the chemicals used to grow weed were a factor. How they test that on a human subject is beyond me though.



There is only one way that could be done Bob, & that's through legalisation & strict regulation. Even in the Dam this can not be upheld without stringent laboratory testing , but through legalisation you're giving people a choice - a choice to grow their own organic chemical free weed.

The fact is that organophosphates can seriously damage your mental health, & at the moment commercial growers ARE using OP's


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Real hash is, & always will be stronger than any commercially grown Dutch hybrids. You're not smoking any plant material when smoking real hash.
> 
> Landrace sativas have been growing for thousands of years & are far more potent than todays "skunk" ever will be. It's just that these plants are not accessable to all.
> 
> ...




Personally, I found smoking the bud off skunk or purple haze or whatever to be far more of a headfuck than any hash I ever smoked.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Blag - The full story is in the Journal 3/6/5 www.icnewcastle.co.uk - full story only available to subscribers, but i've been able to get a copy.
> 
> Cannabis Hope For Mental Illness:
> 
> ...




Cheers.  I have heard anecdotal evidence of some people using cannabis to self-medicate mental health problems.  However, I also know that cannabis triggers mental health problems in a sizeable minority of people.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

soluble duck said:
			
		

> i would be interested to know if cannabis causes mental illnesses or does it just bring out, or enhance pre-existing mental problems



the jury's out on that one


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2005)

Come on let's face it - even if there was cast-iron, rock solid methodology and all that involved in something like this there would still be a sizeable number of people both here and IRL that would say 'Nah, it's all bollox and anti-dope propaganda', so whether this is a brilliantly produced piece of TV or not it's not going to make one iota of difference to whether any of the teenagers on Urban or anywhere else who may have caused themselves mental health problems by starting smoking early will either stop, admit that tey might have fucked up and on a wider basis that smoking weed just might be harmful if you overdo it full stop? Not whether it's hydro with OP compounds or anything, just that smoking it early and heavy regular use, like any other drug, could actually damage people.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> *just that smoking it early* and heavy regular use, like any other drug, *could* actually damage (some) people.


With those emphases, and the addition, I don't think anyone with any real knowledge on the subject would disagree.

You're right though, and that's exactly why drug propaganda is so damaging.  You lie to people once, and unsuprisingly, they don't believe you the next time.  It's bad enough that anyone interested in harm reduction has to battle against street-myth bollocks, let alone government "information" as well.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Personally, I found smoking the bud off skunk or purple haze or whatever to be far more of a headfuck than any hash I ever smoked.



That Blags me ole fruit, depends on the quality of the hash. Hash that is bought on the street today is usually soap bar.
Bubble/Ice hash is devestating stuff. Not readily available, but far stronger than any weed you'll buy off the street today. 99.9%.

The latest news is that Gov want to make "skunk" a Class A substance. This just reinforces how utterly out of fuckin' touch they are, & the anti-dope loons wouldn't know what "skunk" was anyway.



> Cheers. I have heard anecdotal evidence of some people using cannabis to self-medicate mental health problems. However, I also know that cannabis triggers mental health problems in a sizeable minority of people.



No worries, but "a sizable minority?" 

A minority of people with an underlying predisposition to mental health problems you mean?  There is no solid evidence atm to support the claims that cannabis causes schizophrenia. And to throw around the term schizophrenia is a very dangerous one! It's a bit like people using the word paranoid to describe anxiety.

And i'm not saying here that cannabis is in anyway harmless.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> With those emphases, and the addition, I don't think anyone with any real knowledge on the subject would disagree.



Come off it mate, look at some of the posts that have gone up in this forum over the years - there is a hge amount of resistance to the idea that cannabis in it's various forms could cause harm because that would place it in the same psycho-social place as booze for a great many people.

Having seen what my little sis and her mates were like when they first started about 14 yrs old, what they were like a year later and what she was like after I spent a weekend convincing her to stop smoking for her exam and revision period I've got my own opinions on the subject.

Which I know is hypocrisy really since I started necking at 14 (didn't start smoking till about 16/17), but then I wasn't getting wasted every weekend, unlike my sis and her little coterie who were paralysed pretty much every night.

I also remember an overheard conversation on a bus:

'Yeah man, i've been smoking loads of dope but I'm not really enjoying it cos I keep getting paranoid, but I don't think it's the dope'

I mean FFS...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> just that smoking it early and heavy regular use, like any other drug, could actually damage people.



Aye. And i'd rather my kids were smoking an organically grown weed in moderation, than caning potentially lethal commercially produced weed, or even worse, soap bar.


----------



## monkee (Jun 15, 2005)

poet said:
			
		

> Reefer Madness, anyone?




Somebody pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease skin up.........!


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> A minority of people with an underlying predisposition to mental health problems you mean?  There is no solid evidence atm to support the claims that cannabis causes schizophrenia. And to throw around the term schizophrenia is a very dangerous one! It's a bit like people using the word paranoid to describe anxiety.


Yep, it seems to be used more and more loosely.  The medical definition for frenia is something like hallucinations (audio or visual) + delusions, which is ridiculously broad, but the condition definitely *is* a distinct one, rather than just being a diagnostic label.

Schizophrenia doesn't go away when you lay off the dube.  The propagandists seem to be skirting this as hard as they can.

My own experience though, backed up by fuck all, is that frenia comes in different shapes and sizes, and that _some_ manifestations could be triggered by any introspective drug, including cannabis.  On the flipside, I'm damn sure (again, purely my op though) that _some_ manifestations would be alieviated by it.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jun 15, 2005)

I thought this program was on ages ago?   

Mr Bishie - very interesting findings re: the self medication - I've seen people relapse the minute they've started smoking again despite the fact that they say it very initially makes them feel better - does make you wonder whether there might be some balance, especially considering schizophrenia has negative and positive symtoms.

One thing that I've just noticed about these documentaries, and about the discussions on urban, is that people seem to either talk in terms of being "schizophrenic" or completely non-psychotic. What about those experiencing a single psychotic episode which happens to coincide with a period of heavy drug use (diagnosed by some psychologists as drug induced psychosis)... They don't seem to get discussed at all, unless I've just managed to miss everything focusing on that.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> That Blags me ole fruit, depends on the quality of the hash. Hash that is bought on the street today is usually soap bar.
> Bubble/Ice hash is devestating stuff. Not readily available, but far stronger than any weed you'll buy off the street today. 99.9%.



I used to get OK hash back in the day.  Any bud I ever smoked was way stronger.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The latest news is that Gov want to make "skunk" a Class A substance. This just reinforces how utterly out of fuckin' touch they are, & the anti-dope loons wouldn't know what "skunk" was anyway.




Yes, the govt are idiots.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> No worries, but "a sizable minority?"
> 
> A minority of people with an underlying predisposition to mental health problems you mean?  There is no solid evidence atm to support the claims that cannabis causes schizophrenia. And to throw around the term schizophrenia is a very dangerous one! It's a bit like people using the word paranoid to describe anxiety.
> 
> And i'm not saying here that cannabis is in anyway harmless.



IME, a sizeable minority.  No, I haven't got any stats to back my claim up, but it is based on talking to people - look at how many posts there are on here about cannabis causing people anxiety and paranoia - and from my professional work - we get a lot more people than you might expect who's main problem drug is cannabis.  I haven't mentioned schizophrenia - I've only mentioned "mental health problems" - everything from anxiety, panic attacks, depression to full on paranoid schizophrenia.

As usual this debate gets ridiculously polarised.  The media/govt etc saying cannabis definitely causes schizophrenia and the pro-cannabis lobby saying that its only down to soapbar or organo-phosphates.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> On the flipside, I'm damn sure (again, purely my op though) that _some_ manifestations would be alieviated by it.



Hence the research findings.



> I've seen people relapse the minute they've started smoking again despite the fact that they say it very initially makes them feel better - does make you wonder whether there might be some balance, especially considering schizophrenia has negative and positive symtoms.



And it all boils down to exactly what is being consumed. OP's in commercial weed could potentially wreck an already unstable mind. OP's (again) are deadly nerve poisons. 

It just fucks me off that research isn't looking at the bigger picture!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I used to get OK hash back in the day.  Any bud I ever smoked was way stronger.



"OK hash" yes, not Bubble/Ice hash which is far stronger than any weed you'll find on the street. But it seems this has not been identified.



> As usual this debate gets ridiculously polarised.  The media/govt etc saying cannabis definitely causes schizophrenia and the pro-cannabis lobby saying that its only down to soapbar or organo-phosphates.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.



Until some solid scientific research is carried out on soap bar & OP's in commercially grown weed, there really isn't much point in current cannabis research continuing, as it's two sides bleating the same ole shite, as you say.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> 'Yeah man, i've been smoking loads of dope but I'm not really enjoying it cos I keep getting paranoid, but I don't think it's the dope'


  

If it weren't soap, it'd be tippex...   

I do see your point KS, but I think what you've noticed is largely a reaction to the daily hatemail bullshit.  People dig their heels in and start spouting claims of total safety and benefit for all that are equally stupid.  It is though, a defensive reaction, and the majority, when spoken to in a quiet corner away from the keyboard, would admit to more sensible opinions deep down.  Maybe I'm optimistic though.

No substance is totally safe.  Look at salt FFS.  However, weed has been a fuck of a lot better for me personally than drink, which was slowly killing me. It has educated me, improved my levels of empathy, my understanding of my own mind, and my understanding of human behaviours.  From this, I have managed to see my place amongst it all (or not, more like...) with much greater clarity, and this in turn has improved my fairly wank base level of self-esteem to something approaching normality.  Which in turn makes me a better functioning individual in every way.  Not everyone can expect to get this from it, I'm sure, but I resent the fact that I have to skulk around for these life-enhancing aspects due to politically-motivated bollocks.

Weed is introspective.  If you're not really a happy, balanced, and sorted individual inside, then you (plural, general) may not like what you see.  I think the swathes of paranoid potheads out there are akin to the unhappy miserable drunks that I used to be one of.

None of which precludes Bish having a fucking good point about growing with nerve agents.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2005)

> It has educated me, improved my levels of empathy, my understanding of my own mind, and my understanding of human behaviours. From this, I have managed to see my place amongst it all (or not, more like...) with much greater clarity, and this in turn has improved my fairly wank base level of self-esteem to something approaching normality. Which in turn makes me a better functioning individual in every way. Not everyone can expect to get this from it, I'm sure, but I resent the fact that I have to skulk around for these life-enhancing aspects due to politically-motivated bollocks.



Do you know what? I got all of those personal development bits through coke use - for me weed has only ever caused hysterical laughter, indifference and an inability to wake up in the morning, so it just goes to show that it ain't all horses for courses dunnit?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Do you know what? I got all of those personal development bits through coke use - for me weed has only ever caused hysterical laughter, indifference and an inability to wake up in the morning, so it just goes to show that it ain't all horses for courses dunnit?



I got them from the ageing process. If anything, drugs take me back to that insecurity and angst, well, the comedowns anyway. Hasn't quite stopped me yet though.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> However, weed has been a fuck of a lot better for me personally than drink, which was slowly killing me. It has educated me, improved my levels of empathy, my understanding of my own mind, and my understanding of human behaviours.  From this, I have managed to see my place amongst it all (or not, more like...) with much greater clarity, and this in turn has improved my fairly wank base level of self-esteem to something approaching normality. .



I wanna smoke what you're smoking! Make a change from getting giggly, eating loads and watching Star Trek.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> I wanna smoke what you're smoking! Make a change from getting giggly, eating loads and watching Star Trek.


Unfortunately, since leaving London, I've been relegated to street "skunk", so it certainly ain't owt special (and probably full of the OPs Mr Bishie's talking about). You've got to work _with_ the weed.  Refining my own psyche's a weird little hobby of mine anyhow.  

Weed may not be physically addictive, but the other thing that plays a large part, imo, is that it _is_ actually quite a psychologically addictive bugger.  That may not put it in the same league as "proper" addictions, but the danger comes when people discount it completely.

If you come to enjoy something on a regular basis, and it has ritual attached, and associations and so on, and then it vanishes... it can be quite unsettling, whatever it is.  Make it a psychoactive substance and I think that psychological "addiction" increases out of proportion.

I'm skint at the mo, and not had a proper dose for a few days because of it.  And guess what?  I'm agitated and restless.  Quelle suprise eh?  But, I recognise it, use distraction techniques, and drink Kava, which seems to lessen cravings generally once you've "learnt" it.  In 3 days, the agitation will be gone completely, and when I get paid again, it'll be fucking _marvellous_.  Look on the bright side n'all that.

Hmmm.... am I rambling now?  Blame the Kava, heh.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Do you know what? I got all of those personal development bits through coke use - for me weed has only ever caused hysterical laughter, indifference and an inability to wake up in the morning, so it just goes to show that it ain't all horses for courses dunnit?



I was a "weed" self-medicator for quite a few years (for depression) - I'm now steadily turning it back into an occaisional social indulgence. I don't think it did me any significant harm - mind you my brain was 35 years old when I discovered it ...

Annoyingly, just as the law is being changed, I find (low doseage) shrooms to hint at benefits in helping me shift my focus ...
(plenty of evidence that it can help with addiction to all sorts of things - MY addictions being to neurotic obsessions)

On balance I would prefer to just have had a happy well-balanced life with no chemicals of any kind - and that includes the imbalances in my own neurotransmitters and the Prozac the NHS gave me.

The medicine I find myself craving at this point in my life is meaningful human relations   
.
.


----------



## LostNotFound (Jun 15, 2005)

*sort it out*


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> The medicine I find myself craving at this point in my life is meaningful human relations
> .
> .


I just heard you on the radio!  You're famous, so stop complaining!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

I know I've said this before, but - One of the problems with weed is the culture that surrounds its use.  "come on, its only a spliff", "its harmless", "its not a drug its a herb _maaaan_" etc etc.  The culture of smoking every day is also a problem.  If someone was drinking everyday, or doing any other drug everyday, most people would say they have a problem - with cannabis its seen as perfectly acceptable.  IMO, taking a powerful mind altering drug every day is not healthy for your mental or emotional health - if you're stoned everyday then you're never in touch with your true emotions, it can be a distraction from having to deal with life in any real meaningful way.  Not a healthy state of affairs IMO.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> "Groundhog Day" innit ...
> 
> Still waiting to try some of this "super strong skunk" I keep hearing about ... by my reckoning at "25 percent THC" it must look more like a slime mould than a normal plant ....



Just come to West Cornwall, it won't take long to find some.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I just heard you on the radio!  You're famous, so stop complaining!



 famous for 30 seconds  
.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> if you're stoned everyday then you're never in touch with your true emotions


Not disagreeing on the main, but: there is a difference between smoking every day and getting _stoned_ every day imo.  With my tolerance, and the quality of the green round here, it takes a fair few to have a "powerful mind-altering" effect on me.  More akin to a cup of coffee, with the effect reversed iykwim.

I honestly wonder how much of the effect is actually psychosomatic with some people.  They've seen how people get stoned in cheech and chong, and somehow think their kingskin of speed-grown hydro will do the same thing.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 15, 2005)

> Just come to West Cornwall, it won't take long to find some.



That IS slime-mould, tobyjug.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Just come to West Cornwall, it won't take long to find some.


Still bollocks though.

"super-strong" skunk my arse.  I've smoked plenty in Devon and Cornwall, and it was nowt stronger than anywhere else.

Aside from that, this "60% THC" shite is meaningless.  Others can explain why better than me though.


----------



## tollbar (Jun 15, 2005)

Dont know if anyone saw Trevor McDonalds programme last week on the same subject, also well into Reefer Madness territory. Along with the decision not to permit cannibis based treatments for MS, it looks to me as if there is a push building up to get Cannabis reclassified again.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Not disagreeing on the main, but: there is a difference between smoking every day and getting _stoned_ every day imo.  With my tolerance, and the quality of the green round here, it takes a fair few to have a "powerful mind-altering" effect on me.  More akin to a cup of coffee, with the effect reversed iykwim.



It's like that with me too - though I'd say it was more the equivalent of the glass of wine before or with the evening meal ...


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Still bollocks though.
> 
> "super-strong" skunk my arse.  I've smoked plenty in Devon and Cornwall, and it was nowt stronger than anywhere else.
> 
> Aside from that, this "60% THC" shite is meaningless.  Others can explain why better than me though.




I have never heard any mention of 60%. The strongest home grown found locally was 25%. (The local plod use independent companies for analysis, it is not done in house)


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I have never heard any mention of 60%. The strongest home grown found locally was 25%. (The local plod use independent companies for analysis, it is not done in house)



And you wonder why no one takes you seriously on here?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 15, 2005)

I thought Cornish weed was a bit rubbish when I lived there, actually. The hydro stuff in Cambridge is a lot better. Bristol/Somerset is way better as well.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> The strongest home grown found locally was 25%.


Can you explain what this means please?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> And you wonder why no one takes you seriously on here?



I am merely quoting figures from the local plod. If you think they are bollocks, (no-one has challeged the figures when taken to court), I suggest you phone:- 08452 777 444 and ask to speak to a drugs squad officer.
I would also suggest the numerous web sites of seed suppliers  quoting similar possible strengths should be contacted by you as well.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> the numerous web sites of seed suppliers quoting similar possible strengths


That's the one - marketing bollocks.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Yes toby of course.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> And you wonder why no one takes you seriously on here?



but it remains to be clarified exactly what the 25 percent is a percentage of - the mass of the whole plant minus water ?

Why has no one ever distilled pure THC if it's available in such vast quantities ?

Given the rest of the plant just makes a smoker cough, I'm sure they must mean as a proportion of major cannabinoids ....


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 15, 2005)

Also, if you've ever made (high quality) hash or oil then you know that 25% is a total pipe-dream. Most of the time you need huge amounts of plant material for a relatively small amount of product. Admittedly a certain amount must be left in the leaves, but with a decent solvent I don't think it's that much. Where is all the rest of that THC supposed to go?


----------



## bmd (Jun 15, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I have never heard any mention of 60%. The strongest home grown found locally was 25%. (The local plod use independent companies for analysis, it is not done in house)



25% of what? Are you saying that 25% of the weed weighed was THC? I know that when figures are given out for heroin purity they'll break it down to pure heroin so if say they test an ounce and it's 25% then that means that they've found 7gms of pure heroin in an ounce. Is that what those figures mean?


----------



## Poi E (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If someone was drinking everyday... most people would say they have a problem .



Many people in the UK would say that was quite normal and not a problem.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 15, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> 25% of what? Are you saying that 25% of the weed weighed was THC? I know that when figures are given out for heroin purity they'll break it down to pure heroin so if say they test an ounce and it's 25% then that means that they've found 7gms of pure heroin in an ounce. Is that what those figures mean?



I'm sure it *must * be the *ratio * of THC to the cannabinoids that make people fall asleep before they get enough THC to "turn into axe-wielding schizophrenics" (sic) ... a bit like the paracetomol and codeine tablets that are available over the counter because the paracetomol would kill someone before they got a serious fix from the codeine .... (yes I know there are folks who know how to work around that one ... ), or methylated spirits come to that ...


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 15, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Many people in the UK would say that was quite normal and not a problem.



Depends on the amount, a couple of pints of beer a day, isn't a problem, a couple of bottles of wine a day is.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I'm sure it *must * be the *ratio * of THC to the cannabinoids that make people fall asleep before they get enough THC to "turn into axe-wielding schizophrenics" (sic)


But the CBDs are an integral part of the effect, so that wouldn't make any sense...

So it's probably right.

Anyhow, tobyjug, where you gone?  Still waiting for that explanation...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 15, 2005)

There are over sixty known cannabinoids found within the cannabis plant, but THC, THCV, CBD & CBN are recognised compounds that latch onto the cannabinoid receptors in the brain & get us high or stoned.

"25% THC" means nothing, as they all play a part psychoactively.

It was only a few weeks ago that toby was banging on about 46% THC, now he's changed his mind & quoted 25% - which is all sales patter by seed banks anyway.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

Mind explaining your post juggy?  Or is this another unevidenced hit'n'run?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Many people in the UK would say that was quite normal and not a problem.



Maybe I should have clarified - getting drunk everyday.  One glass of wine is "normal", but a whole bottle is not.  Not many people smoke just for the taste - most people smoke to get stoned.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> That's the one - marketing bollocks.



If you can prove that take it up with the ASA/OFCOM as it's misleading advertising - seriously, put a complaint in about it.

Here's the relevant address (you have to quote a specific ad to complain about)

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/

They cover press, broadcast and online advertising.

Seriously Blag, Corax et al...if you think the claims are bollocks get them stopped for lying.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Seriously Blag, Corax et al...if you think the claims are bollocks get them stopped for lying.



I have no idea if the claims of seed companies are bollocks.  I do think that tobyjug's claims are bollocks though.


----------



## Corax (Jun 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> If you can prove that take it up with the ASA/OFCOM as it's misleading advertising - seriously, put a complaint in about it.
> 
> Here's the relevant address (you have to quote a specific ad to complain about)
> 
> ...



I'm sure the claim is valid in some way or another.  The point is that it's meaningless.

I don't think that could land them in trouble, or the shampoo manufacturers et al ("pro-vitamin complex!") would be in the same boat.


----------



## Ferre (Jun 15, 2005)

It's somehow a trend world wide for government officials to connect the use of cannabis with brain damage. However, untill now there has been found NO scientifical evidence that this is the case. 

Officials like to play with the wording; they say that there is "a connection" but they fail to tell you that there is no "DIRECT connection".

A direct connection would indicate that cannabis use would "cause" braindamage, or other mental problems, this is not the case and has never been found in any scientific research.

Read a Lancet report on this matter here;

http://www.thc-ministry.net/downloads/cannabis.pdf

and specially read the comments on that report here;

http://www.thc-ministry.net/downloads/cannabis-comm.pdf

(both pdf files)

"a connection" can be anything, it is the same "connection" that mothermilk has with alcoholists, most of them started out with drinking mothermilk. Does that mean that mothermilk is the cause of alcoholism? by no means, but still it is this same sort of logic that is been used by anti-cannabis officials all the time.

Reefer madness exist specially amongst politicians, that does not mean that there would be no negative aspects on cannabis but the international political cruisade against this plant is way over the top.

I'm a board member of the Dutch Legalize! organisation btw.


----------



## longdog (Jun 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I have no idea if the claims of seed companies are bollocks.  I do think that tobyjug's claims are bollocks though.




Some of us still remember his fairy story about the police abducting a bus load of children to Helston.

Don't we tobes?


----------



## oddworld (Jun 15, 2005)

tOka would have loved this thread   

I defintely noticed a change in his behaviour/mental health from his smoking although I have to say he binged on it , weeks on and weeks off, the weeks off there was a noticable difference in his mood / outlook and general get up and go.

I would definately say it contributed to him making the choices he did and not being here now.


----------



## Mr_Nice (Jun 15, 2005)

oddworld said:
			
		

> tOka would have loved this thread
> 
> I defintely noticed a change in his behaviour/mental health from his smoking although I have to say he binged on it , weeks on and weeks off, the weeks off there was a noticable difference in his mood / outlook and general get up and go.
> 
> I would definately say it contributed to him making the choices he did and not being here now.



*Big Hugs*


----------



## oddworld (Jun 15, 2005)

Not a thread about me though - dont want to turn into one , its just my persepective on his use of cannabis - a change in his mental health was all too noticeable.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 15, 2005)

longdog said:
			
		

> Some of us still remember his fairy story about the police abducting a bus load of children to Helston.
> 
> Don't we tobes?




Why don't you just grow up you stupid child.


----------



## rukun (Jun 16, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4082196.stm
> Cannabis: what teenagers should know .....



Cor what a long thread. Easy to see who knows what they're talking about though  - Corax, Gentle and others .... but those two def stuck out ..

Just a little observation from me. One of the strongest smokes I ever had was in fact a Moroccan hash nicknamed 'sputnik'. What's in a name ?

Anyway, it was scored in Torremolinos (don't ask!) and was actually hallucinogenic. Maybe it was what the natives call the .... erm can't remember. Anyway the very first 'shaking'. I suspect the cannabis grown in Morocco is sativa and therefore has a high proportion of THC to CBD (et al.).

That's the point really. When people get all hot under the collar about the strength of 'modern skunk' you just know that they haven't a clue as to the extent of the spectrum of organic chemicals involved and the interaction of these with the whole spectum of psyches which may choose to ingest them.

An example is the obvious advice to someone who complained that latter day skunk was too freakily strong.  "Just smoke less". Would that such simple logic prevailed in the context of psychoactive drugs - but it just ain't like that.

When I 'sober up', I diss myself like crazy for going into "wouldn't it be nice if" but totally unrealistic faerie land fantasies when under the influence.

But then - if a friend comes round, within a toke or two the weed finds it so easy to dupe me again. "On this occasion, I can show you something useful - it wasn't by accident these guys brought me round to you you know"

The most perplexing part is the fact that it's not in fact the weed making the excuses for you .. ha ha.  You are the one making the excuses. Yes, I can quite believe that cannabinoids can be a catalyst for schizoid thinking.

 On the other hand they could also be catalyst for more positive outcomes by, for example,  releasing someone who is in some way blocked into a rigid scaredycat prison type psyche -  someone who can't bear the fact that they may not be in complete self control wih regards their life and destiny.

Grown up toys for grown up boys?

I sometimes wonder what on earth possessed the one who first grabbed a bunch of green leaves, stuck them in a pipe, smoked them and, ho ho, what have we here. Perhaps he was a very hungry Neanderthal.

ruks


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 16, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> ...That's the point really. When people get all hot under the collar about the strength of 'modern skunk' you just know that they haven't a clue as to the extent of the spectrum of organic chemicals involved and the interaction of these with the whole spectum of psyches which may choose to ingest them.
> 
> An example is the obvious advice to someone who complained that latter day skunk was too freakily strong.  "Just smoke less". Would that such simple logic prevailed in the context of psychoactive drugs - but it just ain't like that...


I hope I am not getting "hot under the collar" when I said I wished I could get more "mild" weed. I don't know if it is that the weed is different or that I react differently to how I used to but I wish I was getting stuff that was more 'relaxing' than 'off-my-face' type stuff. Another point: I have arthritis and have just read that diclofenac (the anti-inflamatory painkillers I get prescribed) might actually increase the risk of heart attacks by 50% (news story this week). As I have to take a fair amount of this stuff virtually every day it has made me wonder about what it is going to do to me over time - ie the cumulative effect in 30 years time. One effect of cannabis is to act as a pain killer and muscle relaxant which is great if things get really bad, far better than anything else I have had except opiates etc - but I don't necessarily want to be stoned off my face as well (sometimes I do but I'd like to have the choice). Another problem is that I have a history of bipolar/manic-depression (thankfully not currently symptomatic and under control without need for medication etc). This means that I am very wary of using a lot of weed or using it often, and also wary of smoking extremely "strong" stuff.

For all these reasons I look forward to the day when we have a choice of a range of stuff, and where we understand a lot more about what it does to the mind and body. I am aware there are risks but I am still very much in favour of legalisation and continue to help out with campaigning on this issue (eg the festival which was sadly cancelled this year). I'm not really any kind of "expert" on the science or a 'connoisseur'.


----------



## METH LAB (Jun 16, 2005)

Rax:
_"Weed is introspective. If you're not really a happy, balanced, and sorted individual inside, then you (plural, general) may not like what you see."_

Thats the f*cka..   

I read the thread wrong a sec ago.. thought it said paranoia instead of panorama (or was it neither  ) .... lol

EZ


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> I sometimes wonder what on earth possessed the one who first grabbed a bunch of green leaves, stuck them in a pipe, smoked them and, ho ho, what have we here. Perhaps he was a very hungry Neanderthal.



She may not have been human, yet. Or even a primate.



> There are recent reports of a group of South American monkeys who eat hallucinogenic plants; these are being investigated but studies are still underway [Gibbs].
> 
> Gibbs, W. W.; "Jungle Medicine," _Scientific American_, Dec. 1996.
> cited in http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_948.html


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 16, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> If you can prove that take it up with the ASA/OFCOM as it's misleading advertising - seriously, put a complaint in about it.
> 
> Seriously Blag, Corax et al...if you think the claims are bollocks get them stopped for lying.



Seed companies & Canna related businesses can get away with lies & bullshit because of the illegality. By law it's illegal to germinate cannabis seeds. They're for "ornamental purposes" only, so how could you officially complain when the dope you've grown doesn't meet up to expectations? You can't. 
Same goes for a lot of Canna companies who say that a nutrient product is organic, or a compost is organic, when in fact is isn't as it hasn't been approved by any organic body such as the Soil Association, etc. So long as cannabis remains illegal, the lies & bullshit will continue. 
Of course growers know about all this & certain companies are slowly starting to tell them the truth, as it's growers who line their pockets with a product they could not possibly sell to any other market.



> For all these reasons I look forward to the day when we have a choice of a range of stuff, and where we understand a lot more about what it does to the mind and body. I am aware there are risks but I am still very much in favour of legalisation and continue to help out with campaigning on this issue



There is help out there TeeJay (i'll pm you some links), & there are canna based medicines available - a cream to ease arthritic pain is one.

Why should anyone in pain be denied the right to ease their pain by whatever medicine that is available? It's a total fuckin' breach of human rights! We don't let animals suffer yet thousands of people are suffering as a result of cannabis prohibition.

Cannabis pain relief bid rejected:
27 May 2005

"An attempt to effectively legalise the use of cannabis for the relief of chronic pain has been rejected by the Court of Appeal.

Three judges ruled against argument that conduct which would otherwise be unlawful was "excused or justified by the need to avoid a greater evil" and that the defence of necessity should be available to those who used or supplied the Class C drug to alleviate severe pain.

The court had been told that cannabis was more effective than conventional forms of pain relief and did not have the potentially serious and life-threatening side-effects of alternative treatments.

But the judges ruled that the defences of necessity or duress should be confined to cases where someone committed what would otherwise be an unlawful act to avoid "imminent danger of physical injury".

The court dismissed appeals by Barry Quayle, 38, from Market Rasen, Lincolnshire; Reay Wales, 53, of Ipswich; Graham Kenny, 25, from Shipley, West Yorkshire; and Anthony Taylor, 54, and May Po Lee, 28, both from London.

All had been given either a fine, community service or suspended jail sentence for possessing or importing the drug.

The judges also ruled that the defence of necessity should not have succeeded in the case of Jeffrey Ditchfield, of North Wales, who was acquitted of possessing the drug with intent to supply it to victims of serious and painful medical conditions.

Despite the decision, Mr Ditchfield cannot now be convicted of the offence".


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2005)

METH LAB said:
			
		

> Rax:
> _"Weed is introspective. If you're not really a happy, balanced, and sorted individual inside, then you (plural, general) may not like what you see."_
> 
> Thats the f*cka..
> ...



Although of course, this is bollocks that seeks to blame the person smoking rather than just admitting that actually, weed just isn't for some people.


----------



## rukun (Jun 16, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I hope I am not getting "hot under the collar" when I said I wished I could get more "mild" weed. I don't know if it is that the weed is different or that I react differently to how I used to but I wish I was getting stuff that was more 'relaxing' than 'off-my-face' type stuff.



'Dam. I was hovering aound the back of shop counter on one of my nug buying expeditions, a long protracted decsion making.

This very well dressed gent came up. He was with a party of similar peeps and they all looked as they were off to the opera or something similar. He asked the geezer for some weed which wasn't so 'hairy'. The geezer pointed to the row of jars and suggested, I don't know, one of the outdoor varieties.

I turned to the gentleman and said "Listen, when you smoke, as soon as the weed has an effect, pass the spliff on next time it comes round. Go beyond that point and it can only be downhill all the way. Nobody is going to think your weak or feeble, quite the opposite in fact."

The geezer, who had been retrieving a jar, obviously overheard and said to the gentleman. "Listen to this man, he knows what he is talking about".

I can't deny I wasn't a wee bit chuffed by getting such a compliment from a 'Dam man. Yes, it is possible to moderate your intake of weed too strong for your liking. You really have to know why you're doing it and have the will power to quell the curiousiity "I feel great, wouldn't I feel even more so with a little more."  I was going to say insidious stuff but of course it's not the weed that's insidious - it's the little hungry beaks in our own psyche.

  For pain relief best you seek out strains with less of the nervy THC and more of the soporific cannabinoids such as CBD. One way a grower can do this for you is by leaving the plant longer before harvesting. THC converts to CBD as the plant ages.

  But there of course is the rub. Stupid legislation makes such tailoring impossible/unfeasible and peeps end up toking weed which is quite unsuitable for their own purposes and quite possibly develop appetites they need not necessarily have aquired.

ruks


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 16, 2005)

> Originally Posted by TeeJay
> I hope I am not getting "hot under the collar" when I said I wished I could get more "mild" weed. I don't know if it is that the weed is different or that I react differently to how I used to but I wish I was getting stuff that was more 'relaxing' than 'off-my-face' type stuff.



I suppose the alternative might be to "decaffeinate" it a bit by cooking it or just leaving it exposed to the air ... I wonder if there's any data available on the physical characteristics of CBD vs THC ... I wonder if they're far enough apart in terms of volatility to come up with a technical solution ?

I have myself fancied that maybe the first firing of a pipe bowl gets you "high" and the later one(s) are more "stony" ...
.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Aye. And i'd rather my kids were smoking an organically grown weed in moderation, than caning potentially lethal commercially produced weed, or even worse, soap bar.



...or Tennents Super or White Lightning, come to think of it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 16, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> For pain relief best you seek out strains with less of the nervy THC and more of the soporific cannabinoids such as CBD. One way a grower can do this for you is by leaving the plant longer before harvesting. THC converts to CBD as the plant ages.



Current medi-suppliers concentrate on supplying patients with exactly that - what they require. THC is not "nervy" if a plant is harvested at the correct time as you say. But a lot of medi-users don't actually smoke it, but utilise cannabis for tinctures, creams & for eating - where THC is so much more beneficial for pain management.

Obviously you can not acquire what medicine is right for you on the street, but you can through a medi-supply group.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 16, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I suppose the alternative might be to "decaffeinate" it a bit by cooking it or just leaving it exposed to the air ... I wonder if there's any data available on the physical characteristics of CBD vs THC ... I wonder if they're far enough apart in terms of volatility to come up with a technical solution ?



THC degrades when exposed to air & light after a plant is harvested - albeit slowly, but it does.

Cooking with, or making canna butter utilises the active cannabinoids, so it's going to be a lot stronger - but for medicinal purposes this is the route to pursue.

Data is available on the physical characteristics of THC/CBD/CBN - hence GW's "Sativex" product.


----------



## bmd (Jun 16, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> ...or Tennents Super or White Lightning, come to think of it.



Er...no. Alcohol is the most toxic awful recreational drug known to man.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Er...no. Alcohol is the most toxic awful recreational drug known to man.



That's what I was driving at: I'd rather my kids, grandkids etc smoked weed than drank that nasty stuff.


----------



## bmd (Jun 16, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That's what I was driving at: I'd rather my kids, grandkids etc smoked weed than drank that nasty stuff.



Ah right, got ya.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Ah right, got ya.



After all, you're only a short step away from a rock of crack when you drink that stuff!


----------



## bmd (Jun 16, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> After all, you're only a short step away from a rock of crack when you drink that stuff!



Given enough money and having a care for their health and all the aspects of that that crack touches then a crack user would last a lot longer than an alky. Alcohol rots you from the inside, crack isn't exactly healthy but that's more to do with the lifestyle than the actual drug. Hey I'm not saying it's a fun drug just that alcohol is worse.

Sorry for the derail btw.


----------



## Corax (Jun 16, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Although of course, this is bollocks that seeks to blame the person smoking rather than just admitting that actually, weed just isn't for some people.


'kin antagonistic tone you've got on today Blags...

It certainly isn't bollocks, and doesn't seek to do anything of the sort when taken in the context of my posts on here.  You're right though, weed _isn't_ for some people.  But then, many people spend their entire lives twisted up inside, so who's to say whether it's their mindset or mindstate?


----------



## Psychonaut (Jun 16, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Given enough money and having a care for their health and all the aspects of that that crack touches then a crack user would last a lot longer than an alky. Alcohol rots you from the inside, crack isn't exactly healthy but that's more to do with the lifestyle than the actual drug. Hey I'm not saying it's a fun drug just that alcohol is worse.
> 
> Sorry for the derail btw.



Isnt cocaine very bad for your ticker? And ive heard (from a nurse) of a twenty-something getting a paralysing stroke.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 16, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> THC degrades when exposed to air & light after a plant is harvested - albeit slowly, but it does.
> 
> Cooking with, or making canna butter utilises the active cannabinoids, so it's going to be a lot stronger - but for medicinal purposes this is the route to pursue.
> 
> Data is available on the physical characteristics of THC/CBD/CBN - hence GW's "Sativex" product.



I actually meant "cooking" in the sense of mistreating it to selectively knock out the THC, but thinking about it eating it can give  more "body" high ....

I wonder what might be involved in designing a pipe that is actually a fractionation column ....

I've posted this before, but my 2 minute eating method is to grind it up, warm it up in a little oil then stir in milk, bring to boil, add sugar / flavouring to taste.
.


----------



## rukun (Jun 16, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I actually meant "cooking" in the sense of mistreating it to selectively knock out the THC, but thinking about it eating it can give  more "body" high ....
> 
> I wonder what might be involved in designing a pipe that is actually a fractionation column ....
> 
> ...



Chocolate truffles. Mmmmmm yummy

Mind you that isn't a 3 min method, involving, as it does, making cannabutter. And then there's the wondering whether all the cannabinoids have dissolved into the butterfat before you chuck away all the water and greenery. A luxury which, I suppose, only a home grower coud afford ...  

A box of truffles makes a very luxurious bithday present

ruks


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 16, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> Chocolate truffles. Mmmmmm yummy
> 
> Mind you that isn't a 3 min method, involving, as it does, making cannabutter. And then there's the wondering whether all the cannabinoids have dissolved into the butterfat before you chuck away all the water and greenery. A luxury which, I suppose, only a home grower coud afford ...
> 
> ...



I usually leave it soaking and make a second weaker batch - and one can always eat the sludge in a cookie


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jun 16, 2005)

I have a video of a Panorama from a few years ago where they tried to claim that smoking weed could make you forget how to read.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 16, 2005)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> I have a video of a Panorama from a few years ago where they tried to claim that smoking weed could make you forget how to read.




Eh?????


----------



## Riklet (Jun 16, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Good gawd, this is what the internet is for !
> 
> Trichomes are where 99 percent of the canabinoids are - it's what gets turned into hash. It's not at all clear from the literature that there is *ANY THC at all * in the leafy material.
> 
> ...



Or coffee boiled in a toilet filled with used needles and condoms...


----------



## rukun (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I usually leave it soaking and make a second weaker batch - and one can always eat the sludge in a cookie



YUK! (the cookies) One tablespoon of cinnamon?

Curious about you gentle ...

teonancatl

So you're a debutante?

Have you got this far:-

The Indians' reverence for the sacred mushrooms is also evident in their belief that they can be eaten only by a "clean" person. "Clean" here means ceremonially clean, and that term among other things includes sexual abstinence at least four days before and after ingestion of the mushrooms. Certain rules must also be observed in gathering the mushrooms. With nonobservance of these commandments, the mushrooms can make the person who eats it insane, or can even kill.

<grinning like a loon>

ruks


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> YUK! (the cookies) One tablespoon of cinnamon?
> 
> Curious about you gentle ...
> 
> ...



Cinnamon or nutmeg in a milky drink, I found *ginger * worked especially well in cookies 

Couldn't be _more _ of a debutante fungi-wise - so far only do it on average once every 24 years or so but I certainly "satisfy" the sexual abstinence part - compared to the accounts I read on "nobbin and sobbin"     I have lived like a *monk*


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> 'kin antagonistic tone you've got on today Blags...
> 
> It certainly isn't bollocks, and doesn't seek to do anything of the sort when taken in the context of my posts on here.  You're right though, weed _isn't_ for some people.  But then, many people spend their entire lives twisted up inside, so who's to say whether it's their mindset or mindstate?



My point is that who are you to judge what mindstate someone is in?  Tellign people that its their fault that they don't enjoy cannabis is (a) arrogant bollocks (b) untrue and (c) _extremely_ unhelpful.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 17, 2005)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> I have a video of a Panorama from a few years ago where they tried to claim that smoking weed could make you forget how to read.



I'd be laughing my head off if I could read what you've written


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

Riklet said:
			
		

> Or coffee boiled in a toilet filled with used needles and condoms...



Yummy!


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> My point is that who are you to judge what mindstate someone is in?  Tellign people that its their fault that they don't enjoy cannabis is (a) arrogant bollocks (b) untrue and (c) _extremely_ unhelpful.


You're insisting on taking my words out of _extensive_ context, so I'm not going to bother contimuing this with you Blags.  Pointless and unconstructive.

That aside, I hope you're well at the mo.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

I'm OK thanks 

Its nowt personal, just my opinion.  IMO its akin to saying that cannabis basically harmless and if someone can't handle it, then its their fault.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> IMO its akin to saying that cannabis basically harmless and if someone can't handle it, then its their fault.



A lot of peeps can't handle their alcohol - & it's very much their fault for drinking it & getting in a mess - they know that it ain't harmless.

13 billion quid per year it costs the NHS on alcohol related incidents, etc..

I wonder how much money the NHS spend on cannabis related incidents per year? 

The whole cannabis issue has been blown out of all proportion by the  anti-canna lobby, so-called Gov experts & media hysteria, & it fuckin' stinks.

I bet HJ Anslinger is pissing himself laughing as his legacy lives on.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 17, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well you would have thought that it would be as simple as that but in fact I find that different weed gives different "highs". I am sure someone more expert than me can set us right on this...


Not an expert but you are correct different weed and hash can and does have a very different effect.

When I go to Amsterdam I smoke different weed during the day than I do if I’m going to a party at night or just going to the bar.

But I suspect that Panorama will just re-hash (ah-hum) the research that came out earlier this year.

That research showed a rise in mental illness in young cannabis smokers but it is hard to show if these people wouldn’t have suffered this had they not smoked weed.

It seems to me that lots more people are finding it harder to live in today’s world and I suspect that being or feeling unable to keep up may also cause a rise in mental illness.

I think you need to listen to it and then maybe see what the Doctors who write for the illegalise cannabis campaign have to say and try to balance the two different perspectives, the problem is peoples personal prejudice will decide in the end I guess.  

I smoke a great deal of hash and weed I justify it to myself as self medication, all the experts seem to agree that stress is a killer so maybe I’m prolonging my life smoking weed and not getting stresses, I know cannabis gives me mood swings but I have been smoking it for a very long time and now understand when I fell these coming on and can handle it.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> I know cannabis gives me mood swings but I have been smoking it for a very long time and now understand when I fell these coming on and can handle it.


Funny.  I've always been a moodswinging fucker (diagnosed with mild bipolar/temporal lobe epilepsy when younger, but the doc kindly gave me the choice whether to make it "official" and put it on my record.  I declined to avoid the stigma, and learnt to deal on my own).  Cannabis, on the other hand, levels me out.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> A lot of peeps can't handle their alcohol - & it's very much their fault for drinking it & getting in a mess - they know that it ain't harmless.
> 
> 13 billion quid per year it costs the NHS on alcohol related incidents, etc..
> 
> ...



But we all know the dangers of alcohol - its not presented as harmless.  Cannabis is presented as harmless a lot of the time.  See the difference?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But we all know the dangers of alcohol - its not presented as harmless.  Cannabis is a lot of the time.  See the difference?



The key difference is that it is generally accepted by society at large that alcohol can be something other than "a drug" whereas cannabis is ingested specifically for the effect - very rarely for the flavour.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> The key difference is that it is generally accepted by society at large that alcohol can be something other than "a drug" whereas cannabis is ingested specifically for the effect - very rarely for the flavour.



Yes, exactly.  See my point earlier about the culture that surrounds cannabis consumption.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But we all know the dangers of alcohol - its not presented as harmless.



But Blags me ole fruit, everyone doesn't know about the dangers of alcohol. Or if they do, they simply ignore it & take the risks associated with getting as pissed as possible.



> Cannabis is presented as harmless a lot of the time.



And it's a damn sight less harmful than alcohol is mate.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Cannabis is presented as harmless a lot of the time.


Polarised though.  It's also presented as though it's some sort of varient on crack a lot of the time.

With booze, the attitude is far worse imo.  It's advertised on TV for a start.  That seems to be a big thumbs up to alcohol in my view.  To find (serious) positive views on cannabis, you have to actually be interested in it and do your research.  To find positive views on alcohol, you only need watch Eastenders and see the japes down the Queen Vic.

Alcohol is "pushed" on TV, in print media, in supermarkets, newsagents/off-licences, pubs and bars on virtually every street in the country in some way or another.

Which got me fucking angry when I was trying to beat an addiction to it.  How do you "walk away" from booze?  You can't, it's everywhere.  Despite common perception, you do actually have to go _looking_ for weed.

Alcohol is the _governments_ drug of choice.  Wonder why eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> But Blags me ole fruit, everyone doesn't know about the dangers of alcohol. Or if they do, they simply ignore it & take the risks associated with getting as pissed as possible.



Yes people do ignore the dangers, but they are acknowledged.





			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> And it's a damn sight less harmful than alcohol is mate.



Yes it is.  But it isn't harmless - its more harmful than some people seem to want to admit.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Polarised though.  It's also presented as though it's some sort of varient on crack a lot of the time.
> 
> With booze, the attitude is far worse imo.  It's advertised on TV for a start.  That seems to be a big thumbs up to alcohol in my view.  To find (serious) positive views on cannabis, you have to actually be interested in it and do your research.  To find positive views on alcohol, you only need watch Eastenders and see the japes down the Queen Vic.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree.  The debate is too polarised.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly.  See my point earlier about the culture that surrounds cannabis consumption.



And your point about "cannabis culture" sounded like it came out of the hippy sixties mate 



> But it isn't harmless - its more harmful than some people seem to want to admit.



I've said that it wasn't harmless a few pages back, but for the majority of people it is harmless. And there is no evidence to suggest otherwise at this present moment in time, apart from scaremongering.



> The debate is too polarised.



Too right it is


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> And your point about "cannabis culture" sounded like it came out of the hippy sixties mate



Its the reality of a lot of young people today.





			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I've said that it wasn't harmless a few pages back, but for the majority of people it is harmless. And there is no evidence to suggest otherwise at this present moment in time, apart from scaremongering.



Yes, it is harmless for the majority of people.  However I would still question whether getting stoned every evening is conducive to good emotional/mental health.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Too right it is



Hey, we agree!  Who'd have thunk it, eh?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its the reality of a lot of young people today.



Are beads & flares back in fashion then?  Crack & smack is a reality for lots of young peeps Blags.



> Yes, it is harmless for the majority of people.



Woohoo! 



> However I would still question whether getting stoned every evening is conducive to good emotional/mental health.



Boooooo! No conclusive evidence to support that though


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Are beads & flares back in fashion then?  Crack & smack is a reality for lots of young peeps Blags.



Social pressure to smoke weed, enjoy it, not be a lightweight and not complain of paranoia/anxiety is also the reality of a lot of young people.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Woohoo!









			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Boooooo! No conclusive evidence to support that though



Just a personal opinion, but one informed by experience, both personal and professional.  Getting stoned every day means that you're never going to be properly in touch with your own emotions - not conducive to personal growth IMO.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Just a personal opinion, but one informed by experience, both personal and professional.  Getting stoned every day means that you're never going to be properly in touch with your own emotions - not conducive to personal growth IMO.


I'd use myself as evidence to the contrary though.  I know my emotions and psyche inside out, and I smoke a hell of a lot of green.

I think what you might be driving at, ultimately, is those individuals who are unable to prioritise.  Weed does make you relaxed, and although not apathy as it is so often termed, it's very easy to decide "tomorrow..." to all those things you need to do to move your life on.

This isn't the fault of cannabis though.  That's the fault of people who are already too cowardly/lazy/whatever to face the world around them.

Weed's fucking marvellous imo.  But so is climbing mountains, taking photos, travelling, doing well in my job, my family, my cat, and many other things.  And so I occasionally have to put the spliff down.

People are always very quick to look for a reason that isn't _themself_ to blame their problems on.

Actually, reminds me, I've got a mate who is currently undergoing court-ordered day rehab/therapy for his addiction to cannabis.  WTF?!?  The poor muppet's been spouting on about how he's finding it really hard to beat his "addiction".  I know the man, and believe me, the problems he's got are to do with his lack of personal responsibility and maturity.  Yet here is the fucking _legal_ system telling him "no, it's not you.  It's the drugs".  They've just given him an officially sanctioned excuse to delay facing up to himself.

Cannabis rehab my arse.  What the fuck is going on?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Yes, that's _your_ experience with cannabis.  Other people's experience is different.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, that's _your_ experience with cannabis.  Other people's experience is different.




Thats spot on.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

Well, maybe. But this:



> Getting stoned every day means that you're never going to be properly in touch with your own emotions - not conducive to personal growth IMO.



sounded a bit general, and doesn't tally with lots of people's experience. Are you really saying that because I cane it every day I'm never going to be properly in touch with my emotions (whatever that means), because I'm not sure it's the case.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I've got a mate who is currently undergoing court-ordered day rehab/therapy for his addiction to cannabis.  WTF?!?  The poor muppet's been spouting on about how he's finding it really hard to beat his "addiction".  I know the man, and believe me, the problems he's got are to do with his lack of personal responsibility and maturity.  Yet here is the fucking _legal_ system telling him "no, it's not you.  It's the drugs".  They've just given him an officially sanctioned excuse to delay facing up to himself.



What country is this in? 

The US has seen a massive rise in cannabis addiction. Why? Because very many people have to confess to being addicts and sign up for treatment or go to jail. 

Never mind that the condition is unknown to science - it now legally exists, and the incarceration/treatment industry wins either way.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, maybe. But this:
> 
> 
> 
> sounded a bit general, and doesn't tally with lots of people's experience. Are you really saying that because I cane it every day I'm never going to be properly in touch with my emotions (whatever that means), because I'm not sure it's the case.




Yes, I am saying that.  IMO its not healthy.  But, as I said earlier, everyone's experience is different.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Never mind that the condition is unknown to science - it now legally exists, and the incarceration/treatment industry wins either way.



You'd be surprised.  We get a few clients whos primary problem drug is cannabis.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

I just don't understand why. You seem to be doing exactly what you hate and abstracting from specific cases to a general rule that doesn't actually hold water. What does 'smoking cannabis means you're not in touch with your emotions' mean? I don't notice any particular affective difference with or without cannabis, high or sober.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised.  We get a few clients whos primary problem drug is cannabis.



Are you sure ?

Have they been tested for other things ?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Are you sure ?
> 
> Have they been tested for other things ?



Its not about testing, we work with what the client presents to us.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I just don't understand why. You seem to be doing exactly what you hate and abstracting from specific cases to a general rule that doesn't actually hold water. What does 'smoking cannabis means you're not in touch with your emotions' mean? I don't notice any particular affective difference with or without cannabis, high or sober.




I do


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its not about testing, we work with what the client presents to us.



perhaps they don't have the emotional literacy to recognise organic mental health issues.

 .... does poverty cause crime ?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> I do



You do what? The main thing that I notice is an increased physical response to emotions - particularly stress, which is pretty well documented. However, I don't reckon that you get the same level of emotional amplification as you do with booze.

I still don't understand what's meant by 'in touch with your emotions' - sounds like pop-psych crap to me. Can somebody explicate a little?


----------



## exosculate (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> You do what? The main thing that I notice is an increased physical response to emotions - particularly stress, which is pretty well documented. However, I don't reckon that you get the same level of emotional amplification as you do with booze.
> 
> I still don't understand what's meant by 'in touch with your emotions' - sounds like pop-psych crap to me. Can somebody explicate a little?




I think all drugs when used to excess make people more concerned with the drug than other people, thereby disconnecting themselves from others, which includes most importantly, emotional disconnection.

I moderate everything these days on that basis.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I still don't understand what's meant by 'in touch with your emotions'



hippy shit. Spot?


----------



## exosculate (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> perhaps they don't have the emotional literacy to recognise organic mental health issues.
> 
> .... does poverty cause crime ?




Of course it does, most crime is the negative aspect of class antagonism.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> hippy shit. Spot?



 

Exosculate, I see what you're saying, but I don't know if you can blame cannabis particularly. I know someone who just did the same thing with online gaming - lost two girlfriends in succession and hardly leaves the house now. Some people seek refuge in things they find non-threatening - if it wasn't dope they'd probably be pretending to be wizards and shit on the internet with my mate.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I just don't understand why. You seem to be doing exactly what you hate and abstracting from specific cases to a general rule that doesn't actually hold water. What does 'smoking cannabis means you're not in touch with your emotions' mean? I don't notice any particular affective difference with or without cannabis, high or sober.



Why do you get high?  To change your state of mind and emotions, yes?  No problem with that, but doing it every day?  Is that healthy?  It isn't for me and not for most people I'd guess.  This is only my opinion though.  But if a mate of yours was getting pissed every day or using any other psychoactive drug every day, wouldn't you think they had a problem?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

I smoke dope for a whole host of reasons, none of which has anything to do with emotion. If someone drank tea every day, would you say they had a problem?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> perhaps they don't have the emotional literacy to recognise organic mental health issues.



You think mental health issues are organic?




			
				gentlegreen said:
			
		

> .... does poverty cause crime ?




Eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> hippy shit. Spot?



Having the ability to recognise and sit with your own feelings is "hippy shit"?  And smoking weed isn't?  Errr....


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I smoke dope for a whole host of reasons, none of which has anything to do with emotion. If someone drank tea every day, would you say they had a problem?



Does tea get you stoned?  Well theres your answer.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Exosculate, I see what you're saying, but I don't know if you can blame cannabis particularly. I know someone who just did the same thing with online gaming - lost two girlfriends in succession and hardly leaves the house now. Some people seek refuge in things they find non-threatening - if it wasn't dope they'd probably be pretending to be wizards and shit on the internet with my mate.



Yes, I'm of the opinion that addictions/compulsions/whatever, come from similar emotional/psychological places.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> Does tea get you stoned? Well theres your answer.



It's a shite answer. Does booze get you stoned?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Does tea get you stoned?  Well theres your answer.



Ah, but like coffee, tea is a stimulant and people do get addicted to both. Drinking lots of it doesn't help with sleep either. I can actually get pretty wired on one cup of espresso!


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> Yes, I'm of the opinion that addictions/compulsions/whatever, come from similar emotional/psychological places.



So why 'shoot the messenger', so to speak. If someone would have latched onto some prop or other, then why is any particular one to blame?

I still don't feel that you've explained what you mean by cannabis causes people to not be in touch with their feelings. All sorts of things affect emotion on a continuous basis, why is this one so pernicious?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> It's a shite answer. Does booze get you stoned?



Are you being deliberatly dense?  Booze gets you pissed, it drastically changes your emotional state, as does cannabis, as do other drugs.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> So why 'shoot the messenger', so to speak. If someone would have latched onto some prop or other, then why is any particular one to blame?



Eh?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I still don't feel that you've explained what you mean by cannabis causes people to not be in touch with their feelings. All sorts of things affect emotion on a continuous basis, why is this one so pernicious?



Eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Ah, but like coffee, tea is a stimulant and people do get addicted to both. Drinking lots of it doesn't help with sleep either. I can actually get pretty wired on one cup of espresso!



Yes, tea is a stimulant, but quite a subtle one.  Coffee is more obvious, but people tend not to use coffee to avoid emotions.  Yes, some people do get addicted to it and withdrawal isn't really that pleasant, but people don't present to drugs services with coffee problems.  Not in my experience anyway.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

Bizarre, have you lost the power of speech?

I'm trying to find out why you think that cannabis makes it difficult for people to recognise or come to terms with their own emotions, 'cos my understanding is that if anything it amplifies the physical response to emotion (which is why a mild state of stress + cannabis can equal a serious panic attack). There's certainly no effect of affective flattening that I've ever heard of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, some people do get addicted to it and withdrawal isn't really that pleasant, but people don't present to drugs services with coffee problems.  QUOTE]
> 
> Now wouldn't that be something?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2005)

Of course I don't take drugs myself, but I've known lots of people who do.  I know several people who've smoked a quarter ounce of weed or hash every sıngle week for over 20 years, as well as drınkıng 6-10 unıts of alcohol a day, who don't appear to have come to any physıcal or mental harm whatsoever.  I haven't ever known anyone who reported serıously negatıve health effects from weed/hash use.  I have, however, known many people who've ruıned theır lıves through alcohol.  But they're usually the type who can't handle ıt, get ragıng drunk quıte easıly, and do ıncredıbly stupıd thıngs.  I thınk even quıte heavy drınkıng takes decades to mess you up physıcally or mentally, and many people get away wıth ıt for theır whole lıves.

Tobacco, OTOH, ıs almost guaranteed to kıll or maım you ıf used even moderately for anythıng approachıng a lıfetıme.  Crack ıs easıly the worst drug ın the world and appears to drıve people completely barmy.  I'd ımagıne the rısk of heart attacks or stroke ıs astronomıcal.  Coke ısn't all that much better, though the socıo-economıc profıle of ıts users means that ıt has a much better reputatıon.  E seems alrıght ın moderatıon, but causes bad comedowns, and I thınk long-term use has messed up some people I know.  Opıates aren't bad for you at all, except for the facts that (a) they really *are* addıctıve, as ın physıcally (b) rısk of overdose ıs hıgh, usually because of addıtıves or mıxıng wıth booze.

That's what I reckon.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Bizarre, have you lost the power of speech?
> 
> I'm trying to find out why you think that cannabis makes it difficult for people to recognise or come to terms with their own emotions, 'cos my understanding is that if anything it amplifies the physical response to emotion (which is why a mild state of stress + cannabis can equal a serious panic attack). There's certainly no effect of affective flattening that I've ever heard of.



You misunderstand me.  I'm not talking just about cannabis - I'm saying that taking any drug everyday is not good for you.  Have you actually read the thread?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

Of course no one has been known to overdose on cannabis; it doesn't seem possible: you'd fall asleep before you could ingest enough of the stuff.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

I do accept that there may be a tendency for some people to take refuge in the activity of dope smoking as something which is reliable and non-threatening, but my contention is that you can do that with all manner of things - why single out cannabis. In any case, this isn't what you originally said, which was that people who smoke regularly are dissociated from their emotions in some way.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

The blokey undergoing treatment for cannabis addiction is in the UK.  Fucking shocking.

Blags:  Your clients may present you with cannabis as their major drug, but (and yes, this is only my opinion), I'd lay money on a bit of well done CBT unveiling faulty thought patterns as their real problem.  Like someone's said, if it wasn't draw, it'd be wizard fantasies or an obsession with trainers.  Blaming their problems on a physically non-addictive drug is running away from their responsibility towards themselves.  To repeat - _my opinion_ - I know I'm right, but I can't prove it.   

You repeatedly talk about cannabis "changing" peoples emotions.  In my experience, and the experience of people I respect on the issue, it does nothing of the sort.  Quite the contrary, it cuts away the crap, allowing you to deal with the true feeling beneath.  If people ignore this opportunity, they remain twisted up inside, and all cannabis will do is open the door to that unpleasant insight again and again.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Getting stoned every day means that you're never going to be properly in touch with your own emotions - not conducive to personal growth IMO.



I've read the thread, and I'm trying to work out why as someone who works with dope smokers all the time you would say this, specifically.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Of course no one has been known to overdose on cannabis; it doesn't seem possible: you'd fall asleep before you could ingest enough of the stuff.



_Wiki_


> No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of tested rats, was 42 milligrams per kilogram of body weight with forced inhalation. As for oral consumption, the LD50 for rats was 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively. It would be impossible for THC in blood plasma to reach such a level in human cannabis smokers. Only with intravenous administration, a method rarely used by humans, may such a level be possible. Also, some evidence suggests that toxic levels may be higher for humans than for rats.


.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> _Wiki_
> 
> .



I'd like to see someone inject it!


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

I'd like to have a go, if you're buying


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why do you get high?  To change your state of mind and emotions, yes?  No problem with that, but doing it every day?  Is that healthy?  It isn't for me and not for most people I'd guess.  This is only my opinion though.  But if a mate of yours was getting pissed every day or using any other psychoactive drug every day, wouldn't you think they had a problem?



Lets leave other substances & alcohol aside for a mo Blags.

I consume weed every evening as an aid to relaxation. It's not just about "getting stoned". Yes the kids may see it like that, but the majority of adults do not. No different from popping to the pub for a few pints after work to unwind. 

Current cannabis prohibition is far more damaging & dangerous to someones health given that OP's are used by commercial cash croppers, not to mention the poison called soap bar that kids are smoking.

As i said before, far more research needs to be conducted on the affects of smoking such damaging poisons. Cannabis in it's natural organic state has been used by us medicinally for thousands of years. But now we live in a world of chemical drugs & most of todays youth are poly drug users. To lay blame solely on cannabis is blinkered thinking.

There is a bigger picture out there that needs looking at.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone inject it!


You laugh, but someone posted up that they were going to put cannabis tea through a coffee filter and inject once, asking for advice.   FFS.

Needless to say, he was hastily advised not to be a muppet.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Blags:  Your clients may present you with cannabis as their major drug, but (and yes, this is only my opinion), I'd lay money on a bit of well done CBT unveiling faulty thought patterns as their real problem.  Like someone's said, if it wasn't draw, it'd be wizard fantasies or an obsession with trainers.  Blaming their problems on a physically non-addictive drug is running away from their responsibility towards themselves.  To repeat - _my opinion_ - I know I'm right, but I can't prove it.



Whats a "faulty thought pattern"?  I'm not talking about "Blaming their problems on a physically non-addictive drug".  Crack is a "physically non-addictive drug" as well y'know.  My point is that people who have drug problems often have underlying emotional reasons and are using drugs to avoid dealing with these things - they find "sitting with their feelings" (a common phrase in rehabs) really difficult and use drugs, sex, relationships, anything to avoid doing so.




			
				Corax said:
			
		

> You repeatedly talk about cannabis "changing" peoples emotions.  In my experience, and the experience of people I respect on the issue, it does nothing of the sort.  Quite the contrary, it cuts away the crap, allowing you to deal with the true feeling beneath.  If people ignore this opportunity, they remain twisted up inside, and all cannabis will do is open the door to that unpleasant insight again and again.



It "cuts away the crap" - what is that, but changing your feelings?  Cannabis ain't some magical potion - its a drug and what it does is to change your state of mind.  Theres nothing wrong with that, I like to get pissed at the weekends etc, but doing it everyday?


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> It "cuts away the crap" - what is that, but changing your feelings?  Cannabis ain't some magical potion - its a drug and what it does is to change your state of mind.  Theres nothing wrong with that, I like to get pissed at the weekends etc, but doing it everyday?


It doesn't change anything but the focus.  The emotions remain the same, you're just not able to (unhealthily) bury them as you are normally.  Marijuana is not an escapist drug.  Alcohol is.  (well, alcohol's pretty ineffective at that actually, but you forget that cos your memories fucked by it).


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> Theres nothing wrong with that, I like to get pissed at the weekends etc, but doing it everyday?



But there are well-documented, verifiable reasons why drinking to get pissed every day isn't a good idea - you'll end up with Wernicke's disease and a liver that rings like a bell. What are the dope-using equivalents?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

> It doesn't change anything but the focus. The emotions remain the same, you're just not able to (unhealthily) bury them as you are normally. Marijuana is not an escapist drug. Alcohol is.



This is exactly my experience. Ketamine is a dangerous bit of escapism as well - it's no surprise that people get hooked.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> My point is that people who have drug problems often have underlying emotional reasons and are using drugs to avoid dealing with these things - they find "sitting with their feelings" (a common phrase in rehabs) really difficult and use drugs, sex, relationships, anything to avoid doing so.


Exactly.  They're running away.  That's because they're refusing to face up to their responsibilities towards themselves.  Blaming cannabis for that just gives people yet another excuse.  "It's not because I'm an irresponsible childminded twat, it's the weed".

I can't see us coming together much on this one, but enjoying the discussion btw.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Whats a "faulty thought pattern"?


Too big a question to answer with two-fingered typing I'm afraid.  I'll leave it at saying that very few people seem to be able to seperate their emotions from their reasoning.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Lets leave other substances & alcohol aside for a mo Blags.
> 
> I consume weed every evening as an aid to relaxation. It's not just about "getting stoned". Yes the kids may see it like that, but the majority of adults do not. No different from popping to the pub for a few pints after work to unwind.



I'd argue that drinking everyday isn't that great for you either - in fact probably more harmful that smoking weed everyday.  But you're missing my point - getting wrecked everyday means that you're not feeling your true emotions.  I'm not talking about a couple of glasses of wine/pints of beer or a spliff - I'm talking about getting wrecked.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Current cannabis prohibition is far more damaging & dangerous to someones health given that OP's are used by commercial cash croppers, not to mention the poison called soap bar that kids are smoking.
> 
> As i said before, far more research needs to be conducted on the affects of smoking such damaging poisons. Cannabis in it's natural organic state has been used by us medicinally for thousands of years. But now we live in a world of chemical drugs & most of todays youth are poly drug users. To lay blame solely on cannabis is blinkered thinking.
> 
> There is a bigger picture out there that needs looking at.



I agree with you and I'm not blaming anything solely on cannabis.  I've tried to make that clear.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I've read the thread, and I'm trying to work out why as someone who works with dope smokers all the time you would say this, specifically.



You obviously haven't read the thread, otherwise you would see that this comment is in the context of me talking about the culture of use that surrounds cannabis.  Do you think that getting pissed everyday is emotionally healthy?  Or taking valium everyday?  Or crack?  Heroin?  Ecstasy?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> It doesn't change anything but the focus.  The emotions remain the same, you're just not able to (unhealthily) bury them as you are normally.  Marijuana is not an escapist drug.  Alcohol is.  (well, alcohol's pretty ineffective at that actually, but you forget that cos your memories fucked by it).



That's _your_ experience though.  Other people use cannabis as an escape.  Denying that cannabis changes your emotional state is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about btw - you seem to think cannabis is some kind of magic potion - its not.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about a couple of glasses of wine/pints of beer or a spliff - I'm talking about getting wrecked.


With that clarification, agreed.

(but that ain't how you started off...   )


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> But there are well-documented, verifiable reasons why drinking to get pissed every day isn't a good idea - you'll end up with Wernicke's disease and a liver that rings like a bell. What are the dope-using equivalents?



You're missing the point.  Again.  I'm not talking about physical effects.  Anyway, I'm off home.  Bye.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Of course no one has been known to overdose on cannabis; it doesn't seem possible: you'd fall asleep before you could ingest enough of the stuff.



Exactly - unlike the toxic quantity of liquers and wine I have in my kitchen - luckily I have no compulsion to "drown" my not inconsiderable sorrows ...

I wonder what it is this "cannabis addicts" are actually addicted to - it surely isn't the same stuff I have indulged in fairly regularly over the past 10 years (not that I would suggest anyone else take up the habit)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about a couple of glasses of wine/pints of beer or a spliff - I'm talking about getting wrecked.



Three pints & two spliffs then? 



> I'd argue that drinking everyday isn't that great for you either - in fact probably more harmful that smoking weed everyday.





Innit strange that Government think it's legally ok to drink ourselves to death & for the NHS to be spending 13 billion per year on alcohol related incidents, yet cannabis remains illegal, & still people with serious illnesses are banged up for using a medicine that helps aliviate their pain.

"Your rights are denied to use a medicine to control your pain."

Big Pharma gets richer by the second. More & more people (& kids) become addicted to synthetic opiates when they could be using a safe alternative that is cannabis!

This is the bigger picture.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That's _your_ experience though.  Other people use cannabis as an escape.  Denying that cannabis changes your emotional state is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about btw - you seem to think cannabis is some kind of magic potion - its not.


I've said nothing of the sort.  Emotive thinking/reading on your part maybe?



			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Denying that cannabis changes your emotional state is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about btw


And that's a very silly catch-22 argument - and exactly the kind of trash many GPs come out with.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Exactly - unlike the toxic quantity of liquers and wine I have in my kitchen - luckily I have no compulsion to "drown" my not inconsiderable sorrows ...
> 
> I wonder what it is this "cannabis addicts" are actually addicted to - it surely isn't the same stuff I have indulged in fairly regularly over the past 10 years (not that I would suggest anyone else take up the habit)



I think cannabis addicts are a little like so-called sexaholics or sex addicts. If I'm not mistaken both are psychological conditions called satyromania or nymphomania. Surely an "addiction" to cannabis is a symptom of something else/


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2005)

I don't know anyone who thinks that thinks that getting full-on red-eye wrecked 24/7 is a good idea, so if that's what you mean by the culture of cannabis then I think it's a chimera. All I wanted to know was why you thought that daily cannabis smoking means that you're not in touch with your emotions, in your more-or-less exact words. What I've managed to glean from you so far is that you have a bee in your bonnet about people thinking cannabis is completely harmless (which I don't, for the record), that you think some people with emotional problems use cannabis and other drugs as a means of avoiding painful emotions, and that you think that daily use of any psychoactive substance is a bad idea, although you haven't actually substantiated why this should be so - to use one of your own examples, you could take valium every day for the rest of your life with no problems other than the tolerance and dependence, as long as you were assured of a continuous supply.

Fuck it, the sun's out.


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't know anyone who thinks that thinks that getting full-on red-eye wrecked 24/7 is a good idea,


Is it even possible?  With my tolerance, if I want to get like that, I have to have at least 3 days clean first.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Is it even possible?  With my tolerance, if I want to get like that, I have to have at least 3 days clean first.



you beat me to it 

I've forgotten what that's like  - even more reason for me to pack it in for a while ...


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I think cannabis addicts are a little like so-called sexaholics or sex addicts. If I'm not mistaken both are psychological conditions called satyromania or nymphomania. Surely an "addiction" to cannabis is a symptom of something else/


"Shopaholics"

FFS.  


Yep, I think that's pretty much the realm in which cannabis "addiction" lies.

Not saying it's non-existent either.  I've been skint and green-free for 3 days or so now, and it sucks.  Bored, agitated, irritable, colourless etc..
But I was addicted to alcohol and this isn't even _vaguely_ comparable.

To be honest, these people really need to get a fucking grip on themselves.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its not about testing, we work with what the client presents to us.



How many of those who present saying cannabis is their problem do so following an encounter with the (UK) legal system?

Is there any official court-mandated "cannabis addiction" in the UK? 

Does going for treatment play any role in mitigation arguments in court?

I'm curious.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> How many of those who present saying cannabis is their problem do so following an encounter with the (UK) legal system?
> 
> Is there any official court-mandated "cannabis addiction" in the UK?
> 
> ...



I think I might be tempted myself ....

maybe it qualifies people for invalidity benefit too ...


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Is there any official court-mandated "cannabis addiction" in the UK?
> 
> Does going for treatment play any role in mitigation arguments in court?
> 
> I'm curious.


I didn't think so before, but matey of mine has just had exactly this happen.  I'm pleased for him, cos although he's a bit of a muppet, he doesn't deserve jail, but nonetheless - it's fucking ridiculous.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I didn't think so before, but matey of mine has just had exactly this happen.  I'm pleased for him, cos although he's a bit of a muppet, he doesn't deserve jail, but nonetheless - it's fucking ridiculous.







Maybe you could get him to take in a minidisk and microphone


----------



## Corax (Jun 17, 2005)

He couldn't handle the technology, heh.  This is the fella who once swore blind to me that he had no spinal fluid left in his back because it "all drained away after doing too many pills"....   

From what he's told me, they seem to be telling him all his problems are down to his cannabis use, which is going to *really* help him ain't it?


The truth is that he did shitloads of acid as a kid and is now, basically, one fuck of a sketch individual.

I also have my suspicions that the ubiquitous South coast "rocky" hasn't helped - but that ain't cannabis.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 17, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't know anyone who thinks that thinks that getting full-on red-eye wrecked 24/7 is a good idea.
> 
> Fuck it, the sun's out.



I recommend the idea! Eyes like sheeps fannies 24/7 for all!


----------



## oddworld (Jun 17, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I recommend the idea! Eyes like sheeps fannies 24/7 for all!



 

Bishie , your getting all obscene in your old age


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I didn't think so before, but matey of mine has just had exactly this happen.  I'm pleased for him, cos although he's a bit of a muppet, he doesn't deserve jail, but nonetheless - it's fucking ridiculous.



The court made him say he was addicted to cannabis and jailed him anyway? Did he get less time than he would have done?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 17, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Does going for treatment play any role in mitigation arguments in court?
> 
> I'm curious.




Volunteering for treatment at arrest prevents a custodial sentence in a lot of cases. (This however as far as I am aware only applies to class A).


----------



## rukun (Jun 17, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Of course no one has been known to overdose on cannabis; it doesn't seem possible: you'd fall asleep before you could ingest enough of the stuff.



Ummm.

I lived in Formentera once upon a time ('tis an island off Ibiza).

They were the first few years of the seventies. Real hippie shit - actually it was an amazing experience. There was a small cadre of peeps living there and we used to have full moon parties (no electric to see you through the scrub and over the walls). We used to make very very strong cakes.

Once me and my mate who shared the "peasant house" came back from one of these magical events and flopped into our beds (one room accom).

 I lay there and was completely and wonderfully away with the fairies. Without me particularly realising it my breath had been getting more and more shallow and I only noticed it  when I realised that I hadn't taken a breath for what seemed like ages - not just that but didn't feel I could be bothered - and there was a weird experience of going towards some sort of boundary, a point of no return..

A voice came through the dark
"Huss"

"yeah?

"I think I'm dying."

"Me too, I'm so glad you said something"

I don't know. Can cannabis shut down the sypathetic nervous system so completely? Impossible to o.d. smoking but eating ... and having more and more pouring into your system through your tum without having to do anything?

I don't know. Probably not and I should just be grateful for a really really "far out man" experience.

<giggle>

ruks


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 18, 2005)

rukun said:
			
		

> Ummm.
> 
> I lived in Formentera once upon a time ('tis an island off Ibiza).
> 
> ...



Is that because you suddenly became conscious of your breathing (as can happen sometimes)? What were you smoking?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Is that because you suddenly became conscious of your breathing (as can happen sometimes)? What were you smoking?



 "We used to make very very strong cakes."


----------



## rukun (Jun 18, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Is that because you suddenly became conscious of your breathing (as can happen sometimes)? What were you smoking?



You seem to have missed the point. We were eating, not smoking. When I get stoned from eating the idea of inhaling smoke into my lungs seems a little repulsive - and what's the point - knowing that you'r going to be gettin higher and higher without


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> The court made him say he was addicted to cannabis and jailed him anyway? Did he get less time than he would have done?


Nonono... he would most likely have done a few months, but cannabis was part of the mitigation that got him off with CS.  I have a feeling the "treatment" is actually being done by the probation service...

And I say again... WTF!?!?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Nonono... he would most likely have done a few months, but cannabis was part of the mitigation that got him off with CS.  I have a feeling the "treatment" is actually being done by the probation service...
> 
> And I say again... WTF!?!?



I'm annoyed that taxpayers' money would be wasted on that sort of thing ...
(especially as I couldn't get proper counselling for clinical depression when I needed it)


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Volunteering for treatment at arrest prevents a custodial sentence in a lot of cases. (This however as far as I am aware only applies to class A).


It was mags, and we both know how much legal training _they_ get...


To be honest Toby, I've given you a lot more time than most on this forum.  However, if you're going to post as you have earlier on this thread and then refuse to answer perfectly civil requests for clarification, then you're wasting everyone's time.

Please make your choice.  Either post in a reasonable manner, or take your pasties elsewhere.  Not a demand, we all know that's not my place, but another civil request.  Show the common courtesy not to ignore this one eh?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 19, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> To be honest Toby, I've given you a lot more time than most on this forum.  However, if you're going to post as you have earlier on this thread and then refuse to answer perfectly civil requests for clarification, then you're wasting everyone's time.
> ?



Clarification of what? What civil questions? (Puzzled)


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I've said nothing of the sort.  Emotive thinking/reading on your part maybe?
> 
> And that's a very silly catch-22 argument - and exactly the kind of trash many GPs come out with.



But its what you're doing.  You smoke cannabis for a reason, yes?  That reason is to change your state of mind, yes?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Exactly - unlike the toxic quantity of liquers and wine I have in my kitchen - luckily I have no compulsion to "drown" my not inconsiderable sorrows ...
> 
> I wonder what it is this "cannabis addicts" are actually addicted to - it surely isn't the same stuff I have indulged in fairly regularly over the past 10 years (not that I would suggest anyone else take up the habit)



Why are you denying the reality of plenty of people?   People get can and do feelt that they are addicted to cannabis.  No, cannabis isn't physically addictive like heroin or alcohol, but is can be very psychologically addictive for some people.  Read some of the posts on these very boards.  People use drugs for all sorts of reasons, but people who feel they have a drug problem are often using drugs to avoid feeling their emotions - this can include using cannabis, as well as alcohol,  heroin, cocaine and all the other things people use.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I think cannabis addicts are a little like so-called sexaholics or sex addicts. If I'm not mistaken both are psychological conditions called satyromania or nymphomania. Surely an "addiction" to cannabis is a symptom of something else/



Addiction to _anything_ is usually a symptom of something else - this is exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't know anyone who thinks that thinks that getting full-on red-eye wrecked 24/7 is a good idea, so if that's what you mean by the culture of cannabis then I think it's a chimera. All I wanted to know was why you thought that daily cannabis smoking means that you're not in touch with your emotions, in your more-or-less exact words. What I've managed to glean from you so far is that you have a bee in your bonnet about people thinking cannabis is completely harmless (which I don't, for the record), that you think some people with emotional problems use cannabis and other drugs as a means of avoiding painful emotions, and that you think that daily use of any psychoactive substance is a bad idea, although you haven't actually substantiated why this should be so - to use one of your own examples, you could take valium every day for the rest of your life with no problems other than the tolerance and dependence, as long as you were assured of a continuous supply.
> 
> Fuck it, the sun's out.



Do you _really_ think that someone feeling that they need to take valium everyday is an emotionally healthy person?  Don't you think that someone feeling the need to take a drug to relieve their anxiety everyday, is someone that might need to address some underlying issues?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> "Shopaholics"
> 
> FFS.
> 
> ...



Aaaah, so people with emotional problems just need to "get a fucking grip on themselves."

Ever wonder why you're "Bored, agitated, irritable, colourless" without cannabis eh?  Maybe you just need to get a fucking grip eh?  You seem to have replaced one drug (alcohol) with another (cannabis).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Addiction to _anything_ is usually a symptom of something else - this is exactly what I'm saying.



For sure, but sex addiction is a recent phenomenon imported from the US.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> For sure, but sex addiction is a recent phenomenon imported from the US.



Not really.  Read up on co-dependecy.

[edit to add]
People with drug addictions often also have problems with relationships, intimacy, destructive relationships etc.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (Jun 19, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why you're "Bored, agitated, irritable, colourless" without cannabis eh?  Maybe you just need to get a fucking grip eh?  You seem to have replaced one drug (alcohol) with another (cannabis).



Wasn't his point that cannabis isnt anywhere near as bad as alcohol, for him.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 19, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Wasn't his point that cannabis isnt anywhere near as bad as alcohol, for him.



Yes, I appreciate that.  But my point is that it is still being used as a crutch - nothing too wrong with that, we all have crutches, but it is a good idea to recognise these things as such. (IMHO, natch)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not really.  Read up on co-dependecy.
> 
> [edit to add]
> People with drug addictions often also have problems with relationships, intimacy, destructive relationships etc.



I'm not entirely sure I agree with actual term itself. It seems a little too recent, like 'teenager', which was invented in the US in the 50's by marketing men.

Aye, I agree that addicts often have other problems that are the result of their addiction; and that often the addiction itself is a facade for other psychological problems.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

Bumps thread to remind everyone the programme is on in 20 minutes time:

10.15pm BBC

Anyone watching?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Bumps thread to remind everyone the programme is on in 20 minutes time:
> 
> 10.15pm BBC
> 
> Anyone watching?



after all that I almost missed it   

thanks


----------



## Xanadu (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't have a TV anymore, so if someone could give me a summary of the programme after, I'd be very grateful


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

Will do.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

Shit! Missed the first two minutes!   

... but am watching it now.


----------



## Cid (Jun 19, 2005)

So far pretty shit - nothing I haven't known for the past 3/4 years, a bit of of very over-simplified stuff, a bag of assumptions and a whole load of focus on the worst cases. Certainly nothing new.


----------



## nosos (Jun 19, 2005)

Smackhead rats


----------



## wiskey (Jun 19, 2005)

i have never been so patronised  what an appalling television programme. i havent been impressed with all the wish-washy graphics and soft focus shots, i dont much like docu's where they blurr people out when interviewing them, i'm sure they could have found enough people who were willing to talk. the library pictures they used were boring and non specific, the presenter was a bit of a nothing and the information given out is terrible or non existant.

in no particular order:

- a definition of what they are calling psychosis might have been useful no?

- how DARE they randomly inroduce heroin addicted rats?? what exactly were they going to prove with that except to increse the link in the publics mind.

- 15% of cannabis consumed is skunk - i rekkon *60% is SOAP*, whats smoking henna and boot polish doing to our teenagers?

-  they havent actually got any new information to give us have they.

all in all i wish i hadnt bothered. i shant watch the rest.

wiskers


----------



## Iam (Jun 19, 2005)

Well, that was conclusive.


----------



## nosos (Jun 19, 2005)

Not exactly a ground-breaking conclusion: if you smoke _lots_ of draw from an _early_ age it _may_ be bad for you. 

It still tamped into a lot of worries I have at the moment though. In the last month I’ve gone from barely smoking to 24/7 again and I’m already starting to notice the general wear-and-tare it causes on my mental health.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

I was actually better then I expected, as it mainly focussed on various scientists/medical people, along with a few 'case studies', and it kind of finished with a 'case not proven' angle.

Having said that I do have issues with various bits. I will write a longer post and have a look at the Panorama website which they said contained information about the research used in the progamme.


----------



## drivensnow (Jun 19, 2005)

wiskey said:
			
		

> how DARE they randomly inroduce heroin addicted rats?? what exactly were they going to prove with that except to increse the link in the publics mind.



Why not? It was a valid point that the rats brains changed when exposed to THC so that they became more prone to taking other substances.

Anyway so basically they were saying don't smoke till you're 30. Don't think i've met many people who only started at 30+ though...


----------



## nosos (Jun 19, 2005)

Did you see when they were focusing in on the lad in the park's lip and generally making him out to be a fool? Patronising propagandistic shite. 

(I was trying for a third alliteration but I couldn’t think of one  )


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

Iam said:
			
		

> Well, that was conclusive.


Well that's better than a tabloid-style false certainty isn't it? Science - especially brain chemistry and psychology/psychiatry - is often uncertain, and people (ie politicians re the law and people re. their own use) have to decide how to weigh up the risks.

I just want to say that I have been very involved in the legalise cannabis campaigns - but I have also had to deal with bipolar/manic depression which included psychosis. As it happened I only ever started smoking marijuana after the age of 18 and had these problems around the age of 28 (5 years ago). My single case doesn't prove anything generally, and I am also sceptical about some of the stuff that Professor Robin Murray has written over the last few years, but overall a lot of the things that were said were very relevant to me and I think they were handled in a fair enough way.

Like I said, I will post up a more detailed response in a bit as I took notes during the programme and need to think about it a bit. However, its worth pointing out that this kind of stuff *could* be used to justify putting an 18 or 21 'age-rating' on marijuana if it ever was legalised.


----------



## IMeMine (Jun 19, 2005)

drivensnow said:
			
		

> Anyway so basically they were saying don't smoke till you're 30. Don't think i've met many people who only started at 30+ though...



It's all true what they said on the programme. Never listen to a dealer's opinion on this. It's their livelyhood.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 19, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Like I said, I will post up a more detailed response in a bit as I took notes during the programme and need to think about it a bit. However, its worth pointing out that this kind of stuff *could* be used to justify putting an 18 or 21 'age-rating' on marijuana if it ever was legalised.




The Panorama website has a lot more detail than was on the program, in a printable/downloadable format.


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> (I was trying for a third alliteration but I couldn’t think of one  )



Patronising propagandistic poppycock?

Patronising popinjays perpetrate propagandistic poppycock?


----------



## asdf man (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't know if what was said in the programme is true, or to what extent it's true but the fact that I smoke weed and suffer from depression and anxiety worries me.

Of course I was depressed before I started to smoke it and if anything my anxiety has probably decreased somewhat... it's still worrying


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> I'm convinced if I wasn't such a 'head in my late teens and early twenties I would never have had depression. It would be impossible to change my mind so don't waste your time.



So is is the pre-existing medical condition that makes you impervious to reason, or the drugs?


----------



## satsuma (Jun 19, 2005)

patronising propagandistic poppycock penetrating penguins with perpendicular positioned pencils prior to projecting Pringles 'pon Patrick's pineapple


----------



## nosos (Jun 19, 2005)

class 

(how be exams?)


----------



## IMeMine (Jun 19, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> So is is the pre-existing medical condition that makes you impervious to reason, or the drugs?



Who are you laptop? How old are you, where do you come from and what's on your agenda?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

drivensnow said:
			
		

> Why not? It was a valid point that the rats brains changed when exposed to THC so that they became more prone to taking other substances.
> 
> Anyway so basically they were saying don't smoke till you're 30. Don't think i've met many people who only started at 30+ though...



I didn't start till I was 35


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

asdf man said:
			
		

> I don't know if what was said in the programme is true, or to what extent it's true but the fact that I smoke weed and suffer from depression and anxiety worries me.
> 
> Of course I was depressed before I started to smoke it and if anything my anxiety has probably decreased somewhat... it's still worrying



In my case I'd developed debilitating depression with absolutely no assistance from cannabis - my cannabis use coincides with a huge _improvement_ in my mental health though no way would I say it "cured" me .... 

I wonder exactly how much those kids (and the grownups) were smoking - I average 0.15g per day ....


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> You could also say schizophrenia is less prevelent in the over thirties because dope smoking is.


Not really. They have done a lot of research into figures etc, and to say someting like that you would have to produce figures. 


> It's all true what they said on the programme. I had depression and I used to smoke dope and I'm convinced if I wasn't such a 'head in my late teens and early twenties I would never have had depression. It would be impossible to change my mind so don't waste your time, especially the dealers who make money out of dope.


If you don't want to debate this then don't come on here trying to get anyone to listen to you. If it is 'impossible to change your mind' then you are saying that you don't believe in scientific research, the concept of evidence/proof or rational/logical argument - which would make you a bit of an idiot.

Since we are doing the "look at me" example: I had depression in my teens before I had ever touched weed or anything else. I then smoked weed for ten years without having any real problems. After ten years I did have problems with bipolar/manic-depression (including psychosis) and use of cannabis and E may have contributed partially to this, although there were a lot of other (non-drug related) things that fucked up for me in my life as well. Although I don't have any relatives who have had the *same* problems, there are things in my family (which I won't go into all the details of right now) that suggest that there is a genetic basis for my vunerability to bipolar. I currently don't have problems with my bipolar, don't need medication etc and I do use some marijuana, however since my problems 5 years ago I have cut right back and it has a far bigger effect on me than it ever had before - something which I have realised and whcih means I am expteremly cautious about now (along with any type of drug or even coffee and alcohol).

It is worth noting that rersearch has shown that people with a diagnosis of schizonphrenia are many times more likely than others to smoke cigarettes - however research has also shown that this doesn't *cause* the schizophrenia. To work this out needs a lot of reasecrh and number crunching and isn't something that you can "prove" or "disprove" by using one example. 

I am sure we are goiung to have an intelligent discussion about this on this thread at some point, but not - with all respect to you IMeMine - if you choose to remain ignorant.


----------



## IMeMine (Jun 19, 2005)

*TEENAGERS* Skip this post.



> Not really. They have done a lot of research into figures etc, and to say someting like that you would have to produce figures.



It is at least as credible as:

"I've smoked an eighth a day for years and never had and illness"

"I had depression but before I smoked cannabis"

"Cannabis makes me feel _better_"

"My grandmother smoked 80 a day all her life and she's 95"

It doesn't take a genius to link somthing that causes paranoia with schizophrenia but there is more than that there is statistical, medical and sociological evidence to prove it.


----------



## asdf man (Jun 19, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> In my case I'd developed debilitating depression with absolutely no assistance from cannabis - my cannabis use coincides with a huge _improvement_ in my mental health though no way would I say it "cured" me ....
> 
> I wonder exactly how much those kids (and the grownups) were smoking - I average 0.15g per day ....



I smoke small amounts at once, too. If I smoke too much I get stupidly paranoid, like I can't share a 3 skin joint with three other people without being too paranoid to enjoy the high and feeling mashed all day

Funnily enough I don't think I've ever read of or met anyone who smokes the same as I do.. interesting


----------



## satsuma (Jun 19, 2005)

i thought this programme was fucking awful actually, i don't generally listen to people who go on about the "dumbing down" of the BBC, but it seems that there  is now a set rule that documentarys must be seen to be really "probing" and "edgy" without actually looking at anything on any deep level...

the kids that they got to appear were shit, i mean it can't be that hard to find some half-way articulate teenagers who don't mind appearing on tv without hiding their faces and mumbling about how they hate themselves (obviously a bi-product of smoking draw)- and the 2 old blokes they had on were crap too.

and the rats who liked smack just seemed to be thrown in for the extra scare factor

and the dad of the bloke with shhizophrenia, why couldn't they get his son to give his viewpoint?






			
				nosos said:
			
		

> class
> 
> (how be exams?)



shit, but i have taken the art of procrastination to whole new levels, which can only be a good thing


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

The bottom line as I see it is that it is a fundamental human right not to be branded a criminal at my advanced age if I choose to consume a plant as opposed to getting paralytic every weekend which is perfectly legal.

The problem is how to stop teenagers getting hold of drugs - I was told the usual ineffective lies about such things at school, but there weren't any around for sad gits like me in any case ... if I'd got my hands on any I rather suspect I'd have liked it (though my 10p pocket money would have been a major limitation)

I can't see how even making cannabis class A would stop kids getting their hands on it.

I reckon kids ARE doing "much too much much too young" ....


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> It is at least as credible as:
> 
> "I've smoked an eighth a day for years and never had and illness"
> 
> ...


You said: _"You could also say schizophrenia is less prevelent in the over thirties because dope smoking is."_

It contains the word "because" and it is making a generalised statement of one thing directly causing another.

_"My grandmother smoked 80 a day all her life and she's 95"_ Is just a statement about one person.

Why do you think that the two are equally "credible" as statements?


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> what's on your agenda?



What's on my agenda is *rational* discussion.

To come here and say "I'm convinced of X and nothing you can say will change my mind" is odd at least - especially when X is almost certainly an irrational looking-for-something-to-blame response.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

asdf man said:
			
		

> I smoke small amounts at once, too. If I smoke too much I get stupidly paranoid, like I can't share a 3 skin joint with three other people without being too paranoid to enjoy the high and feeling mashed all day
> 
> Funnily enough I don't think I've ever read of or met anyone who smokes the same as I do.. interesting



but ... I *can * if I *choose * smoke rather a lot and spend all night in a rave with no ill effects - though it holds less appeal than it did when I was a youth of 35 ...

I guess I'm just lucky ...


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 19, 2005)

satsuma said:
			
		

> and the 2 *old * blokes they had on were crap too.



an *old * git writes ....

actually I agree they weren't a good example of "connoisseurs" 

(I hope I don't sound like that when I'm stoned  )


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

satsuma said:
			
		

> ...i mean it can't be that hard to find some half-way articulate teenagers who don't mind appearing on tv without hiding their faces and mumbling about how they hate themselves...


I don't know if you have had experience with mental illness yourself, particularly the more "scarey" forms of 'psychosis/schizonphrenia/manic episodes' etc? I say 'scarey' in the way they are often talked about in the context of people being 'nutters/psychos/etc' - as oppsoed to someone being depressed (which can be just as serious but isn't see as being as 'scarey' or dangerous to society etc). As someone who has suffered myself I have also had to live with being labelled as a 'psycho'/nutter etc and also many people won't want to give you jobs, put you in positions of responsibility, take you seriously and so on. Unless you know the feeling of humilation and alienation that goes with being locked up, treated almost like a sub-human, laughed about and despised, maybe you don't realise why most people - let along a youg person still dealing with the shit in their lives - have no desire to go on national TV to identify themselves. I wouldn't want to - I can say it here because it is online and urban75 is a relatively decent and compassionate place (although there are still ceratin posters who insult me about my previous problems). I try and avoid telling people 'in real life' - ay least until they know me better. Other examples would be not wanting to go on TV and talk about having an STD or hard drug habit - due to the fact that a lot of the public might depise and ridicule you.


----------



## nosos (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> (although there are still ceratin posters who insult me about my previous problems)



Who?


----------



## IMeMine (Jun 20, 2005)

I'm no medic but I'vehad depression and used to smoke. Mental illness is often accompanied (like a shadow) by life's ups and downs (homelessness, divorce, stress etc) The thing dope smokers need to consider is "If something went majorly wrong in my life, or two things, or three things could I handle it?". When you need a healthy dopamine system the most is when you might find out whether smoking dope is safe or not.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

satsuma said:
			
		

> and the dad of the bloke with shhizophrenia, why couldn't they get his son to give his viewpoint?



They did, near the end of the program.


----------



## satsuma (Jun 20, 2005)

oh, must have missed that bit then- did he have anything interesting to say?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

satsuma said:
			
		

> oh, must have missed that bit then- did he have anything interesting to say?



The entire program is available for replay on the BBC/Panorama website.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> Mental illness is often accompanied (like a shadow) by life's ups and downs (homelessness, divorce, stress etc) The thing dope smokers need to consider is "If something went majorly wrong in my life, or two things, or three things could I handle it". When you need a healthy dopamine system the most is when you will find out whether smoking dope is safe or not. I've had depression but I'm no medic.



But they didn't cover those sorts of things - it was kids hearing voices.

I've taken acid and shrooms a few times and have on occaision taken serious amounts of dope and "lost" myself in raves and never had that happen ...


----------



## satsuma (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I don't know if you have had experience with mental illness yourself, particularly the more "scarey" forms of 'psychosis/schizonphrenia/manic episodes' etc? I say 'scarey' in the way they are often talked about in the context of people being 'nutters/psychos/etc' - as oppsoed to someone being depressed (which can be just as serious but isn't see as being as 'scarey' or dangerous to society etc). As someone who has suffered myself I have also had to live with being labelled as a 'psycho'/nutter etc and also many people won't want to give you jobs, put you in positions of responsibility, take you seriously and so on. Unless you know the feeling of humilation and alienation that goes with being locked up, treated almost like a sub-human, laughed about and despised, maybe you don't realise why most people - let along a youg person still dealing with the shit in their lives - have no desire to go on national TV to identify themselves. I wouldn't want to - I can say it here because it is online and urban75 is a relatively decent and compassionate place (although there are still ceratin posters who insult me about my previous problems). I try and avoid telling people 'in real life' - ay least until they know me better. Other examples would be not wanting to go on TV and talk about having an STD or hard drug habit - due to the fact that a lot of the public might depise and ridicule you.




hmm fair enough, haven't had any "serious" mental health problems myself, though i get depersonalisation quite a lot (which incidentally started after smoking draw and was made worse by lots of k etc) and have experienced a few psychotic symptoms- but i don't reckon that i would have a problem talking about it on tv if i did (and if there weren't a million and one other reasons why i wouldn't want to be on tv)



> The entire program is available for replay on the BBC/Panorama website.



i really can't be arsed, just wondered if i'd missed any pearls of wisdom from him


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

I'm left being very grateful for neither being a teenager or being the parent of one  ...


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> But they didn't cover those sorts of things - it was kids hearing voices.
> 
> I've taken acid and shrooms a few times and have on occaision taken serious amounts of dope and "lost" myself in raves and never had that happen ...




The program went to great lengths to explain that everyone who uses cannabis is not going to have a problem. As with any other drug cannabis has very widely differing effects from person to person and with the same person over time.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I'm left being very grateful for neither being a teenager or being the parent of one  ...




Given the two noisy shits on bus back from Falmouth to Helston yesterday afternoon so am I. (Luckily for them them my wife prevented me from throwing them off of a moving bus).


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> Who?


It's not relevant to this thread and I don't want to start a fight about it - the moderators sort it out if I tell them.  I am starting to get a thicker skin, but it still does really hurt and it can't encourage people to talk about stuff if they see personal information thrown back in peoples' faces as snide taunts.


----------



## IMeMine (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> But they didn't cover those sorts of things - it was kids hearing voices.


The programme was about cannabis being linked to the most serious form of psychosis, schizophrenia, but what about other mentall illneses. hink about the long list of illneses smoking causes. _Surely_ dopamine/dope/depression/ssri's/ are linked also.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> The programme was about cannabis being linked to the most serious form of psychosis, schizophrenia, but what about other mentall illneses. hink about the long list of illneses smoking causes. _Surely_ dopamine/dope/*depression/ssri's*/ are linked also.



no - that's *serotonin*.

Cannabis is no wonder cure though and I'm personally trying to get out of the habit of using it daily ... along with excess carbohydrate intake and a few other bad habits ...


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

Right, I've had a look at the Panorama wesbite and I have found that they seem to have left out most of the interview with Dr Philip Robson who pretty much trashes a lot of the other theories: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104702.stm#whatis

I think everyone who has suspicions about this programme should read this and ask themsleves why this only appears stuck away on their website. Maybe because - despite their leading questions - he would have screwed up their overall "message".

Very interesting.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

And the *full* interview with Dr Robin Murray  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104708.stm

...again, reading the full transcript gives a very different impression than the edited soundbites the programme makers included. It seems that they simply picked out the "juicy bits" and left out what they considered the boring waffle - which is in fact the bits that explain that certain theories are just that (unproven and uncertain theories).

What is also interesting is that when he is questioned on the reliability and consistency of psychiatric diagnostic criteria he suddenly comes out with the only *absolute* statement he is prepared to make: of course it is 100% reliable he claims - without offering any research or evidence. Of course he is not bidding for reseach money to question his own profession, just to investigate his own vague 'cannabis-psychosis' theories. He also falls back on the "I'm an experienced doctor, I have seen lots of people and I have formed the impression that..." type argument when questioned on these kinds of weak points. I have noticed in the past when reading some of his 'research' that he also seems to have not a very good grasp of causality. 

All-in-all another *interesting* transcript to read and then compare to what was broadcast!


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

And yet again, something which is on the website but wasn't included in the broadcast - this time about the "is it getting stronger" debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4101004.stm

Surprise surprise! Once again the actual official and documented evidence - which they neglected to mention - gives the opposite impression from the edited soundbite rent-a-quote people on the programme! 

The more I look into this the more it looks like the whole thing was extremely edited using selective quotes and leading questions to produce the 'story' they wanted. FFS this *is* tabloid TV.

Interestingly the web team and researchers have stuck up this stuff. Maybe they knew that the director/editor was:

a) full of shit and  
b) was far to busy and head-up-their arse to look at the website 

I hope it doesn't go "missing". ffs I though the BBC was meant to better than this.


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> And the *full* interview with Dr Robin Murray  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104708.stm



Urgh. 

* Resists temptation to stay up another two hours Fisking that *


----------



## drivensnow (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> no - that's *serotonin*.



Lack of dopamine can cause depression, it's not just serotonin.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

Right. Sorry to post yet again, but here are my comments based on the actual programme itself and the notes I took...

The guy Terry Hammond from "Rethink" (formerly the National Schizophrenia Fellowship) was quoted as saying about his son "had he not taken cannabis he would not have developed schizophrenia". I think he has worked for Rethink for 16 years and his son developed schizophrenia in 1999, but what kind of scientific background does he have? As far as I can tell he was told that cannabis "caused" his son's schizophrenia, he is really convinced and is on a "warn everyone about cannabis" mission, repeating his story about his son over and over (I have googled a bit and seen it in various versions). However simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true.

Another point: Compare these two statements by Dr Bill Young. The first comes from the programme:





> DR BILL YOUNG, ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRIST
> The majority of young people who are admitted have a psychotic illness of some kind and looking into the histories of those young people, cannabis use would be present and probably playing a significant role in the development of their problems in at least 75% perhaps as much as 90%
> 
> JUSTIN ROWLATT
> ...


The second is the same guy quoted in another article I have found: 





> “In the course of my career I’ve seen it [cannabis] making an increasing contribution to mental health issues. Even in the last few years I am aware of increasing numbers of young people, as young as 15 or 16, who have been using cannabis for several years and have developed quite severe psychotic symptoms, to the extent that it’s difficult to rule out schizophrenia.”
> 
> According to Dr Young there are recognisable traits connected with cannabis use in psychotic patient: “With cannabis there’s often a strong paranoid element which is not always true for other psychoses. They characteristically have developed beliefs about threats from others around them, although it’s quite often difficult to disentangle this from the culture they have become involved with. As a practitioner it’s hard not to think there’s a correlation: it seems very uncommon that we see kids with psychosis who are naïve about drugs or untouched by them.” But he adds a cautionary note. “Of course it’s very hard to establish the causal links: some may have turned to cannabis to try to deal with other problems.” This caution is the result of a perennial problem for adolescent mental health practitioners. Cannabis use often comes wrapped up in a parcel where it’s hard to disentangle cause and effect because cannabis is often used by young people trying to manage psychological problems, as a form of self-medication. Nick Kerry a ‘substance misuse officer’ in a child and adolescent mental health team says, “those already suffering from mental health problems are the most likely to turn to cannabis to manage feelings. But the stuff they are trying to manage is also a factor in making them more at risk from the effects of the drug.”  Dr Young agrees. “Cannabis can help manage social situations, and difficult feelings. But a significant proportion of users are susceptible because of a genetic tendency to psychosis or other mental health pressures.”


 source: http://www.youngminds.org.uk/magazine/75/coward.php


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

As for the scientist (Dr Yasmin Hurd) who had the rats and was slicing up the human brains with the massive carving knife: although she is at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, she is an American who seems to have at least some research** funded by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for whom she used to work (see it mentioned in her alumni 'biography' here)

** Here is a link to the NIDA website which shows that they are funding her research into cannabis: Hurd, Yasmin L. -- Karolinska Institute: Neurodevelopmental Effects of Adolescent Cannabis Use



> Yasmin Hurd's Research Group: About us
> 
> Experimental Psychiatry
> The research group investigates the close relationship between psychiatric disorders and drug abuse. Drug abuse is 4-7 times more common in persons with depression or schizophrenic syndromes, and 35-80% of drug abusers will suffer from psychiatric disorders during their lifetime. The strong association between drug abuse and psychiatric disorders suggests similar underlying neurobiological impairments. The work conducted by Yasmin Hurd’s research group and her collaborators is focused on the systematic study of human brains from subjects with drug abuse (stimulants and opiates) and psychiatric disorders. Drug abuse and, e.g., major depression are associated with mood changes, cognition, motivation and emotional dysfunctions. Thus, an important goal for the group is to identify and map specific genes in the mesocorticolimbic system, which regulate emotional functions, and thereby relevant to the disorders of interest.  To this end, techniques such as in situ hybridization, RT-PCR, DNA microarray, and in vitro autoradiography  are used for the detailed analyses of genes, and respective protein products, in discrete brain areas related to mesocorticolimbic function.
> ...


 http://www.cns.ki.se/en/research/yasmin_hurd/yasmin_hurd/

Can't actually find any details tho'


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

wiskey said:
			
		

> 15% of cannabis consumed is skunk - i rekkon *60% is SOAP*, whats smoking henna and boot polish doing to our teenagers?



Aye.

The majority of kids ain't smoking cannabis, they're smoking a fuckin' poison called soap bar! This is where further research needs to be directed. 

Those two so-called cannabis "connoisseurs"  when talking about Dutch hybrids, saying that it's too strong for them, soap bar has definitely addled their brains! 

Throughout the whole programme i just got the impression that they'd actually forgotten that cannabis is a "psychoactive" substance.

And as for the statement that cannabis is a gateway to heroin due to research using rats - what a crock of shite. Flawed American research - scaremongering yet again.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> . Flawed American research - scaremongering yet again.



Are you sure you watched the program, the research, which the program went to great lengths to explain is as yet not peer reviewed or published is not American.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

The female scientist giving rats heroin was American wasn't she? That research was American wasn't it?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The female scientist giving rats heroin was American wasn't she? That research was American wasn't it?




No it wasn't.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

Ok then - 



> And as for the statement that cannabis is a gateway to heroin due to research using rats - what a crock of shite. Flawed research - scaremongering yet again.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Are you sure you watched the program, the research, which the program went to great lengths to explain is as yet not peer reviewed or published is not American.



If the research isn't peer reviewed or published and has not been replicated, then why was it given so much time in the program? Surely this shows how hard the makers had to look to find anything that 'damning'.

Overall, i found the program more balanced than I was expecting.Taken in isolation it is not a bad thing to point out that people as young as 11 or 12 smoking large quantities of cannabis everyday is not healthy, but i thought it was clear, as Teejay has taken the time to evidence above, that it did have an agenda to push the negative view of cannabis.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

Spandex said:
			
		

> If the research isn't peer reviewed or published and has not been replicated, then why was it given so much time in the program? Surely this shows how hard the makers had to look to find anything that 'damning'.
> .



I don't think the program set out to be damning. It went to great lengths to explain that only a percentage of a percentage of users who start at an early age are at risk of developing mental health problems.
Just to clear up the perception the research is American it is not, it is carried out here by this lady:-

Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Tel: 08-524 800 00, Fax: 08-31 11 01, info@ki.se
Section of Psychiatry, Karolinska Hospital
Contact
Assistant Head of Section
Professor Yasmin Hurd
Phone: 517 723 79
E-mail: Yasmin.hurd@cns.ki.se


----------



## Spandex (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I don't think the program set out to be damning. It went to great lengths to explain that only a percentage of a percentage of users who start at an early age are at risk of developing mental health problems.



But the makers used Prof Hurd's research to make a leap from saying that the evidence is still only a theory to saying there is hard evidence of a change to brain chemistry and even raising the spectre of the long discredited 'gateway drug' theory. If the research has not been peer reviewed or replicated it is no evidence at all. Which brings the whole conclusion of the program back to 'we don't really know what the link between cannabis and psychosis is'.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 20, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> The thing dope smokers need to consider is "If something went majorly wrong in my life, or two things, or three things could I handle it?". When you need a healthy dopamine system the most is when you might find out whether smoking dope is safe or not.



Sure, with a nice fat bifta in my hand and a friend to share it. Age seems to naturally boost my "dopamine system" or whatever it is that means I don't turn into a quivering sack of shit if life gets a bit tough. 

TBH though I think proper healthy, regular smoking requires lots of sunshine and a surf beach nearby.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

Spandex said:
			
		

> Which brings the whole conclusion of the program back to 'we don't really know what the link between cannabis and psychosis is'.



Aye, because there isn't one.

There may well be a link by smoking soap bar in large amounts though, but no one has even thought to research it, & a huge percentage of kids are smoking it!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Aye, because there isn't one.



Come on Bishie, this is as uninformed as saying that there *is* a link.  The point is that no one knows...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2005)

A very unconvincing argument that resembled similar arguments made before. Be under no illusions, this Panorama programme is part of the usual backlash that will result in reclassification by the government.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Sure, with a nice fat bifta in my hand and a friend to share it. Age seems to naturally boost my "dopamine system" or whatever it is that means I don't turn into a quivering sack of shit if life gets a bit tough.
> 
> TBH though I think proper healthy, regular smoking requires lots of sunshine and a surf beach nearby.



This sort of sums it up, nervy teenagers should not be caning strong intoxicants of any sort - as I said before when I was that age I couldn't have afforded the latest "Cradle of Filth" CD, let alone vast amounts of ganja.

(I'm surprised there wasn't some mention of satanic lyrics when played backwards  )

I notice the mother was driving quite a decent car and there seemed to be an estranged father trying too hard to be "super cool dad"...

I'm starting to appreciate my comparatively strict '60s upbringing ...
.
.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I don't think the program set out to be damning. It went to great lengths to explain that only a percentage of a percentage of users who start at an early age are at risk of developing mental health problems.
> Just to clear up the perception the research is American it is not, it is carried out here by this lady:-
> 
> Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
> ...



Yep - to think I actually thought Sweden was a pretty cool place once (to be honest I was 16 and it was mostly due to the blonde one in ABBA )

(though Liv Ullman was seriously dishy too)

.
.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> A very unconvincing argument that resembled similar arguments made before. Be under no illusions, this Panorama programme is part of the usual backlash that will result in reclassification by the government.



A Daily Mail reader writes :-

I vote we make booze, fags, everything "Class A" - I'm sure that'll fix it ...   

A middle-aged person writes :-

For fear of being ageist, I wonder if we shouldn't raise the "age of consent" for *everything * ? (that would of course include being sent to war).


----------



## marshall (Jun 20, 2005)

I'm finding it very hard to believe that only 15% of total cannabis smoked in the UK is skunk.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 20, 2005)

Some teenagers have psychotic episodes which may be linked to cannabis
use .Its probably not a good idea to encourage teenagers to use cannabis its not harmless  and some people can be messed up by it .Its also  can  lead on to other drugs as cannabis is what a lot of people start with .
         In an ideal world  alchol and drugs would be left 18+  and they would make an informed choice  about use  not going to happen  but it would be nice.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 20, 2005)

marshall said:
			
		

> I'm finding it very hard to believe that only 15% of total cannabis smoked in the UK is skunk.


Well that has to be a guess and I’d suspect it is based on the amount seized, I smoke hash myself but I have found it really hard to get good weed in London that isn’t skunk.

But I know a place for weed and it is only one place everyone else seems to be selling skunk.

BTW is skunk still classed as Class A or did they bring it inline with regular weed and hash when they went to class C?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> BTW is skunk still classed as Class A or did they bring it inline with regular weed and hash when they went to class C?



It never _*was * _ class A   

All Skunk is is an attempt to produce indoors what was always available to the connoisseur on the hippy trail in equatorial regions.

I guess people were lulled into thinking cannabis was something different because they were used to smoking rubbish weed and resin that contained more CBD than THC and made them "stoned" rather than "High" ..

If people want that sort of stuff, maybe they should go raid an industrial hemp field ..


----------



## Velouria (Jun 20, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> BTW is skunk still classed as Class A



Err, what?

Cannabis oil is class A but only because it's 'prepared for injection'. Although I don't know what kind of eejit would inject cannabis oil ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Come on Bishie, this is as uninformed as saying that there *is* a link.  The point is that no one knows...



Granted  But i sit firmly on the pro-cannabis/anti-soap bar fence.



> Its also can lead on to other drugs as cannabis is what a lot of people start with .



And here's me thinking that tobacco & alcohol were the first substances that young'uns encounter.



> BTW is skunk still classed as Class A or did they bring it inline with regular weed and hash when they went to class C?



 Weed is weed whatever you want to call it. And no, weed has never been a Class A substance - thank fuckin' God!


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)

Velouria said:
			
		

> Err, what?
> 
> Cannabis oil is class A but only because it's 'prepared for injection'. Although I don't know what kind of eejit would inject cannabis oil ...



Injecting cannabis oil will not get you high - just make your arm drop off - if not kill you    

I've never understood why you can make wine at home but not distil it (apart from the dangers of blowing yourself up)


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> It never _*was * _ class A
> 
> All Skunk is is an attempt to produce indoors what was always available to the connoisseur on the hippy trail in equatorial regions.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that,
I got that from a leaflet when I was in Europe in the early 90's, iirc it said "warning, skunk is classified as a class A drug in the UK", maybe it was cannabis oil and not skunk. It was a leaflet in a number of coffeeshops in Amsterdam.


Having done a quick search I can find no reference to it being class A so I guess Cannabis oil not skunk was what was written and also I didn’t speak any English at the time so maybe something was lost in the translation.

http://www.uk420.com/uk420/legal.htm

Any Class B Drug which is injected


----------



## magneze (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> And here's me thinking that tobacco & alcohol were the first substances that young'uns encounter.


This is an important point which is often missed. I believe there was a study some years ago into the "gateway drug" thang. IIRC, it found that *most* heroin users had used Cannabis in the past - however, *all* had used Tobacco - there's your gateway drug: legal and easily available from your local corner shop.


----------



## Chuff (Jun 20, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> It never _*was * _ class A
> 
> All Skunk is is an attempt to produce indoors what was always available to the connoisseur on the hippy trail in equatorial regions.
> 
> ...




I agree and recon everyone should drink meths and rubbing alcohol, all those people drinking less strong refined tasty drinks are stupid  they don't know what they are doing anyone discerning can get proper blinding (literally) alcohol from DIY stores.


people get stoned rather than high due to the chemical makeup of the cannabis or resin(Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis,) most discerning punters on the hippy trail would smoke because different genus give different results, IE Charas produced over 3,500 mtrs has a higher oil content due to the altitudal stress, generally the UK has a poor choice of variety, as a concequence of higher prophit margins for stronger varieties people have over the last 40 odd years cross polinated stronger and stronger strains relying on idiots who believe stronger is better  to snap up their wares, in discriminating countries where people can choose the high they want (or among people with good enough connections here) the incidence of mental health problems is much much lower.

people were not 'lulled' they were smoking better stuff, of course for some the only shit they get is crap or skunk and so go on to develop beliefs about cannabis founded on ignorance.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 20, 2005)

Velouria said:
			
		

> Cannabis oil is class A but only because it's 'prepared for injection'. Although I don't know what kind of eejit would inject cannabis oil ...



 I'd use a needle, but only to put the stuff on a red hot knife.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The female scientist giving rats heroin was American wasn't she? That research was American wasn't it?


She is an American, gets some funding from the US but is actually based at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. See my previous post about Yasmin Hurd for the links that show this. 

Edit: post #293 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3127952&postcount=293


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> A very unconvincing argument that resembled similar arguments made before. Be under no illusions, this Panorama programme is part of the usual backlash that will result in reclassification by the government.


Actually I think it is more complex than that, as there are moves towards licensing cannabis (and/or synthetic THC/CBD) as a medicine. A lot of medicines are toxic already so even new research wouldn't put a stop to this, depending on the severity of the condition being treated and the toxicity of the current drugs being used by doctors. It makes it far more likely that proper research will be done on THC/CBD/etc - and hopefully on commonly available hash and weed as well. Also hopefully this research will also look at the (side)effects on different types of people - including people at various ages.  

I think it is more likely that cannabis as a medicine will only be licensed for adults, and maybe even a move to separate under-18s (maybe even under-21s?) from adults in terms of the law as well, as a kind of "precautionary" move. It is maybe something that even pro-legalisation campaigners should be thinking about carefully: after all people often compare cannabis with alcohol and tobacco, which both have age restrictions. It is also worth noting that these age restrictions are not consistent from country to country and there are various reasons behind them, not just pure health reasons.  

Also the programme suggests other new avenues: for example everyone having blood tests to see if they have the "more at risk" genes (which apparently 25% of the population do), more investigation into the effects of THC, CBD, CBN and the many other active chemicals separately and in combination, and research into doseage etc.

Hopefully rather than any knee-jerk reaction there will be far more money put into proper research, far better mental health services - including proactive services (rather than the current inadequate and after-the-fact crisis management) and far more use of therapies (eg CBT) and looking at the whole of someone's situation rather than immediately reaching for the pills.

In many ways the (probably incorrect) focus on "skunk" might make regulated legalisation *more* likely since it suggests that quality control could improve things greatly. 

It is notable that the programme didn't make any mention about the far higher use of E and speed over the same period. Personally I think that the combination of E or speed and lots of cannabis (plus genes, stress, and bad luck) maybe far more relevant than "skunk", but this is just a 'hunch'. Don't most of us know from personal experience what E and speed can do to many (although not all) people? It is also worth noting the flaws in relying on interviews by psychiatrists to ascertain drug use - they ask fairly stupid/inexact questions (I my experience) and there are all sorts of reasons why people might give one answer or another, and not mention class As but admit to cannabis.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2005)

Sorry to back track fuckin' ages, but I've been at work since yesterday morning, so  .



			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Aaaah, so people with emotional problems just need to "get a fucking grip on themselves."


 With hindsight, that was written in haste.  I've got my words around my views now:   I think "cannabis addiction" is merely a syptom of an underlying problem that would manifest itself some other way if you took the cannabis away.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why you're "Bored, agitated, irritable, colourless" without cannabis eh?  Maybe you just need to get a fucking grip eh?  You seem to have replaced one drug (alcohol) with another (cannabis).


Absolutely.  I consciously chose to replace alcohol with cannabis.  That's how I stopped drinking like I was.  I've also gone for long periods since (several months at a time) where I've been clean of both.  And, yes, for the first few days, week or so, I feel as I described.  It's absolutely fuck all compared to, say, alcohol though.  It's more an annoyance than a torture.  An irritant is all.  After that, I'm fine, active, and enjoy the change in texture.  I choose to toke, and gain benefits in terms of empathy etc from it, or perhaps because it leads me to be contemplative.  However, I choose to toke, essentially, because I enjoy it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Actually I think it is more complex than that, as there are moves towards licensing cannabis (and/or synthetic THC/CBD) as a medicine. A lot of medicines are toxic already so even new research wouldn't put a stop to this, depending on the severity of the condition being treated and the toxicity of the current drugs being used by doctors. It makes it far more likely that proper research will be done on THC/CBD/etc - and hopefully on commonly available hash and weed as well. Also hopefully this research will also look at the (side)effects on different types of people - including people at various ages.
> 
> I think it is more likely that cannabis as a medicine will only be licensed for adults, and maybe even a move to separate under-18s (maybe even under-21s?) from adults in terms of the law as well, as a kind of "precautionary" move. It is maybe something that even pro-legalisation campaigners should be thinking about carefully: after all people often compare cannabis with alcohol and tobacco, which both have age restrictions. It is also worth noting that these age restrictions are not consistent from country to country and there are various reasons behind them, not just pure health reasons.
> 
> ...



Truth be told, a lot of the pharmaceuticals that GPs are fond of pushing onto patients are far more harmful than cannabis or even [clean] heroin.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Clarification of what? What civil questions? (Puzzled)


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=118647&page=4&pp=25





Backtracky-backtracky......


----------



## cheetara (Jun 20, 2005)

I can't comment in great detail about this issue, and i certianly am not in full knowledge of all the science behind any of it, however what i can comment on is the effect i ahve seen Cannabis has on people that i know...

no matter how many times i hear 'it's better than taking chemicals maaaan' it still gets to me...

I have stoner friends who will smoke every day, they endlessly talk of how it makes them feel empathic, and in touch with their friends, how it helps them see the world in a new light, that it relaxes them, helps them come out of themselves...

yuet those same people come down on me like a ton of bricks for taking E for the same reasons...

'it messes with your mind man, it totally changes who you are when you are on them, you loose touch with your real emotion because what you feel when you take them is fake...'

er hello???? ANY drug that alters your mental/physical state can potentially be harmful?  and I say potentially...

I don't take E every day?  i wouldn't even dream of it.. after a hefty weekend I tend to be put off the idea for at least another month!

BUt whenever i suggest that they may be far more addicted to weed than i am to E, the reaction is like lighting touchpaper...

'but it's natural maaaan'

sod off...so are a lot of things that are bad for you... alchohol being another form... I have seen the effects on some of them when they have not smoked for a week, they become angry aggressive and totally paranoid, until they get their nexy smoke.. i have also seen one friend break down in tears when their dealer didn't have anything for them!!!  this was a 24 year old 'man'?

with anything... i believe it is all about moderation, but not everyone has the will power or the genes to be able to control their own usage, in that case i do think cannabis can be dangerous, especially on young people who don't have a complete concept on how the world works before they distort it daily with a mind altering substance...

as for the science saying that it can induce psychotic states.. i believe that in some cases it probably does... subjecting a fragile mind to any drug that can alter perception is going to cause issues surely?  Isn't that just logic and common sense rather than science?  some people have self control and are in control and in touch with the world around them.. others aren't

but anyone who tells me that it is not dangerous at all.. i frankly don't believe... and saying it is better than alcohol.... well yes.. but then so are a lot of things... 

a wishy washy answer, but it is my opinion... i don't claim to have any scientific knowledge.. i just go with life experience...


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Just to clear up the perception the research is American it is not, it is carried out here by this lady:-


Tobyjug please look at the following information:

Dr Yasmin Hurd's 'biography' which clearly shows that she used to work for the US National Institutes of Health (1990 - 1993 I believe): http://alumni.binghamton.edu/AJ/2004/spring/alumniprofile02.htm

As of 2002 she was on the on the NIH board for grant approvals, see here: http://www.gobelle.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_1_33/ai_89648489/pg_2?pi=gbl (bottom of page)

A link to the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health for whom she used to work) which clearly shows they are funding her research at the Karolinska Institute into "Neurodevelopmental Effects of Adolescent Cannabis Use": http://www.drugabuse.gov/DirReports/DirRep205/DirectorReport13.html

I have also spotted an article in the Telegraph (18th June) which describes her research - as mentioned in the Panorama programme:  
Long-term use of cannabis 'leads to harder drugs' (I think you need to register to view - it but it is free to do so)

You will probably quibble about calling this research 'American' - you might even point out that she was born in Jamaica. Its worth noting who is funding tho'. 

The fact is that there are *lots* of things that are suspected of contributing to schizophrenia and other mental health conditions. Often research does not question what exactly is meant by "schizophrenia" or what is meant by "cannabis". Moreover a lot of money is often put into certain avenues of research which could lend support to desired political outcomes or to favoured   pharmaceutical 'solutions' while avenues which are portentially far more important are neglected because of politics and lack of commercial potential. This is not irrelevant when looking at the output of scientists.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Actually I think it is more complex than that, as there are moves towards licensing cannabis (and/or synthetic THC/CBD) as a medicine.



GW Pharmaceuticals have manufactured "Sativex". Not too sure if it's going down the pan at present though.



> Mon Jun 20, 2005
> LONDON (Reuters) - GW Pharmaceuticals Plc's (GWP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) pioneering cannabis-based medicine has been launched in Canada, the firm said on Monday as it posted a slightly reduced first-half loss.
> 
> GW said its Sativax medicine was now available by prescription in Canada to treat pain in adults with multiple sclerosis.
> ...



It really fucks me off that Big Pharma can churn out a cannabis based product (at a cost to the patient) to alleviate their pain, yet they can not take cannabis in its natural form, & are still being imprisoned!

Why should Big Pharma have control over a plant that humans have used medicinally for thousands of years?

Fuck Big Pharma and fuck the law!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

> Long-term use of cannabis 'leads to harder drugs'
> 
> Teenagers and young adults who occasionally smoke cannabis over long periods are more likely to turn to more addictive drugs such as heroin, according to a study.



The Daily Mail will be impressed - some more bullshit to spread.


----------



## Corsair (Jun 20, 2005)

in true its nicotine thats the gateway drug to harder drugs.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Granted  But i sit firmly on the pro-cannabis/anti-soap bar fence.


Budge over and make room, I'm converted.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2005)

cheetara said:
			
		

> no matter how many times i hear 'it's better than taking chemicals maaaan' it still gets to me...
> 
> yuet those same people come down on me like a ton of bricks for taking E for the same reasons...
> 
> ...


Your friends are irrational and sound like they've watched to much Cheench'n'Chong.  

_*Cyanide*_'s a natural substance ffs, it's a muppet argument.  Don't let that bias you the other way though....


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Tobyjug please look at the following information:
> 
> Dr Yasmin Hurd's 'biography' which clearly shows that she used to work for the US National Institutes of Health (1990 - 1993 I believe): http://alumni.binghamton.edu/AJ/2004/spring/alumniprofile02.htm
> 
> ...



I rather suspected Dr Hurd's research was being funded by US bodies, or that she had begun her career there. Indeed, I also suspected that this is where a great deal of the reaction comes from...and to think we have William Randolph Hearst to thank for all this.


----------



## magneze (Jun 20, 2005)

Corsair said:
			
		

> in true its nicotine thats the gateway drug to harder drugs.


Yup, but there won't be a study proving that until the Tobacco lobby is sufficiently weak enough ... mark my words ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You will probably quibble about calling this research 'American' - you might even point out that she was born in Jamaica. Its worth noting who is funding tho'.





> I rather suspected Dr Hurd's research was being funded by US bodies, or that she had begun her career there. Indeed, I also suspected that this is where a great deal of the reaction comes from...and to think we have William Randolph Hearst to thank for all this.



Have you got this snippet of info firmly implanted in your brain cell toby?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 20, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Sorry to back track fuckin' ages, but I've been at work since yesterday morning, so  .
> With hindsight, that was written in haste.  I've got my words around my views now:   I think "cannabis addiction" is merely a syptom of an underlying problem that would manifest itself some other way if you took the cannabis away.



So its like all other addictions then?




			
				Corax said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  I consciously chose to replace alcohol with cannabis.  That's how I stopped drinking like I was.  I've also gone for long periods since (several months at a time) where I've been clean of both.  And, yes, for the first few days, week or so, I feel as I described.  It's absolutely fuck all compared to, say, alcohol though.  It's more an annoyance than a torture.  An irritant is all.  After that, I'm fine, active, and enjoy the change in texture.  I choose to toke, and gain benefits in terms of empathy etc from it, or perhaps because it leads me to be contemplative.  However, I choose to toke, essentially, because I enjoy it.



I'm happy for you, quitting drinking is fucking tough.  I'm sure cannabis is not going to do you so much damage.  From an outsiders pov though, your posts on the subject still read like someone with a problem - your talk about how you can't get really wrecked because of your tolerance, how without it life is colourless, your denial of any problem etc.  Food for thought possibly and all IMHO natch. 

[edited to add]
Although obviously only you know if its a problem in any way.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Have you got this snippet of info firmly implanted in your brain cell toby?


Yes, sorry to have repeated myself several times Mr. Bishie


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Have you got this snippet of info firmly implanted in your brain cell toby?



Sorry what snippet?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> The programme was about cannabis being linked to the most serious form of psychosis, schizophrenia, but what about other mentall illneses. hink about the long list of illneses smoking causes. _Surely_ dopamine/dope/depression/ssri's/ are linked also.




Did you watch a different program to me? Speculation that cannabis is related to schizophrenia only formed part of the program and the contention was robustly challenged.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 20, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=118647&page=4&pp=25
> Backtracky-backtracky......




I have, I still have no idea what you are on about.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 20, 2005)




----------



## Poi E (Jun 20, 2005)

More hippy shit! First feelings, now a dove.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 20, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> GW Pharmaceuticals have manufactured "Sativex". Not too sure if it's going down the pan at present though.





> It really fucks me off that Big Pharma can churn out a cannabis based product (at a cost to the patient) to alleviate their pain, yet they can not take cannabis in its natural form, & are still being imprisoned!
> 
> Why should Big Pharma have control over a plant that humans have used medicinally for thousands of years?
> 
> Fuck Big Pharma and fuck the law!


To be fair to GW Pharmaceuticals I'd hardly call them "big" pharma. From a brief glance at there accounts they have assets of about £23m and have made an operating loss last year of c.£15m They have about 100 employees

Compare this with  GlaxoSmithKline which has assets of c.£6,200 million made a profit of c.£4,300 million and has more like 100,000 employees! (Hope I have all this info right :S )

Having said that, Sativex is going to be "exclusively marketed by Bayer" but then again GW Ph. probably don't have the capacity to do it themselves anyway.

GW P~ has its own FAQ page here: http://www.gwpharm.com/faqs.asp#faqs1_1

some selected quotes:





> *Why does GW cultivate its own cannabis plant?*
> 
> The absolute requirement for any plant-based medicine from a regulatory point of view is "control of starting materials". A drug in its manufacture goes through many processes, each of which need to be monitored and strict quality controls applied. This process control and QC would be invalidated if the starting materials (i.e. the herbal materials) were of poor or inconsistent quality.
> 
> ...



I can't see any suggestion that GW claims to "own" cannabis.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I have, I still have no idea what you are on about.


You quoted a 25% somewhere.  My original point was that such figures appear to be meaningless in relation to amounts actually consumed.  Could you explain what meaning your proudly recalled statistic has in practice please?

I'm baffled tbh, are you not able to follow the thread?  You seem to be having trouble following things in posts above as well....

Edit: #337 before you ask.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

guys,

Could we not please call a truce and move the discussion forward  ?
This exercise (and it has to be said the Panorama programme - although flawed) has made me look very hard at _*my own*_ consumption habits and I see it as very important that as experienced smokers (some of us), we get it clear in our own minds what we tell the next generation (or parents of) if asked.

---------​
It's clear that all these headline THC figures are pure bunkum and a physiological impossibility. I've attached what seems like a reasonably reliable assay of manicured Dutch Coffee shop product from a few years back. I was surprised at the low figure for in-house hash, but it was presumably produced in a "tumbler" back then.

So 7.5 percent for sinsemilla and lets guess at 15 to 20 percent for bubble hash.

It is well documented that pure sativas have less CBD so the smoker gets less "stoned" and more "high". The "white widow" type "knockout" strains probably have comparably high THC, but due to the indica content added to reduce flowering times and increase resin yield probably have high CBD too.

Who knows what the CBD content is for soapbar and the like but it must be very high.

I'd say it was a fair assumption that just as most *tea* consumed in the UK is rather "heavy"  indian/darjeeling/kenyan blends designed to be drunk with milk, the average cannabis smoker in the UK is looking to get "stoned". It's my guess that for _them_, the THC contained in good quality cannabis might be something that "takes them by surprise".

---------​
It has dawned on me that sometimes even I was looking to get "stoned" rather than "high" and the THC was simply making me anxious and hindering sleep. I have for myself now written off cannabis as an aid to sleep just as I rejected valium and sleeping tablets as an option.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of people out there - especially the young - who should not be smoking cannabis *at all*. As someone who didn't encounter cannabis until my relatively sensible 30s it was a real shock to see the state those kids were in. Having had *major* problems as a child I can see that if I had had access to cannabis of whatever quality at that age, I would not have "survived".

As to whether on balance cannabis is any "worse" than alcohol, I'd say the jury is out. The problem remains is how to stop kids getting hold of either.

And for us *adults* the best situation must be that we endeavour to be happy, well adjusted people who are too busy to indulge in such things to excess.

--------oooooooo--------​
http://www.hemp.on.net/final_folder/the_evidence/thccontent.html 

The following communication was originally posted to the ADCA Update list on Wed, 5 Jul 2000.

"The average THC content of the marihuana samples was 7,5% and that of the hash-samples 12,6%. The average THC content of nederwiet (8,6%) was significantly higher than that of foreign marihuana (5,0%). Hash derived from Dutch hemp contained more THC (20,7%) than hash originating from foreign hemp (11,0%). These THC percentages do not deviate much from the percentages that have been reported by the Dutch Forensic Institute in the middle of the nineties about confiscated marihuana and hash samples."

From: Jaap Toet 
Trimbos-institute (Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction) 
Dept. of Monitoring and Epidemiology 

Postbus 725 
3500 AS Utrecht 
The Netherlands


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> To be fair to GW Pharmaceuticals I'd hardly call them "big" pharma.
> 
> I can't see any suggestion that GW claims to "own" cannabis.



All pharma companies have to start somewhere. And all pharma companies have their best interests firmly implanted in making money. Now that the medicinal properties of cannabis are widely known, they're going to make money from it.

No they don't "own" cannabis, but they do have "control" over cannabis based medicine Sativex, even if Bayer are to market the product. This is neither here nor there when patients can not use cannabis in its natural form & are labelled criminals!



> In GW's opinion, smoking is not an acceptable means of delivery for a medicine. Patients wish to use a medicine that is legally prescribed, does not require smoking, is of guaranteed quality



Just because the preferred & usual method of administration for recreational use is to smoke it, doesn't mean you can use this against the needs of patients in pain! And as for "does not require smoking", & "is of guaranteed quality", medi-users have that assurance now in every aspect!! 

Just because cannabis is illegal doesn't mean to say that patient medicine is of poor quality & does not require smoking - quite the opposite in fact!

gg - 


> Who knows what the CBD content is for soapbar and the like but it must be very high.



The cannabinoid content of soap bar is almost non existant. By the time this poison reaches the streets it's been repressed many times & is so adulterated that cannabinoid contents are as low as 1%. Have a read of my post here


----------



## Corax (Jun 21, 2005)

Good post gg, but I'd suggest you underestimate the destructive power of alcohol here -



			
				gentlegreen said:
			
		

> As to whether on balance cannabis is any "worse" than alcohol, I'd say the jury is out.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

Had word from Neil - 



> I'm in the final stages of writing up the feasibility study for CRISP (Cannabis Resin Impurities Survey Project) being conducted by ISPS (Institute for the Study of Psychoactive Substances). Will you please encourage anyone with a Soap Story to e-mail me at Neil.Montgomery@ed.ac.uk
> 
> The report should be published on 1st July 2005



Someone with the brains to actually study the dangers of smoking this poison.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

> As to whether on balance cannabis is any "worse" than alcohol, I'd say the jury is out.



No comparison. Alcohol is far more destructive than cannabis ever will be. 

I know a few peeps who were chronic alcoholics & who have given the booze up. Cannabis has helped them to stay sober, & remains to do so.

To say they've replaced one drug with another is utter bollocks, as alcohol would have surely killed them if they'd continued to drink!


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Good post gg, but I'd suggest you underestimate the destructive power of alcohol here -



Sorry for appearing to take alcohol lightly. 

I'm thinking in terms of how easy it might be for teenagers to get hold of damaging quantities of either substance.

I suppose at the end of the day they would get involved in petty crime to fund either habit - unless, like those "middle-class" kids in the documentary their parents were foolish enough to fund their habit.

I'm trying to get to the truth of whether legalisation / regulation would be better than the current situation.

Is there a similar problem of alcoholism amongst young people ?
.
.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

Researchers at Harvard Medical School have blown the Panorama research away - 

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6516


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 21, 2005)

Re: cannabis medicine

I was under the impression that THC was licensed in the US as Marinol, and I know that CBD is licensed in the UK as 'Nabilone' 'cos I've got some. It's good for long-haul flights


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

Marinol is synthetic THC. It's hard for vomiting patients to swallow, & like many synthetic drugs can cause severe side effects.

Also - 

Medical Marijuana

Robert C. Clarke1 and David W. Pate2



> Nabilone proved to be toxic to laboratory test animals and in 1978, human tests were suspended, although it is available in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom as Cesamet®.  Levonathrodal, another synthetic cannabinoid analog, was not approved for use in the US, also following incidents of toxicity in test animals.



Why can't patients have the choice whether to take Big Pharma synthetics, or the cannabis plant in its natural form, when the plant is so much more medicinally beneficial & so much safer.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Marinol is synthetic THC. It's hard for vomiting patients to swallow, & like many synthetic drugs can cause severe side effects.
> 
> Also -
> 
> ...



Always seemed crazy to me to replace a plant with a chemistry lab and a whole load of graduate chemists

ooer it contains 4,000000 different *chemicals * shock horror   

(but then so does rocket salad)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 21, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Marinol is synthetic THC. It's hard for vomiting patients to swallow, & like many synthetic drugs can cause severe side effects.
> 
> Also -
> 
> ...



The bottom line is: you can't do better than nature!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Always seemed crazy to me to replace a plant with a chemistry lab and a whole load of graduate chemists



$Big $Pharma


----------



## bmd (Jun 21, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The Daily Mail will be impressed - some more bullshit to spread.



Aye. 

They had a centre page spread a month or so ago about the 'evil' weed in which their resident GP was quoted as saying that he'd rather his children be addicted to heroin than cannabis. Be careful what you wish for Mr GP...


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 21, 2005)

You cant do better than nature ? tell that to the small pox virus you hippy
fool   .Penicillin or natural mouldy bread ?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 21, 2005)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> You cant do better than nature ? tell that to the small pox virus you hippy
> fool   .Penicillin or natural mouldy bread ?



Name me one synthetic pharmaceutical that doesn't either carry the risk of serious side effects or isn't produced in a fashion that includes cruelty to animals, humans or both. 

Oh and I'm not a hippy either.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

dylanredefined said:
			
		

> You cant do better than nature ? tell that to the small pox virus you hippy
> fool   .Penicillin or natural mouldy bread ?



antibiotics don't work on viruses  

and penicillin IS a mould


----------



## laptop (Jun 21, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Marinol is synthetic THC. It's hard for vomiting patients to swallow, & like many synthetic drugs can cause severe side effects.



Er, how does the user's throat *know* it's synthetic? 

Do you mean "Marinol comes in a pill not a spray or a spliff"? 

Or do you mean "Marinol contains essence of artificiality"? 

If I present you with two bottles of gin, one containing alcohol distilled from mouldy potatos and one alcohol synthesised from pure ethane, would you refuse to drink one? Which?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 21, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Name me one synthetic pharmaceutical that doesn't either carry the risk of serious side effects or isn't produced in a fashion that includes cruelty to animals, humans or both.
> 
> Oh and I'm not a hippy either.



"natural" drugs can also carry the risk of serious side effects.  The natural/synthetic debate is a meaningless one anyhow.  The crux of the matter is that big pharmaceutical companies make loads of money out of "synthetic" drugs.


----------



## bmd (Jun 21, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Er, how does the user's throat *know* it's synthetic?
> 
> Do you mean "Marinol comes in a pill not a spray or a spliff"?
> 
> ...



I think the point is that the research on the delivery method of this drug to patients suffering from a disease that makes them more susceptible to vomiting is sadly lacking.

If it wasn't for the plainly ridiculous laws around cannabis then MS patients could choose their delivery method instead of having it forced upon them.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> I think the point is that the research on the delivery method of this drug to patients suffering from a disease that makes them more susceptible to vomiting is sadly lacking.
> 
> If it wasn't for the plainly ridiculous laws around cannabis then MS patients could choose their delivery method instead of having it forced upon them.



I just had a google, but is marinol identical to THC, would it get patients high if they took too much ?


----------



## bmd (Jun 21, 2005)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I just had a google, but is marinol identical to THC, *would it get patients high if they took too much?*



_The most frequently reported side effects during clinical studies involved the nervous system and included dizziness, feelings of exaggerated happiness, paranoid reaction, drowsiness, and thinking abnormally._

That's a yes then.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 21, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> _The most frequently reported side effects during clinical studies involved the nervous system and included dizziness, feelings of exaggerated happiness, paranoid reaction, drowsiness, and thinking abnormally._
> 
> That's a yes then.



wouldn't it be funny if they found they could make it by distilling it from a plant .....


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 21, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> "natural" drugs can also carry the risk of serious side effects.  The natural/synthetic debate is a meaningless one anyhow.  The crux of the matter is that big pharmaceutical companies make loads of money out of "synthetic" drugs.



That's probably due to the lack of testing and research into such medicines. But the pharmaceutical companies have a lot to answer for: they are the biggest drug pushers on the planet, next to the medical profession that is.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> "natural" drugs can also carry the risk of serious side effects.  The natural/synthetic debate is a meaningless one anyhow.



The natural/synthetic debate in this case has got everything to do with it Blags! A close friend of mine has a degenerative spinal disease, of which one symptom is chronic pain. He sometimes collapses when the pain rips through his bollocks. He no longer wishes to take Pethidine, Morphine, Codeine, or any other highly addictive & stomach rotting synthetic with horrendous side effects Big Pharma produce, but controls his pain with cannabis. He finds cannabis useful, but not totally effective, but can up his dose with cannabis safely. This is the natural/synthetic debate, & people are being denied the right to self medicate with cannabis to control their pain & slung into prison for possession of their medicine!



> the pharmaceutical companies have a lot to answer for: they are the biggest drug pushers on the planet, next to the medical profession that is



Too fuckin' right! You only have to look at the number of Americans addicted to synthetic opiates. Lethal legal drugs are prescribed to anyone who happens to what them, yet cannabis possession in America can carry a term of up to 30 years in prison!

The hypocrisy stinks of shite!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Morphine and codeine are refined products of opium, not known to rot the stomach, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say Bishie.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Gastritis, gastro-intestinal dis-orders, ulcerative colitis & stomach ulcers can be associated with the long-term use of codeine!

I used Morphine to highlight the addictive potential of prescribed pain killing drugs for people with chronic pain.

And you know perfectly well what i'm trying to say mate - why should people in pain be denied the right to self medicate using cannabis which is safer than pills from Big Pharma?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Yes, cannabis should be available.  The natural/synthetic thing is meaningless though IMO.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The natural/synthetic thing is meaningless though IMO.



Please explain to me why you think natural/synthetic is meaningless within the context of this discussion mate.

And don't say, "natural drugs can also carry the risk of serious side effects", because there is no evidence to say that cannabis can carry serious side effects


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Its a pointless distinction - it assumes that "natural" = good and "synthetic = "bad" on no evidence apart from some half-baked hippy ideas about nature _maaaaaaan_.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

Well, in the case of THC the natural variety is the one that's been 'tested' on people for hundreds of years, whereas the synthetic one is still something of an unknown quantity. As happened with thalidomide, the process of synthesis and manufacture can itself have unexpected consequences, even for substances that initially appear to be safe.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its a pointless distinction - it assumes that "natural" = good and "synthetic = "bad" on no evidence apart from some half-baked hippy ideas about nature _maaaaaaan_.



I fuckin' knew you'd come out with that shite!  Leaving that sixties hippy bollocks behind - 

There are thousands & thousands of plants around the world that are far from safe, but yet they grow wild & are "natural" - cannabis on the other hand in its natural form is safe. But due to anti-cannabis loons, so-called Gov experts, media hysteria & a few kids fuckin' their heads up smoking poison in the form of soap bar, & commercial weed riddled with deadly organophosphates, cannabis is back to a point of being reclassified back to a Class B substance along side toxic substances such as amphetamines. Some idiots want to make "Skunk" a Class A fuckin' substance! 
That would really benefit people suffering from chronic pain & MS in this country who self medicate with a natural drug that is cannabis, & who no longer wish to poison themselves with synthetic drugs from the corporate capitalist bastard that is Big Pharma!


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 22, 2005)

I suspect GW are on the right track with their researches - it has to make sense to let the plant do most of the work .. quite why these people thought pure THC was a good idea, who knows .. maybe they haven't learnt to synthesise CBD ....

=======================​
http://www.pdxnorml.org/HT_Marinol_0794.html

======================​
Today, millions of Americans suffer from medical conditions that can be alleviated by marijuana. Doctors have witnessed that smoking marijuana, among other things, promotes weight gain for AIDS patients and reduces vomiting for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. 

But for cancer and AIDS patients, the US government has one answer: Marinol, or THC in a gel cap. Marinol has been approved by the FDA as a treatment for nausea and wasting syndrome, and the government claims it is superior to the "crude drug" marijuana. But the ban on marijuana isn't really driven by concerns over public health. Instead, it serves the interests of business and pharmacology. 

Unlike marijuana, which can be grown cheaply by the masses, Marinol is produced by pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and distribute it for profit. And unlike hemp seeds, which reproduce in the presence of light, water and a green thumb, Marinol is hatched in a lab, the product of chemicals and machines. 

The story begins in 1985, when Unimed, now located in Buffalo, IL, bought the patent for Marinol from the National Cancer Institute. In order to produce the artificial cannabinoid THC, Unimed purchases a raw material known as termpene olivitol from Hoffmann-LaRoche, and sends it to a laboratory in Southern California. There, the crude oil is treated by a process known as liquid chromatography. If you push enough termpene olivitol through a silica gel column, you get 99 percent THC. 

Another lab takes that THC and mixes it with sesame oil, then seals it in gel caps, in doses of 2.5, 5 and 10 milligrams. These caps are shipped to Roxane Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where they are packaged and distributed to your local drug store. A month's prescription costs between $150 and $180. 

The only problem is that the pill, which looks like a vitamin cap, isn't all that popular in the sick wards. There are three main objections. First, vomiting patients have trouble swallowing a pill. Then, if a patient does swallow the pill, the good effects don't kick in for hours. And when the pill finally starts to work - buckle up. "A 2.5 milligram Marinol pill absolutely knocked me out," reports one man with AIDS. "I wound up lying on the sofa for days, just totally drugged and unproductive." 

Marinol has unpleasant side effects - as can be expected from a pill that is 99 percent THC. An April 1986 product insert from Roxane warned that Marinol elicits "disturbing psychiatric symptoms," and that even patients on low doses might experience "a full-blown picture of psychosis." The latter phrase has disappeared from recent product inserts, but experts say nothing has changed. 

"It's way too psychoactive," says Robert Randall, the glaucoma patient who was the first American to obtain marijuana legally from the government. "When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O'Connor." 


Marinol - "I wound up lying on the sofa for
days, just totally drugged and unproductive."


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

And that is why the cannabis plant in its "natural" form is safer than any synthetic crap - even cannabis based synthetics!


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> "I wound up lying on the sofa for days, just totally drugged and unproductive."



Welcome to my world


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, in the case of THC the natural variety is the one that's been 'tested' on people for hundreds of years, whereas the synthetic one is still something of an unknown quantity. As happened with thalidomide, the process of synthesis and manufacture can itself have unexpected consequences, even for substances that initially appear to be safe.



THC is THC is THC whether it comes from a plant or from a lab.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I fuckin' knew you'd come out with that shite!  Leaving that sixties hippy bollocks behind -
> 
> There are thousands & thousands of plants around the world that are far from safe, but yet they grow wild & are "natural" - cannabis on the other hand in its natural form is safe. But due to anti-cannabis loons, so-called Gov experts, media hysteria & a few kids fuckin' their heads up smoking poison in the form of soap bar, & commercial weed riddled with deadly organophosphates, cannabis is back to a point of being reclassified back to a Class B substance along side toxic substances such as amphetamines. Some idiots want to make "Skunk" a Class A fuckin' substance!
> That would really benefit people suffering from chronic pain & MS in this country who self medicate with a natural drug that is cannabis, & who no longer wish to poison themselves with synthetic drugs from the corporate capitalist bastard that is Big Pharma!



Except cannabis isn't totally safe is it?  It is linked to mental ill health in some people.  I agree it should be legal, I agree that capitalism is the problem, making money is the problem - what I disagree with is the distinction between natural and synthetic.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> THC is THC is THC whether it comes from a plant or from a lab.



Well, that's what they thought about thalidomide, as I just pointed out.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, that's what they thought about thalidomide, as I just pointed out.



Eh?  What on earth are you on about?  Was thalidomide a plant substance that was synthesised in a lab?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

Thalidomide was a drug that was proven to be safe in testing, but the process of commercial manufacture introduced a different isomer of the same compound that had the damaging effects that you see in thalidomide babies. The pharm company thought like you do  - that thalidomide was thalidomide, and they were horribly wrong.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Except cannabis isn't totally safe is it?  It is linked to mental ill health in some people.



Soap bar & OP's "maybe" linked to mental illness, & personally i believe that they are very much a contributer to mental health problems in some kids, but still there is still no evidence to confirm that "cannabis in its natural organic form", is not a safe substance is there Blags?



> what I disagree with is the distinction between natural and synthetic.



The two are different, or have i missed summat?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Except cannabis isn't totally safe is it?  It is linked to mental ill health in some people.  I agree it should be legal, I agree that capitalism is the problem, making money is the problem - what I disagree with is the distinction between natural and synthetic.



But why is it that cannabis is singled out for this sort of treatment, when we all know that there are a range of other substances that can cause mental health problems - alcohol included? There is an obvious ideological dimension to the anti-argument and it looks ever weaker and more ridiculous each time I see it. Like I keep saying: if it wasn't for William Randolph Hearst we would not be having this debate.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm looking forward to reading the results of the study for "CRISP (Cannabis Resin Impurities Survey Project) being conducted by ISPS (Institute for the Study of Psychoactive Substances)."


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Thalidomide was a drug that was proven to be safe in testing, but the process of commercial manufacture introduced a different isomer of the same compound that had the damaging effects that you see in thalidomide babies. The pharm company thought like you do  - that thalidomide was thalidomide, and they were horribly wrong.



Which is a completely different argument to the one here, so I don't see the relevance really.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Soap bar & OP's "maybe" linked to mental illness, & personally i believe that they are very much a contributer to mental health problems in some kids, but still there is still no evidence to confirm that "cannabis in its natural organic form", is not a safe substance is there Blags?



There is no evidence one way or the other at the moment.  There is plenty of anecdotal evidence on both sides though.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> The two are different, or have i missed summat?



Well from one pov, we are products of nature therefore anything we do is a product of nature.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> But why is it that cannabis is singled out for this sort of treatment, when we all know that there are a range of other substances that can cause mental health problems - alcohol included? There is an obvious ideological dimension to the anti-argument and it looks ever weaker and more ridiculous each time I see it. Like I keep saying: if it wasn't for William Randolph Hearst we would not be having this debate.



It isn't singled out IMO.  That's just paranoia from smoking too much


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> It isn't singled out IMO.  That's just paranoia from smoking too much



I'm not sure if your are actually joking. But from what I've seen in my life, cannabis is often described as a "gateway drug" and so forth. Moreover, whenever data is published that highlights the benefits of cannabis, there is an accompanying backlash that claims much the same as before. Sensible debate on this subject is not possible when there is, on the other side of the 'debate', a deeply entrenched ideological position that holds onto the notion that cannabis is a social evil. This is a position that has changed little from the days of Hearst's anti-Mexican scare stories.


----------



## laptop (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Which is a completely different argument to the one here, so I don't see the relevance really.



Unfortunately there may be an issue. 

Marinol, being synthetic THC, will almost certainly be a 50:50 mix of laevo-delta-1-THC and dextro-delta-1-THC (those are exactly the same molecule apart from being mirror images of each other). 

Alexander Shulgin notes the existence of at least 10 forms of THC, including laevo-delta-2-THC and dextro-delta-2-THC - see http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=10812

I didn't manage to find out what proportions they appear in in herbal cannabis: the proportions to appear to change as the weed ages. 

(Other sources number the atoms differently and call laevo-delta-1-THC laevo-delta-9-THC just to add to the confusion. Stoned analytical chemists, anyone?)


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> Which is a completely different argument to the one here, so I don't see the relevance really.



My point was that the process of mass-producing something as a pharmaceutical can have unexpected consequences, which I thought was relevant. Smoking THC in plant material has a long history, popping synthetic industrially produced THC in pills doesn't, and since any reaction tends to end with an equilibrium rather than a simple product in the way that you'd imagine, until I'm absolutely sure that the effects are the same I'll reserve judgement about it - particularly given the stuff-ups that have occurred in the past through faulty assumptions of this nature.



> Well from one pov, we are products of nature therefore anything we do is a product of nature.



It seems to me that you're wriggling, 'cos you've made a few assertions that you can't back up. What's the point of defining natural such that there's no possibility of anything being synthetic, other than to get yourself out of a tight spot? Added to which, you still haven't clarified that nonsense about how a stoned person can't be 'in touch with their emotions', despite me asking nicely at least a couple of times.

The pose of 'everyone is deluding themselves but me' may be seductive, but I think there'd be less need for all this thrashing around if you actually understood more about the subject that you're pontificating about.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if your are actually joking. But from what I've seen in my life, cannabis is often described as a "gateway drug" and so forth. Moreover, whenever data is published that highlights the benefits of cannabis, there is an accompanying backlash that claims much the same as before. Sensible debate on this subject is not possible when there is, on the other side of the 'debate', a deeply entrenched ideological position that holds onto the notion that cannabis is a social evil. This is a position that has changed little from the days of Hearst's anti-Mexican scare stories.



Yes, there is a lot of bullshit from the government etc.  Unfortunately there is also a lot of bullshit from the pro-cannabis lobby as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a lot of bullshit from the government etc.  Unfortunately there is also a lot of bullshit from the pro-cannabis lobby as well.



I think a lot of it comes from the government, state and its various apparatuses. But then I would say that being on the other side of the debate.   But the fact remains that the prohibition of cannabis stems from the racism of one man.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> My point was that the process of mass-producing something as a pharmaceutical can have unexpected consequences, which I thought was relevant. Smoking THC in plant material has a long history, popping synthetic industrially produced THC in pills doesn't, and since any reaction tends to end with an equilibrium rather than a simple product in the way that you'd imagine, until I'm absolutely sure that the effects are the same I'll reserve judgement about it - particularly given the stuff-ups that have occurred in the past through faulty assumptions of this nature.



However THC is THC (with the isomer proviso that laptop has posted).  This distinction that natural = good and synthetic = bad is just hippy bollocks.
What is the problem is the profit to be made, not the distinction.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you're wriggling, 'cos you've made a few assertions that you can't back up. What's the point of defining natural such that there's no possibility of anything being synthetic, other than to get yourself out of a tight spot? Added to which, you still haven't clarified that nonsense about how a stoned person can't be 'in touch with their emotions', despite me asking nicely at least a couple of times.



See above.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The pose of 'everyone is deluding themselves but me' may be seductive, but I think there'd be less need for all this thrashing around if you actually understood more about the subject that you're pontificating about.



Sorry, what pose?  What is it that I don't understand?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> I think a lot of it comes from the government, state and its various apparatuses. But then I would say that being on the other side of the debate.   But the fact remains that the prohibition of cannabis stems from the racism of one man.



Yes, a lot of was to do with racism, however thats not the whole story.  Some of it was to do with Du Pont and industrialisation of fibre production as well.
However, you're polarising the debate too much, which has been my point all along.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 positions IMO.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, a lot of was to do with racism, however thats not the whole story.  Some of it was to do with Du Pont and industrialisation of fibre production as well.
> However, you're polarising the debate too much, which has been my point all along.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 positions IMO.



How am I polarising the debate? I'm merely pulling in as many discursive threads as possible (from my side of the debate), particularly those that never get mentioned by the state, who is content with putting forward an argument that lacks historical perspective.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

This looks like a polarised position to me - "on the other side of the debate".




			
				nino_savatte said:
			
		

> But then I would say that being on the other side of the debate.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> However THC is THC (with the isomer proviso that laptop has posted). This distinction that natural = good and synthetic = bad is just hippy bollocks.



But I didn't say that did I. I really can't tell whether you're being obtuse or you're just teeth-grindingly stupid - I hope for your sake that it's the former. 

Let me spell it out:

Synthetic THC almost certainly has different isomers of the THC molecule, and certainly in different ratios to the natural product.

History shows us (thalidomide) that different isomers of the same substance can have radically different effects - sometimes one can be inert while the other is highly damaging.

Additionally, all synthetic products will inevitably contain by-products that aren't present in the natural product.

While there's no reason a priori to prefer a natural product to a synthetic one, people have been using the natural product for a long time now, with no clear causative correlation between it's use and any serious health problems. Populations have been observed (as in the Australian study) where a marked increase in use wasn't accompanied by an increase in any associated disorder. No studies on anything like the same scale or time-frame have been done on the synthetic eqivalents.

-> 'THC is just THC' is a fucking stupid thing to say.

Now back to stoners having no emotions....


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> But I didn't say that did I. I really can't tell whether you're being obtuse or you're just teeth-grindingly stupid - I hope for your sake that it's the former.
> 
> Let me spell it out:
> 
> ...



OK, thank you.  if you'd said that in the first place (although I suspect you just read laptops link) we wouldn't be having this stupid debate.  I still fail to see how thalidomide is relevant though.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Now back to stoners having no emotions....



Good straw man there.  Now how about you actually attempt to read the thread this time eh?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

I've read it from top to bottom. You've been a condescending penis so far, I'm hoping that things look up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I've read it from top to bottom. You've been a condescending penis so far, I'm hoping that things look up.



LOL!   Maybe you need some comprehension skills then.  If you want some basic skills courses, I can reccomend some.  Now go back and read the thread again - where did I say stoners have no emotions?


hows that for condescending?

Prick


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

Once more with feeling:




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Getting stoned every day means that you're never going to be properly in touch with your own emotions



Cretin


----------



## laptop (Jun 22, 2005)

However, it's *rather unlikely* that there'll be a *big* issue, since (as far as I can see) all the isomers are present in natural cannabis and there's been a marked absence of people keeling over after taking cannabis during recorded history.

Meanwhile, question for all posters concerned about "naturalness":


I show you a glass jar full of chlorine, a greenish highly poisonous gas
I pick up a bottle full of oil marked "Danger!", remove from it a chunk of sodium, a silvery-grey metal, and put put that into the jar 
I light the sodium
The bottom of the jar fills up with white ash
When all is finished, I offer you a dab of the ash to eat.

What would you do?


----------



## Corax (Jun 22, 2005)

Ask you where m'chips were.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

How can you still fail to see how thalidomide is relevant? It's an example of different isomers of the same compound with different effects, and a major pharmaceutical stuff-up arising from them. I'm aware of the existence of different isomers of THC, which is why I brought up the different isomers of thalidomide in the fucking first place, twunt.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a lot of bullshit from the government etc.  Unfortunately there is also a lot of bullshit from the pro-cannabis lobby as well.



Medi users want the RIGHT to use a naturally occuring medicine that's been used by humans for thousands of years, a medicine that helps them cope with chronic pain on a daily basis. Would you call that bullshit?

The pro-cannabis lobby has shaken off hippydom years ago Blags.



> the process of mass-producing something as a pharmaceutical can have unexpected consequences, which I thought was relevant. Smoking THC in plant material has a long history, popping synthetic industrially produced THC in pills doesn't



Exactly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Once more with feeling:
> 
> 
> 
> Cretin



I'll ask you again shall I, seeing as you seem to be having trouble with the English language today - where did I say that stoners have no emotions?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> How can you still fail to see how thalidomide is relevant? It's an example of different isomers of the same compound with different effects, and a major pharmaceutical stuff-up arising from them. I'm aware of the existence of different isomers of THC, which is why I brought up the different isomers of thalidomide in the fucking first place, twunt.



Try reading laptop's post - he actually knows what he is talking about.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Medi users want the RIGHT to use a naturally occuring medicine that's been used by humans for thousands of years, a medicine that helps them cope with chronic pain on a daily basis. Would you call that bullshit?
> 
> The pro-cannabis lobby has shaken off hippydom years ago Blags.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think that people should have the right to use cannabis too.  No where have I argued otherwise.  Where the bullshit is however, is in this insistence on natural being better, on denying any detrimental effects of cannabis use, in fact most of this fucking thread!


----------



## bmd (Jun 22, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> However, it's *rather unlikely* that there'll be a *big* issue, since (as far as I can see) all the isomers are present in natural cannabis and there's been a marked absence of people keeling over after taking cannabis during recorded history.
> 
> Meanwhile, question for all posters concerned about "naturalness":
> 
> ...



Let's see:

Highly poisonous gas? Check

Oil marked 'Danger'? Check

Eat resulting ash of the two dangerous substances? 

Takes account of past experiences regarding dangerous and poisonous substances, decides not to eat ash.

What's your point?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Let's see:
> 
> Highly poisonous gas? Check
> 
> ...



I think the point is that the ash is sodium chloride - table salt.  So, as Corax says, ask for some chips...


----------



## bmd (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think the point is that the ash is sodium chloride - table salt.  So, as Corax says, ask for some chips...



Fair enough.

But if I didn't know that then I would go on my experiences and what I'd read on the labels and not go anywhere near it. I don't see what the point is in regard to this thread. That you can make a naturally occurring substance from two very poisonous ones? So is this THC made from poisonous substances? Is that it?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Bob Marleys Dad said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> But if I didn't know that then I would go on my experiences and what I'd read on the labels and not go anywhere near it. I don't see what the point is in regard to this thread. That you can make a naturally occurring substance from two very poisonous ones? So is this THC made from poisonous substances? Is that it?



I think the point is that the distinction between natural and synthetic is often a fatuous one.  The problem here is not about natural vs synthetic (IMO), its about profit - ultimately capitalism - drug companies are in the business of making profits for shareholders, thats the bottom line.  They want to be able to patent and sell a synthetic version of cannabis, so want to discourage people self-medicating with the plant as it would affect profits.  The natural/synthetic distinction is just a chimera, a distraction from the real issue.  IMO natch, before fruitloop throws another hissyfit.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> Try reading laptop's post - he actually knows what he is talking about.



Try pointing out where laptop's (excellent) post is at odds with anything I've said so far, fuckwit. Marinol is supposed to be 50:50 laevo-delta-1-THC and dextro-delta-1-THC, but who's to say the manufacturing process is perfect? Their could be isomers of THC produced by a commercial synthesis that don't occur naturally at all, and who can say what the effects might be, even in trace amounts.

You said that 'people who smoke weed every day (who I would call stoners) can never be 'properly in touch with their emotions'. I did ask nicely for a clarification of the hippy cack that is 'in touch with their emotions', but didn't get any concrete answer - no surprise there. So maybe stoners have emotions, but they're not 'in touch with them', whatever the fuck that means.

Laptop: I'd be wondering what else still remained in your jar before I started sprinkling it on my chips, personally.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> You said that 'people who smoke weed every day (who I would call stoners) can never be 'properly in touch with their emotions'. I did ask nicely for a clarification of the hippy cack that is 'in touch with their emotions', but didn't get any concrete answer - no surprise there. So maybe stoners have emotions, but they're not 'in touch with them', whatever the fuck that means.



Maybe I haven't explained myself too well, but its a view I have come to from experience of working with recovering drug users in rehabs and day services.  My point is, that if you are using drugs every day, you are in fact changing your state of mind, changing emotions using a drug - doing this every day doesn't give a person the chance to actually "sit with their feelings" (a common term in rehabs and other therapeutic environments), to learn to acknowledge and be comfortable with their own emotions.  If someone feels the need to change their state of mind every day, I'd guess that they probably have some uncomfortable emotions they don't want to deal with - I did when I was smoking everyday.  If someone was drinking everyday or taking any other drug everyday, most people would say they might have a problem.  Why should cannabis be any different?


----------



## laptop (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> There could be isomers of THC produced by a commercial synthesis that don't occur naturally at all



I've mislaid the links I had this morning. I recall them saying that both stereo-isomers of delta-1-THC occur in nature. 

I don't know the details of THC synthesis (and if I did I've have to shoot me), but:

*a* I think you'd have to try quite hard to produce other forms;

*b* I'd be very, very surprised if it didn't involve some extremely nasty chemicals.

And that's part of the point about the "natural" argument. Some people believe in atomic theory, and for  them my "ash" is indistinguishable from table salt. Others don't. 

BMD's point about experience is a good description of one of the ways people construct narratives about substances and those were the point of my little story. Now I've told you  it's salt, will  you put it on your chips? Or will it need a professor of chemistry?



> Laptop: I'd be wondering what else still remained in your jar before I started sprinkling it on my chips, personally.



That'll be the narrative about "contamination".

Air? All the sodium has visibly burned up. You can leave it in a breezy place to ventilate any remaining chlorine as long as you like.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> ...If someone was drinking everyday or taking any other drug everyday, most people would say they might have a problem...


What about people who go to the gym or run miles every day (and feel shit if they don't)? A lot of people drink a lot of tea or coffee every day (and/or smoke cigarettes) and would probably be all grumpy if they couldn't.

Re. the organic versus synthetic argument: Marijuana contains a large and complex mix of chemicals, so it is a flawed to compare it with 99% pure THC taken as capsules. Isn't the effect of crack cocaine different from cocaine powder mainly due to it being smoked (speed/profile of drug entering blood stream?) - which suggests that the body can react differently depending on *how* something is taken. 

If a synthetic substance was made so it was *exactly* like a given sample of marijuana it would have to contain all sorts of stuff, probably almost impossibly complex to make at the moment. There is no clear understanding how the different substances in marijuana interact with each other. Basically what I am saying is that you can't pretend that synthetic THC capsules are identical to organic marijuana regardless of any "philosophical/metaphycial" argument about organic-versus-synethic etc.


----------



## bmd (Jun 22, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> I've mislaid the links I had this morning. I recall them saying that both stereo-isomers of delta-1-THC occur in nature.
> 
> I don't know the details of THC synthesis (and if I did I've have to shoot me), but:
> 
> ...



I understand now, I like the way you made that point. 

For me to now put it on my chips I'd have to trust you and your expertise. If I had access to some naturally occurring salt that I'd always used then I could just rely on that and know that the taste of it and how it enhanced my chips would be exactly the same.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

I think we've come full circle here.

I guess my basic point is that almost everything that we ingest has an effect on brainstate in some way, and the fact that society ringfences some of these under the term 'drugs' doesn't necessarily tell you as much as it appears to. Dietary depletion of particular amino acids can have an effect on some individuals as profound as ingesting a 'drug', whilst the glycaemic index value of a lot of processed food can have a profound effect on mood - particularly in combination with the other daily drug of choice, caffeine. The whole picture gets a lot worse if you throw nicotine into the mix - particularly in combination with caffeine which potentiates its dopaminergic effects. In addition to this, environmental stress causes the release of corticotropin releasing factor, which is the same compound that's responsible for many of the symptoms of drug withdrawal.

So basically I think that the whole picture of a 'clean' state where an individual's  emotional state remains unperturbed by external influences is illusory - what you have is a bag of chemicals in constant flux. Added to which, there's no clear way to 'win' anyway- in many ways the whole system is wired up for pain and unpleasantness, as presumably the survival chances of an organism that was wired up for bliss would be pretty slim.

It remains a possibility that daily use of cannabis is damaging in the long term, although in contrast to many other drugs there are no observable physical changes in the brains of ex-dope smokers - which as drugs go is pretty rare. Long term nicotine users have increased nicotinic receptor sites, cocaine users have a shrunken amygdala, ecstasy user thin their serotonin neurons - where's the cannabis equivalent? 

I smoke every day, not for the purposes of escapism or to avoid anything that I don't want to deal with. In fact, the change in attention that you get with smoking can be helpful in sitting and thinking about unpleasant issues, of which there have been a few recently. So it does piss me off to be told that I'm in some way running away from things into smoking, when I know perfectly well that this isnt one of the motivations, and particularly since in my opinion cannabis would be a really poor choice of drug to use in this way.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

Laptop - there is also a (chemistry) "narrative" that nature can be described exactly by reducing it down to interactions of the elements. While these theories are very clear and incisive models for analysing nature, real life compounds and substances are far more messy and you have all the biology and physics that come in and mess up any neat description.

Sea salt and rock salt probably has tons of shit in it that some people like actually like and that is maybe 'useful' (don't they often 'iodise' salt?).


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What about people who go to the gym or run miles every day (and feel shit if they don't)? A lot of people drink a lot of tea or coffee every day (and/or smoke cigarettes) and would probably be all grumpy if they couldn't..



Yes, I'm presenting it in a simplistic way - its a bulletin board and I'm at work.  However, you're right - a lot of people use exercise in a similar way - a lot of people in recovery get really into going to the gym and maybe use it as a distraction - however I think its probably more beneficial than smoking.
Your tea/coffee/tobacco argument is irrelevant for reasons already dealt with on this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think we've come full circle here.
> 
> I guess my basic point is that almost everything that we ingest has an effect on brainstate in some way, and the fact that society ringfences some of these under the term 'drugs' doesn't necessarily tell you as much as it appears to. Dietary depletion of particular amino acids can have an effect on some individuals as profound as ingesting a 'drug', whilst the glycaemic index value of a lot of processed food can have a profound effect on mood - particularly in combination with the other daily drug of choice, caffeine. The whole picture gets a lot worse if you throw nicotine into the mix - particularly in combination with caffeine which potentiates its dopaminergic effects. In addition to this, environmental stress causes the release of corticotropin releasing factor, which is the same compound that's responsible for many of the symptoms of drug withdrawal.
> 
> ...



Yes, lots of things do have an effect on mood.  However, drugs are things we ingest for the sole purpose of profoundly changing our moods - they have no other purpose, so its a bit of a non-argument really.  Yes, the lines are blurred, but there is a difference between smoking weed and eating a banana for instance.

And no, I'm not telling you're "in some way running away from things into smoking" - I've been very careful to say that its only my opinion, but it is an opinion that comes from experience - both personal and professional.  If smoking everyday isn't a problem for you, then who am I to tell you that it is?  That certainly wasn't my intention.  However, if you had a friend who drank everyday or used any other drug everyday, might you think they had a problem (howver minor)?  Why should cannabis be any different?  Why do you feel the need to use drugs everyday?  Why are you so resistant to the idea that it might not be very healthy?  All I'm doing here is putting my pov across, I haven't been hostile and it hasn't been my intention to be patronising - you however have hurled loads of abuse at me...


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

So people who exercise every day to "fell better" have an emtional problem? Or do people who *don't* exercise every day and feel worse for it have the probolem?   

Re. Salt: This webpage lists 15 different types of salt: http://www.saltworks.us/salt_info/si_gourmet_reference.asp 

_"Manufacturers of sea salt typically do not refine sea salt as much as other kinds of salt, so it still contains traces of other minerals, including iron, magnesium, calcium, potassium, manganese, zinc and iodine."_

Some of these - eg iodine - are so important for human health that they are required to be added to "normal" table salt.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, lots of things do have an effect on mood.  However, drugs are things we ingest for the sole purpose of profoundly changing our moods - they have no other purpose, so its a bit of a non-argument really.


Many people might take a drug for its muscle-relaxing effects. For example I have arthritis and often smoke marijuana to relieve pain and muscle tightness to allow strething and mobility, and if I am trying to do some work regard getting 'stoned' as an undesirable side-effect. Are you saying that this is purely about 'mood changing'? Is there such a massive devide between 'mood' and 'physical' in any case? 'Physical' pain after all is mediated and 'felt' by the brain as is 'emotional' pain, and both can "hurt". Eating food can make you feel 'psychologically' better as can taking drugs. Some people get into "comfort eating" - other people have psychological 'eating disorders'. 

How do you draw a definite line between the two? Aren't "food" and "drugs" in fact both "chemicals" and just lie on different points on a continuous spectrum? A difference of degree rather than type?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> Yes, lots of things do have an effect on mood. However, drugs are things we ingest for the sole purpose of profoundly changing our moods - they have no other purpose, so its a bit of a non-argument really. Yes, the lines are blurred, but there is a difference between smoking weed and eating a banana for instance.
> 
> And no, I'm not telling you're "in some way running away from things into smoking" - I've been very careful to say that its only my opinion, but it is an opinion that comes from experience - both personal and professional. If smoking everyday isn't a problem for you, then who am I to tell you that it is? That certainly wasn't my intention. However, if you had a friend who drank everyday or used any other drug everyday, might you think they had a problem (howver minor)? Why should cannabis be any different? Why do you feel the need to use drugs everyday? Why are you so resistant to the idea that it might not be very healthy? All I'm doing here is putting my pov across, I haven't been hostile and it hasn't been my intention to be patronising - you however have hurled loads of abuse at me...



Various people have been trying to explain to you that drugs do have purposes other than changing 'mood' (tbh I'm still not that clear on what you mean by 'mood' in this context, you seem to use it interchangeably with brain-state, which I certainly wouldn't). As a musician a major reason why I use weed rather than other drugs is for the psychoacoustic effects and the way that it alters your auditory streaming - nothing to do with mood at all. 

If I had a friend who drank a lot every day then I could state with absolute certainty that it was doing them harm, both mental and physical - I can't do the same for weed. It's not that I'm resistant to the idea of it not being healthy, I just want any statements about its effects to be based on facts rather than supposition.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So people who exercise every day to "fell better" have an emtional problem? Or do people who *don't* exercise every day and feel worse for it have the probolem?



Fucks sake, I didn't say that did I?  If you want a sensible discussion then I'm up for it, if you're going to put words in my mouth, then there's no point.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

It's funny that you poicked the example of bananas by the way:



> *FEELING GRUMPY? HAVE A BANANA!*
> To change your mood, just change your eating habits - tuck into foods that will make your life easier. Next time you're feeling wound-up, worried or just plain miserable, the solution could lie in your fridge. And no, we're not talking about that chocolate eclair or nicely chilled bottle of Chardonnay! Appealing as they may seem when life isn't going your way, the sugar rush will only make you feel worse once it has worn off. But some foods do contain specific nutrients your brain needs to keep you feeling sharp and emotionally balanced. They may not instantly put you on top form, but eating them will help to improve your mood. Here are the best foods to choose when you can't shake the blues...


 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sexandhealt...feeling-grumpy--have-a-banana--name_page.html



> *Bananas, the good mood food.*
> 
> There is an increasing body of evidence that what we eat may alter the levels of chemical substances in the brain that affect our moods. Besides vitamins, we need amino acids, "the building blocks of protein", in our diet. Tryptophan, one such amino acid, stimulates the production of serotonin, a neuro-transmitter which has a calming effect on the body. When people have little or no tryptophan in their system, they may become tired or irritable or blue. About 45% of people suffering from depression are found to have a low level of serotonin in the brain. Anti-depressants, such as Prozac, work by regulating the body's serotonin levels. A natural alternative to consuming manufactured drugs is to simply eat more of the foods that stimulate the production of serotonin, such as bananas.


 http://www.turbana.com/produ_recipes/benefits.htm


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Various people have been trying to explain to you that drugs do have purposes other than changing 'mood' (tbh I'm still not that clear on what you mean by 'mood' in this context, you seem to use it interchangeably with brain-state, which I certainly wouldn't). As a musician a major reason why I use weed rather than other drugs is for the psychoacoustic effects and the way that it alters your auditory streaming - nothing to do with mood at all.



So it changing your relationship to music (which is primarily an emotional relationship) is not in fact changing your mood?  Errr...




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If I had a friend who drank a lot every day then I could state with absolute certainty that it was doing them harm, both mental and physical - I can't do the same for weed. It's not that I'm resistant to the idea of it not being healthy, I just want any statements about its effects to be based on facts rather than supposition.



So why is cannabis different to every other drug?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It's funny that you poicked the example of bananas by the way:
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/sexandhealt...feeling-grumpy--have-a-banana--name_page.html



Yes, thats exactly why I picked it.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

But bananas are different from potatos.

They are also different from hamburgers.

And they are different from marijuana.

What is your point?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Many people might take a drug for its muscle-relaxing effects. For example I have arthritis and often smoke marijuana to relieve pain and muscle tightness to allow strething and mobility, and if I am trying to do some work regard getting 'stoned' as an undesirable side-effect. Are you saying that this is purely about 'mood changing'? Is there such a massive devide between 'mood' and 'physical' in any case? 'Physical' pain after all is mediated and 'felt' by the brain as is 'emotional' pain, and both can "hurt". Eating food can make you feel 'psychologically' better as can taking drugs. Some people get into "comfort eating" - other people have psychological 'eating disorders'.



You're using cannabis to relieve a medical condition.  That is not what I'm debating is it?




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> How do you draw a definite line between the two? Aren't "food" and "drugs" in fact both "chemicals" and just lie on different points on a continuous spectrum? A difference of degree rather than type?



Yes, the lines are blurred.  But, as I just said, there is a definite difference between eating a banana and smoking a spliff isn't there?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> So it changing your relationship to music (which is primarily an emotional relationship) is not in fact changing your mood? Errr...



No, of course not. Like I said, it's mostly to do with auditory streaming (IMO). Is this dependent on 'mood'? Certainly not.

My misgivings about your use of the word mood are increasing...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> But bananas are different from potatos.
> 
> They are also different from hamburgers.
> 
> ...



Eh?  What is *your* point?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> No, of course not. Like I said, it's mostly to do with auditory streaming (IMO). Is this dependent on 'mood'? Certainly not.
> 
> My misgivings about your use of the word mood are increasing,,,,



What the fuck is "auditory streaming"?  Music has nothing to do with mood for you?  Errr...


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

If someone eats mood altering substances - bananas - every day, are they out of touch with their emotions and do they have a problem?


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're using cannabis to relieve a medical condition.  That is not what I'm debating is it?


Or to relieve the 'human condition' maybe?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> If someone eats mood altering substances - bananas - every day, are they out of touch with their emotions and do they have a problem?



If you want a debate, then lets have one.  If you want to be a dickhead, then I'm not interested.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> So why is cannabis different to every other drug?



Because with alcohol and cocaine etc etc I can explain how and why it happens - I can _prove_ it. I don't understand what the problem is with this


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Or to relieve the 'human condition' maybe?



Goodbye.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Because with alcohol and cocaine etc etc I can explain how and why it happens - I can _prove_ it. I don't understand what the problem is with this



What can you prove?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

How and why damage is occurring.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> How and why damage is occurring.



On a physical level, yes.  On an emotional level, how do you quantify it?   Drug problems and the emotional stuff that goes with it has very little to do with the physical processes involved and a lot do to with the emotional/pyschological.  If it was merely about physiological changes then staying off drugs would be easy - its not.  People kick and relapse all the time - something keeps pulling them back.  That emotional process is pretty much the same, whether its alcohol, heroin, crack, cannabis or gambling.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If you want a debate, then lets have one.  If you want to be a dickhead, then I'm not interested.


Blagsta, you are the one drawing a false dichotomy between "drugs" and "food", claiming there is a distinct difference, but then failing to say what that difference is. You are the one who has said (correct me if I have got this wrong) that people who smoke cannabis every day are out of touch with their emotions and have a problem.

I have shown you that bananas can have an impact on mood and asked you if people who eat bananas every day have the same problem as people who take cannabis every day.

I am interested in hearing you develop and/or calrify your argument. If you want to call me dickhead then that's your choice. What exactly is the defining difference between food and drugs? Between cannabis as a mood modifier and bananas as a mood modifier? Are they completely different *types* of things or is it just a difference of degree and magnitude?

I am interesting to hear what your thoughts are about this.

(edit: But for now I am going to go and have something to eat. Maybe a long, curved, yellow fruit.  Why not go have one yourself?  )


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> On a physical level, yes. On an emotional level, how do you quantify it? Drug problems and the emotional stuff that goes with it has very little to do with the physical processes involved and a lot do to with the emotional/pyschological. If it was merely about physiological changes then staying off drugs would be easy - its not. People kick and relapse all the time - something keeps pulling them back. That emotional process is pretty much the same, whether its alcohol, heroin, crack, cannabis or gambling.



I think it's a false dichotomy. The physical changes brought about by prolonged use of alcohol will result in 'emotional' and cognitive changes - have you ever seen a Wernicke's disease sufferer with a serious confabulation problem?   

If there was no actual measurable damage incurred through drinking every day then I can't see any arguments other than moral ones for not doing so.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> What the fuck is "auditory streaming"? Music has nothing to do with mood for you? Errr...



Just noticed this. Auditory streaming is the way that you turn a single point of pressure variation on the tympanic membrane into separate localised streams of sound - it explains why you can listen to someone talking with the TV on and not confuse the two. 

I don't actually think that music and mood have much to do with each other - this is kind of a weird and highly ethnocentric view that went out of fashion even in western aesthetics with Eduard Hanslick in the C19th, but I think that's probably an entirely different thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I think it's a false dichotomy. The physical changes brought about by prolonged use of alcohol will result in 'emotional' and cognitive changes - have you ever seen a Wernicke's disease sufferer with a serious confabulation problem?
> 
> If there was no actual measurable damage incurred through drinking every day then I can't see any arguments other than moral ones for not doing so.



So you think that just because we can't quantify and put in a tickbox emotional harm, that it doesn't exist?   I presume you've never known anyone in recovery then.

P.S.
My argument differs from a moral argument, because I'm not saying "it is bad/wrong", I'm saying that _in my opinion_, it is not emotionally healthy to be taking drugs everyday.  I then leave it up to the individual to take it or leave it.

P.P.S.
I used to have pretty much the same opinions as you.  They have changed partly through my professional work and partly through personal experiences and knowledge of psychodynamic therapy.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Just noticed this. Auditory streaming is the way that you turn a single point of pressure variation on the tympanic membrane into separate localised streams of sound - it explains why you can listen to someone talking with the TV on and not confuse the two.



So emotions and perception aren't linked?  It isn't any easier/harder to do this dependent on mood, anxiety etc?  Anyway, I'd always thought that I didn't confuse the telly and someone in the room speaking because I have 2 ears - my brain can locate sound in space.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't actually think that music and mood have much to do with each other - this is kind of a weird and highly ethnocentric view that went out of fashion even in western aesthetics with Eduard Hanslick in the C19th, but I think that's probably an entirely different thread.



So music and mood aren't linked?  People don't listen to music for the emotional affect it has?  Errr....


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Blagsta, you are the one drawing a false dichotomy between "drugs" and "food", claiming there is a distinct difference, but then failing to say what that difference is. You are the one who has said (correct me if I have got this wrong) that people who smoke cannabis every day are out of touch with their emotions and have a problem.
> 
> I have shown you that bananas can have an impact on mood and asked you if people who eat bananas every day have the same problem as people who take cannabis every day.
> 
> ...



Oh fuck off.  You're not even bothering to read the thread in context, so why should I bother enaging with you?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> So you think that just because we can't quantify and put in a tickbox emotional harm, that it doesn't exist?  I presume you've never known anyone in recovery then.



You presume wrong. I really don't know what you mean by emotional harm, you would have to clarify the terminology for me. I've known people who are recovering from addiction, people who are grieving, people with traumatic experiences in their past. As for substances causing 'emotional harm, nope, it's a new one to me.



> So emotions and perception aren't linked? It isn't any easier/harder to do this dependent on mood, anxiety etc? Anyway, I'd always thought that I didn't confuse the telly and someone in the room speaking because I have 2 ears - my brain can locate sound in space.



But you could still do it with only one ear. There's much more complexity to this issue than you realise. Auditory perception is affected to a certain extent by attention/arousal if that's what you mean, but only in its acuity. A dog barking is still a dog barking regardless of whether you're happy or sad.



> So music and mood aren't linked? People don't listen to music for the emotional affect it has? Errr....



Do I listen to a sad song in order to feel sad? Clearly not. The meaning of a musical work and my emotional state when listening to it are independent of each other. People listen to music for an almost infinite number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with emotion at all - don't be so quick to extrapolate from your own experience and suppositions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So why is cannabis different to every other drug?



Because it's unique. Nothing else in "nature" compares to the chemical make-up of the cannabis plant.

The word "drug" could mean anything today.

There's probably more kids fuckin' their developing brains up eating processed food & drinking fizzy pop which are riddled with chemical "drugs" than there are kids with cannabis problems. Do you ask your clients what their diet consists of?





> If someone eats mood altering substances - bananas - every day, are they out of touch with their emotions and do they have a problem?



Bananas will soon be a Class A substance!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> People kick and relapse all the time - something keeps pulling them back.  That emotional process is pretty much the same, whether its alcohol, heroin, crack, cannabis or gambling.



So now you're lumping cannabis in with highly addictive substances as crack & heroin   

Ever thought about writing for a newspaper Blag?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> You presume wrong. I really don't know what you mean by emotional harm, you would have to clarify the terminology for me. I've known people who are recovering from addiction, people who are grieving, people with traumatic experiences in their past. As for substances causing 'emotional harm, nope, it's a new one to me.



So recovery from addiction is purely about the physical recovery is it?  Maybe you should be working for the NTA, I'm sure they'd love to hear your novel theories on drug problems.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> But you could still do it with only one ear. There's much more complexity to this issue than you realise. Auditory perception is affected to a certain extent by attention/arousal if that's what you mean, but only in its acuity. A dog barking is still a dog barking regardless of whether you're happy or sad.



This is where I'd disagree with you.  A dog barking is not "just a dog barking" - it brings to mind all sorts of associations and memories - what these are will be dependent on mood.  IME emotion is primary in our everyday experience.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Do I listen to a sad song in order to feel sad? Clearly not. The meaning of a musical work and my emotional state when listening to it are independent of each other. People listen to music for an almost infinite number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with emotion at all - don't be so quick to extrapolate from your own experience and suppositions.



Oh well, if that's your experience, then fine.  I'd be willing to bet that most people would disagree with you though.  It begs the question then, why do you listen to music in the first place?  I'd also argue that actually, everything is filtered through mood/emotion - its primary in the experience of human beings IME.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> So now you're lumping cannabis in with highly addictive substances as crack & heroin



Oh for fucks sake Bishie.  Ask yer missus, she should know what I mean.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Ever thought about writing for a newspaper Blag?



ha ha


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Because it's unique. Nothing else in "nature" compares to the chemical make-up of the cannabis plant.
> 
> The word "drug" could mean anything today.
> 
> ...



So cannabis *is* special, in a class apart from every other drug?  On what do you base this?


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2005)

> My argument differs from a moral argument, because I'm not saying "it is bad/wrong", I'm saying that in my opinion, it is not emotionally healthy to be taking drugs everyday. I then leave it up to the individual to take it or leave it.


Is it "emotionally healthy" to be eating bananas every day? Or doing exercise? How do you measure or assess "emotional health"? This is a serious question btw.  



> I used to have pretty much the same opinions as you. They have changed partly through my professional work and partly through personal experiences and knowledge of psychodynamic therapy.


What is your profession?

Re. Psychodynamic Therapy:





> Psychodynamic therapy ... is a general name for therapeutic approaches which try to get the patient to bring to the surface their true feelings, so that they can experience them and understand them. ... [it] uses the basic assumption that everyone has an unconscious mind [the subconscious], and that feelings held in the unconscious mind are often too painful to be faced. Thus we come up with defences to protect us knowing about these painful feelings. An example of one of these defences is called denial.


 http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/204.html

Maybe some people do use drugs to avoid problems or remain 'in denial', but that doesn't mean that everyone uses drugs for this reason, just as many people go to the pub after work or have a glass of wine in the evening to help them relax. Surely many people use marijuana, tobacco and coffee in a similar way?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Is it "emotionally healthy" to be eating bananas every day? Or doing exercise? How do you measure or assess "emotional health"? This is a serious question btw.



If someone was eating bananas to the detriment of a balanced diet or was going to the gym obsessively to the detriment of the rest of their life, then I'd guess they had a problem, yes.  Its not up to me to assess emotional health, its ultimately up to the individual - I can make educated and informed comment though.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> What is your profession?



I work for a drugs service, helping people back into work/education.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> Re. Psychodynamic Therapy: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/204.html
> 
> Maybe some people do use drugs to avoid problems or remain 'in denial', but that doesn't mean that everyone uses drugs for this reason, just as many people go to the pub after work or have a glass of wine in the evening to help them relax. Surely many people use marijuana, tobacco and coffee in a similar way?



Yes, many people do.  Have I argued otherwise?  Please try and engage with what I actually write, not what you merely imagine that I write.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh for fucks sake Bishie.  Ask yer missus, she should know what I mean.



I know what you meant Blags, & cannabis ain't crack or heroin. 



> So cannabis *is* special, in a class apart from every other drug? On what do you base this?



Never said it was special like a gift. I said it was unique. No other plant on Earth compares to the chemical make-up.

Same as the Salvia plant - it's unique to the plant world 

Blags. Do you ask your clients what their diet consists of?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 22, 2005)

> So recovery from addiction is purely about the physical recovery is it? Maybe you should be working for the NTA, I'm sure they'd love to hear your novel theories on drug problems.



Who said that, Mr Arsy? To quote - there's no point in debating if you're going to put words in my mouth. As far as I'm concerned it's another false dichotomy anyway - it's all physical unless you're worried about your immortal soul.

If we want to talk wacky theories, everything being filtered through 'mood' (you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by this word) is as wacky as they come. Emotion being primary in our everyday experience is something you will have to justify rather than simply assert, as I still maintain that if you play a thousand people in every conceivable emotional state a recording of a dog barking and ask them what they hear, they'll tell you it's a dog barking.

If everything was indeed filtered through emotion, why would people bother to listen to music for emotional purposes? If this were the case then they could experience the same wash of feeling listening to, say, a dog barking. And how does your aesthetic theory deal with music without emotional content - Boulez's total serialism, or John Cage's aleatory?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I know what you meant Blags, & cannabis ain't crack or heroin.



I haven't said that it is have I?  Look - all I'm saying is that the emotional and psychlogical processes of addiction are pretty similar whatever it is someone is addicted too.  Why do you think there are 12 step programmes for things as diverse as alcohol, heroin, cannabis and gambling 




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Never said it was special like a gift. I said it was unique. No other plant on Earth compares to the chemical make-up.
> 
> Same as the Salvia plant - it's unique to the plant world



Yes, its a unique plant.  So...what?  Its a drug, people use it to alter their mood.  The underlying emotional processes for addictions to any drug are usually the same.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Blags. Do you ask your clients what their diet consists of?



No, I don't deal with people's addictions directly.  Yes, diet is important in mood, I haven't denied otherwise.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Who said that, Mr Arsy?



You're the one that started flinging insults around.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> To quote - there's no point in debating if you're going to put words in my mouth. As far as I'm concerned it's another false dichotomy anyway - it's all physical unless you're worried about your immortal soul.



Eh?  Of course things are physical.  But tell me, how do you physically quanitify emotion and people's inner lives?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If we want to talk wacky theories, everything being filtered through 'mood' (you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by this word) is as wacky as they come. Emotion being primary in our everyday experience is something you will have to justify rather than simply assert, as I still maintain that if you play a thousand people in every conceivable emotional state a recording of a dog barking and ask them what they hear, they'll tell you it's a dog barking.



Emotion *is* primary - think about it.  We have emotions, we always have an emotional state.  Our reactions to everyday experience is emotional.  Unless you're autistic or something similar of course.  A dog barking has meaning doesn't it?  How do you think the human brain creates meaning?  Is meaning affected by emotion?  I happen to think it is, anyone with any experience of therapy or counselling will tell you the same.  Primacy of emotion Vs cognition is a big debate in psychology.  I happen to think that cognition is filtered through emotion.  Why do I think this?  Experience mainly and from talking to my g/f who works in a psychodynamic way with emotionally disturbed kids in a learning environment.  One kid who couldn't read, turns out he had massive anxiety due to his background.  A few weeks of establishing a good emotional relationship with my g/f and he sits in class and actively wants to learn - this is a kid who a few weeks ago would have a total fit and run and hide when asked to read.  It's quite clear that it was his anxiety stopping him.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> If everything was indeed filtered through emotion, why would people bother to listen to music for emotional purposes? If this were the case then they could experience the same wash of feeling listening to, say, a dog barking



Eh?  How so?  




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> And how does your aesthetic theory deal with music without emotional content - Boulez's total serialism, or John Cage's aleatory?



Its still emotional - even if the reaction is purely "intellectual" - the reaction of finding no feeling, is an emotional one.  Google "primacy of emotion" and see what you come up with.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Is it "emotionally healthy" to be eating bananas every day? Or doing exercise? How do you measure or assess "emotional health"? This is a serious question btw.
> 
> What is your profession?
> 
> ...



An utterly extraordinary post .. forget all you ever knew 
<waves fist at coffee> 
Fuck off coffee   

The maaan on the street drinks fucking tea 
Urban has no room for the common maaan 
She has been ethnically cleansed if ya loike .. Garf (ello bruv) .. of the working class and the Paddies heh heh. 
Spud Murphy .. óu ést la ? Say no more :-/
Fackin wacky baccy Urban .. it's tearing the community in two   
Fackin drug pusher scum


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Look - this is my position


cannabis should be legalised
the government spout complete crap most of the time about drugs
its pretty much harmless for most users
some people however experience negative effects
there is a lot of denial on the pro-cannabis side of cannabis' potential to cause harm to mental health
some people do experience an addiction and problem use with cannabis however this is (usually) very mild compared to other drugs
the emotional processes underlying any addiction are fairly similar
taking any powerful psychoactive drug daily is not healthy

I hope that clears it up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

I just thought of a good example to illustrate my point about emotional harm of drug taking.  Heroin is a drug which has very few physical side effects.  In its pure form (i.e. not street smack), an addict could probably take it every day for years and come to very little physical harm.  However what often happens with addicts when they come off is that they are in "arrested development" (no, not the hip hop group), i.e. they have been taking painkilling drugs for so long that they haven't emotionally grown - a 40 year old addict will often behave like a teenager, usually because this is when they started taking gear.  They have blocked out their feelings so much that they haven't grown, they haven't developed.  Most people who have worked in residential rehabs will tell you that it is often like dealing with petulant teenagers.  One of the main functions of a rehab is to try to address and repair this emotional damage.  If the damage that drugs did was purely about the physical aspects of addiction, then why would this happen?
Now, I'm *not* saying that cannabis has anything like the same effect that heroin does - however, I do believe that everyday use _could_ be detrimental to healthy emotional development.
No, I haven't any "hard" evidence, just my own experiences, but it makes sense to me and to other drug professionals I have discussed this with.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jun 22, 2005)

Re importance of emotion, I would _urgently_ recommend reading neurologist Antonio P Damasio - "Descartes' Error" or (perhaps just) his next book "The Feeling of What Is".  Damasio certainly seems to make a very strong case for the importance of emotion to me at any rate, though I'm not an expert.  The example he gives is people who have had damage to part of the brain that facilitates feeling emotion - such people can't choose which pair of socks to put on the morning, no matter how long they think about it.  How we make decision involves giving an emotional weighting to supposedly "purely logical" thinking.  At a fundamental, infrastructural neurological level, we find emotion.  From this point of view Fruitloop's examples are a bit specious.  For example, the decision over what sort of music to play would depend on emotion and how one might want to change or enhance it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Aye, you right Blags, & i'm gunna have me last say on it 

There needs to be far more research into what is actually being taken by people who experience mental health problems when the word "cannabis" is used.

Neil M's study will play an important part of peicing the jigsaw together.

Soap bar, as sure as an arse is hairy, ain't cannabis.

OP's are deadly nerve poisons which commercial cash croppers are using. They ain't gunna be smoking the final product, so why should they give a shit what crap they punt.

This is what people are smoking. 

And i reckon Mr Socks has summed up quite beautifully   



> such people can't choose which pair of socks to put on the morning, no matter how long they think about it



What's all this shouting about socks god damn???


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Aye, you right Blags, & i'm gunna have me last say on it
> 
> There needs to be far more research into what is actually being taken by people who experience mental health problems when the word "cannabis" is used.
> 
> ...



I agree whole heartedly that there needs to be research into these things.  However, I also think that you're in denial over the effect that cannabis alone can have.  I've smoked good weed, grown without the use of organophosphates (I used to live in a house with a grow room) - it had the ability to make me just as anxious and paranoid as any other weed.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Shoulda bought yourself a decent magnifying glass, & had a good look at the colour of them there trichs then


----------



## Addy (Jun 22, 2005)

Rightly so


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Shoulda bought yourself a decent magnifying glass, & had a good look at the colour of them there trichs then



This means nothing to me I'm afraid.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Have you read the thread?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Have you read the thread?



Yes thanks.  Considering I haven't bought any weed for about 8 years, I don't really pay much attention to the technical ins and outs of cannabis cultivation.  I leave that to spods like you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm only winding ya up 

Funny ole plant though, ain't she? 

Got some lovely organically grown cucumbers on the go right now - Brunex F1 - amazing flavour to 'em, & nothing quite like i've ever tasted before


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

tOka would have loved this thread .

*am feeling slightly nostalgic and wishes he was here to read


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I'm only winding ya up



I know, me too 




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Funny ole plant though, ain't she?
> 
> Got some lovely organically grown cucumbers on the go right now - Brunex F1 - amazing flavour to 'em, & nothing quite like i've ever tasted before



Hows Cornwall treating you?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

oddworld said:
			
		

> tOka would have loved this thread .
> 
> *am feeling slightly nostalgic and wishes he was here to read



He's probably reading it right now, & calling Blags a c*nt lol whilst shouting "Free the Weed" from angelic heights  

Cornwall is Cornwall Blags, a world within a world, so if i bump into toby i'll stick one on him just for you mate 

Respect to the Fruitloopery One & Teejay for their sound input on this thread - keep on keepin' on folks  

*"We have a dream - that one day people around the world who are suffering from chronic pain & disease will be given their "basic human right" to self-medicate with cannabis to alleviate that pain!"*


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> He's probably reading it right now, & calling Blags a c*nt whilst shouting "Free the Weed" from angelic heights



I really hope so Bish , he wasnt passionate about many things but this subject and I saw him respond.

Good or bad , I dunno , I miss him either way.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> if i bump into toby i'll stick one on him just for you mate



I would suggest that might be a bit more difficult than you think. Many have tried over the years and regretted it, one way or another.


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I would suggest that might be a bit more difficult than you think. Many have tried over the years and regretted it, one way or another.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 22, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I would suggest that might be a bit more difficult than you think. Many have tried over the years and regretted it, one way or another.



Do you bore them to death with your endless stream of "facts"?


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

* Am waiting for a comment re tOka tobyjug ?


----------



## Celt (Jun 22, 2005)

Odds - Whenever I look at the drugs forum I see two threads that taught me a lot, both started by tOka - "Still smoking soap" and "Weed not just for smoking",   I was totally unaware of the  difference between Soap and Hash,  Toka discussed it without making me feel a fool about it,  Having made the discovery I have gone on to pass the knowledge on and be much more careful of what I buy.  True Hash yum, yum


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you bore them to death with your endless stream of "facts"?



One thing he couldn't bore whilst wearing concrete boots, is the crab & conger Blags


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

Celt said:
			
		

> Odds - Whenever I look at the drugs forum I see two threads that taught me a lot, both started by tOka - "Still smoking soap" and "Weed not just for smoking",   I was totally unaware of the  difference between Soap and Hash,  Toka discussed it without making me feel a fool about it,  Having made the discovery I have gone on to pass the knowledge on and be much more careful of what I buy.  True Hash yum, yum


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

Sorry guys , didnt want to make this about tOka , had a bit of a day and it just makes me think.

Moving on .............. Apologies 

As you were


----------



## rorymac (Jun 22, 2005)

Cornwall is wufter country .. piss weak beer and cissy drugs .. all in touch with fucking nature !
Nature aint all that .. it's fuckin shit obviously 
< studies Alma Estate with binoculars >
<Assassinates Alma Estate wrongun  >
KaPOW KAPOW Mr Drug Baron 
Not your lucky day 
<goes straight up Vera Ferik in the bungalow at Galliard Road .. the house of ill repute I call it lol >


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 22, 2005)

rorymac said:
			
		

> Cornwall is wufter country .. piss weak beer and cissy drugs .. all in touch with fucking nature !
> Nature aint all that .. it's fuckin shit obviously
> < studies Alma Estate with binoculars >
> <Assassinates Alma Estate wrongun  >
> ...



LOL 



> Sorry guys , didnt want to make this about tOka , had a bit of a day and it just makes me think.



Don't fret hon - keep on keepin' on & step lightly


----------



## oddworld (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Don't fret hon - keep on keepin' on & step lightly



Fret is my bloody middle name


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> Emotion is primary - think about it. We have emotions, we always have an emotional state. Our reactions to everyday experience is emotional.



I reckon we've reached the nub of our disagreement, then. True, we always have an emotional state, but then we always have a blood-sugar level as well - constancy is no guarantee of primacy. Personally I see consciousness as primarily cognitive, and thought as primarily symbolic. Some of the things that you would term emotion I guess I would think about in terms of attention or arousal, or possibly reward/aversion. Likewise in my opinion music is an ordered system of signification which _can _ represent affective states but can just as easily represent things in the world (the 'Carnival of the Animals'), abstract orderings of tones ('Gruppen') or nothing at all (total serialism). 

I don't know much about psychodynamic therapy, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it's a useful picture from a therapeutic point of view, but as to whether it represents a true picture of the world in terms of what's going on inside the 'wet machines' of our brains, I think there are more accurate models out there.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This looks like a polarised position to me - "on the other side of the debate".



And your position isn't?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I reckon we've reached the nub of our disagreement, then. True, we always have an emotional state, but then we always have a blood-sugar level as well - constancy is no guarantee of primacy. Personally I see consciousness as primarily cognitive, and thought as primarily symbolic. Some of the things that you would term emotion I guess I would think about in terms of attention or arousal, or possibly reward/aversion. Likewise in my opinion music is an ordered system of signification which _can _ represent affective states but can just as easily represent things in the world (the 'Carnival of the Animals'), abstract orderings of tones ('Gruppen') or nothing at all (total serialism).



Just as you've asked me to back up my pov, how about you do the same?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I don't know much about psychodynamic therapy, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it's a useful picture from a therapeutic point of view, but as to whether it represents a true picture of the world in terms of what's going on inside the 'wet machines' of our brains, I think there are more accurate models out there.



Like?

[edit]
You seem to basically believe in a behavourist model, am I right?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> And your position isn't?



I don't think so, no.  I've been very careful in saying that I think cannabis should be legal, that the goverment and medical establishment spout a lot of crap when it comes to cannabis and that the truth lies between the 2 poles of the argument.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think so, no.  I've been very careful in saying that I think cannabis should be legal, that the goverment and medical establishment spout a lot of crap when it comes to cannabis and that the truth lies between the 2 poles of the argument.



Sorry but you never gave this impression at all. However I take issue with your assertion that my argument is somehow equally as polarised than the already ideologically loaded arguments put forward by the state. Indeed, how can I possibly take any other position to the one I have already adopted? I could embrace the state's position but this I will not do.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> You seem to basically believe in a behavourist model, am I right?



I'm going to have to be brief here as shit-to-do is piling up like nobody's business. No, I'm not a 'black-box' behaviourist, I still think that behaviour can be explained with reference to mental states and activities. However, I've got endless problems with the models built on a Freudian basis - I think they're too simplistic, they have a tendency towards ethnocentrism, they locate the causes of problems too proximally to the subject when most of our lives are in fact shaped by far more distal and impersonal forces, and they take as fundamental and primary aspects of experience that are politically or socially contingent. 

I'm not even sure that there is a good way of looking at it at the moment, and there's certainly not a complete one, but the areas that interest me are the post-structuralist understanding of semiotics and symbology, information theory, cybernetics and system theory etc - particularly what's termed 'second-order cybernetics'. 

So much of what we take for granted is illusory. There's no self, no unitary point of consciousness travelling through time (it's a time-splurge that gets processed into the appearance of unity - the aforementioned auditory stream analysis demonstrates this). Not to say that these convenient fictions can't be an effective way of coming to grips with the world (I think of them in the way that Wittgenstein though of religion - what you're doing is 'using a picture') but don't for a moment think they're actually there, 'cos they ain't.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Sorry but you never gave this impression at all.



Go back and re-read my posts.




			
				nino_savatte said:
			
		

> However I take issue with your assertion that my argument is somehow equally as polarised than the already ideologically loaded arguments put forward by the state. Indeed, how can I possibly take any other position to the one I have already adopted? I could embrace the state's position but this I will not do.



You said that you were "on the other side" - that's a polarised position.  I've been quite clear about mine - I have stated at least twice on this thread that I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle - go and read it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to be brief here as shit-to-do is piling up like nobody's business. No, I'm not a 'black-box' behaviourist, I still think that behaviour can be explained with reference to mental states and activities. However, I've got endless problems with the models built on a Freudian basis - I think they're too simplistic, they have a tendency towards ethnocentrism, they locate the causes of problems too proximally to the subject when most of our lives are in fact shaped by far more distal and impersonal forces, and they take as fundamental and primary aspects of experience that are politically or socially contingent.
> 
> I'm not even sure that there is a good way of looking at it at the moment, and there's certainly not a complete one, but the areas that interest me are the post-structuralist understanding of semiotics and symbology, information theory, cybernetics and system theory etc - particularly what's termed 'second-order cybernetics'.
> 
> So much of what we take for granted is illusory. There's no self, no unitary point of consciousness travelling through time (it's a time-splurge that gets processed into the appearance of unity - the aforementioned auditory stream analysis demonstrates this). Not to say that these convenient fictions can't be an effective way of coming to grips with the world (I think of them in the way that Wittgenstein though of religion - what you're doing is 'using a picture') but don't for a moment think they're actually there, 'cos they ain't.



Hmmmm...I ain't got much time to reply either, suffice to say that your opinion that consciousness is illusory is of no use at all to man nor beast.  You also seem to think that we can understand humans through cybernetics - well heres a thing - we ain't machines.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

But we are. The universe doesn't give a fig for what we might find 'useful' - we're protozoa on a massive level of complexity, destined to fuck then fall apart, and to suffer indescribable unpleasantness in the meantime - all designed to ensure that the most successful of us don't get torn apart before we do some productive fucking.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

We're not machines.  We are human beings.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Go back and re-read my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that you were "on the other side" - that's a polarised position.  I've been quite clear about mine - I have stated at least twice on this thread that I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle - go and read it.



So, what are you saying? I shouldn't adopt my current position or I should move to the non-existent centre? There is no middle ground that I have been able to detect. It is a mythological space constructed by those who have no opinion one way or the other.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 23, 2005)

oddworld said:
			
		

> * Am waiting for a comment re tOka tobyjug ?




Why should I make a comment? (Puzzled)


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> So, what are you saying? I shouldn't adopt my current position or I should move to the non-existent centre? There is no middle ground that I have been able to detect. It is a mythological space constructed by those who have no opinion one way or the other.



No, I'm just saying don't pretend you're not part of a polarised debate.  And just because you can't detect any middle ground, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I do find it odd that you can't see a middle ground between the "cannabis is harmless, its organophosphates and soapbar that cause the problems, cannabis addiction is a myth" position and the "cannabis leads to heroin and psychosis" position.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No, I'm just saying don't pretend you're not part of a polarised debate.  And just because you can't detect any middle ground, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I do find it odd that you can't see a middle ground between the "cannabis is harmless, its organophosphates and soapbar that cause the problems, cannabis addiction is a myth" position and the "cannabis leads to heroin and psychosis" position.



Ah, this is what you refer to as the "middle ground". I don't agree, that is a separate debate regarding quality and criminality. Related, possibly, but it isn't the "middle ground" you claim it to be. I am well aware of the soapbar/dodgy weed debate but while we have a government and a state who are unmoveable in their convictions, soapbar and dodgy weed will remain.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2005)

*A post from a friend.*

Can't be arsed to get into the shrink babble, but i think some peeps may find this interesting. Wasn't going to post again, but i'm gunna post it anyway.

------------------



> A couple of points on varieties of cannabis for medical use:
> 
> "I have helped many hundreds if not thousands of people referred to me at a local level over the last thirty years or so. A lot have been terminally ill and/or having to go through some horrid treatment like chemo or radiation therapy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Ah, this is what you refer to as the "middle ground". I don't agree, that is a separate debate regarding quality and criminality. Related, possibly, but it isn't the "middle ground" you claim it to be. I am well aware of the soapbar/dodgy weed debate but while we have a government and a state who are unmoveable in their convictions, soapbar and dodgy weed will remain.



Eh?  This makes no sense - look at this thread.  People like Bishie etc are claiming that the problems that cannabis causes is solely due to soapbar and organophosphates, the government is claiming that using cannabis is linked to heroin use and psychosis and you can't see any middle ground?  Not even when I've explicitly stated my position?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> We're not machines. We are human beings.



Lords of creation and all that? Scratch a humanist and the Bible starts to poke out....



> your opinion that consciousness is illusory is of no use at all to man nor beast



Not quite what I said. However, millions of buddhists seem to get along without the belief in a unitary self that is expressed through consciousness, so I reckon I'll survive.

BTW cybernetics and machines are only pretty distantly related to each other.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Lords of creation and all that? Scratch a humanist and the Bible starts to poke out....



Why do you persist in the straw man arguments?  It makes me think that you're a bit, well, lost really.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Not quite what I said. However, millions of buddhists seem to get along without the belief in a unitary self that is expressed through consciousness, so I reckon I'll survive.



Hmmmm...I'm not sure if that that is the Buddhist position, but never mind.  I don't know how helpful it is in helping people overcome emotional difficulties.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> BTW cybernetics and machines are only pretty distantly related to each other.



This notion that humans are explainable in terms of computers and cybernetics is an absurd one.  We are not computers, we are human beings, with complex inner lives and emotions...we are not some kind of computer program.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

You're a fine one to talk about straw men - have I mentioned the word 'computer' yet? With respect to the absence of a self, I'm interested in what is the case, not what is helpful to people with emotional difficulties. Someone might find that becoming a born-again Christian help with their alcoholism - I happen to think it's a heap of crap but if it keeps them off the sauce then it has a certain utility I guess - I'm still not going to adopt it myself though.

There's nothing outside the physical, unless you're a religious type, so all of this 'inner life' has physical correlates, which means it has to obey the laws of physics, of information theory, of cybernetics. Personally I'd rather try to understand them than stick my fingers in my ears about the whole business.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

double post


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

cy·ber·net·ics (sī'bər-nĕt'ĭks) 
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The theoretical study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems, especially the comparison of these processes in biological and artificial systems.

http://www.answers.com/cybernetics&r=67

Yes of course someone's inner life has to obey physical laws.  But we are nowhere near understanding how these laws equate to an experience of emotion, consciousness etc.  Psychodynamic theories are very useful in describing the emotional and psychological processes that go on however.  Unless you can tell me how we quantify unhappiness, how we point to it, box it off, how physical processes relate to emotional experience in any helpful way, I'll continue to think along psychodynamic lines.  I don't see many drug treatment providers using cybernetic models, do you?


----------



## Jim (Jun 23, 2005)

First let me say that I believe drugs generally should be legalised including cannabis.  However I have to say that people who put forward the cannabis is harmless argument are doing the cause loads of harm.  It obviously causes lung damage and causes problems with mental health.  These effects were documented (maybe unscientifically) before soap bar and organo phosphates existed.  By continuing this line all the government has to do is prove it does do harm and they've won the argument.  The argument for legalising drugs is not about them being harmless (a drug with no side effects doesn't work - old doctors maxim) but about it being better for everyone them not being illegal.  The US relegalised alocohol not because it was harmless but due to the damage it being illegal caused.  

You'll never win the debate on the cannabis is harmless argument, it absolutely isn't and most people who know anything about it know that.  To blame all negative effects on other things (with no decent proof) is niaive, stupid and immensely damaging to the cause.  To sate there is no middle ground between the government position and this is more than this, its psychotic!  (irony intended)


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

That definition seems OK, if a bit simplistic. Have a look a this 

I have all sorts of problems with the general therapeutic model, which I assume psychodynamic theory more or less conforms to - problems that I've already characterised. 

Maybe drug treatment providers would have success with cybernetic models - who can say at the moment. If I ever needed the assistance of someone like yourself, I would hope there are other options available that conform slightly more closely to my experience of reality than one based on repressed emotions or such-like, as I can't see it being any help to me at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> That definition seems OK, if a bit simplistic. Have a look a this



That looks very simplistic to me, still using machine metaphors which are so divorced from everyday human experience as to be useless.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I have all sorts of problems with the general therapeutic model, which I assume psychodynamic theory more or less conforms to - problems that I've already characterised.



What do you mean by "general therapeutic model"?  There are lots of differing therapeutic models.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Maybe drug treatment providers would have success with cybernetic models - who can say at the moment. If I ever needed the assistance of someone like yourself, I would hope there are other options available that conform slightly more closely to my experience of reality than one based on repressed emotions or such-like, as I can't see it being any help to me at all.



It works.  What else can I say - addictions are emotional in nature.  BTW did you look up "primacy of emotion" and "emotion vs cognition" at all?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

I did. I seemed to get all sorts of spooky neo-Randianism. I assume there's better out there. BTW, I'm not denying that it works - I just don't think it has to be true to work.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> addictions are emotional in nature



When I stop smoking weed, the first week or so I get highly irritable, depressed, stomach ache etc. The _reason_ why this happens is that CRF is released and binds to receptors in my amygdala, an effect that's offset by the leaching of THC from fat cells (the lipophila of THC is one of the main reasons why there's not a stronger withdrawal effect). My emotions about this make no difference one way or the other - my gut still aches. I find that an understanding of the processes at work gives me some measure of control, in a way that I can't see any other story doing. In this way I resign myself to the yes, machine-like way my body responds to environmental stressors by releasing CRF, which seems to me to be the best that can be hoped for.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2005)

Jim said:
			
		

> It obviously causes lung damage and causes problems with mental health.  These effects were documented (maybe unscientifically) before soap bar and organo phosphates existed.



"Smoking" causes lung damage Jim, cannabis does not  

There is no *scientific proof* that cannabis causes mental health problems. Only the anti-cannabis scaremongerers say it does. 

If soap bar & OP's have nothing to do with this, why are some people blaming cannabis for fuckin' with their head now, & not before the UK was flooded with the crap?

I'm gunna say it one more time. Until research is conducted into the negative effects of smoking *poisons*, the whole cannabis issue will remain the unchanged.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?  This makes no sense - look at this thread.  People like Bishie etc are claiming that the problems that cannabis causes is solely due to soapbar and organophosphates, the government is claiming that using cannabis is linked to heroin use and psychosis and you can't see any middle ground?  Not even when I've explicitly stated my position?



Nope, sorry, if anything it's a muddying of the waters. The state/government claim that is a "gateway drug" and causes schizophrenia. The government do not comment on the quality of the substance or the production methods used: it doesn't give a monkeys about such matters; it is more concerned with prohibiting its use and nothing else; and in pursuance of this it will resort to research data that is weighed heavily in favour of prohibition.

Those of us who smoke cannabis are more likely to comment on issues like quality than the government.

Anyway, what is so wrong with the position I have adopted? Why should I assume a "middle ground"?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I did. I seemed to get all sorts of spooky neo-Randianism. I assume there's better out there. BTW, I'm not denying that it works - I just don't think it has to be true to work.



Eh?  First result for "primacy of emotion"



> In addition to surveying the major classes of emotion theories, the class discusses a number of fundamental “emotion questions,” such as whether there are universal emotions, the existence of emotion-specific physiological patterns, and the primacy of emotion vs. cognition.


http://psych.colorado.edu/social/courses.html

2nd result


> PRESENTATION ON THE COGNITION AND EMOTION DEBATE:  Two groups of approximately five people will be formed during the first week of class.  These groups will be expected to work together to identify the literature on the Lazarus-Zajonc debate as to the primacy of emotion and cognition.  Students will be assigned one side and will be expected to argue this against another group.  This will constitute 25% of your grade.


http://homepages.luc.edu/~smille4/emotion.doc


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> When I stop smoking weed, the first week or so I get highly irritable, depressed, stomach ache etc. The _reason_ why this happens is that CRF is released and binds to receptors in my amygdala, an effect that's offset by the leaching of THC from fat cells (the lipophila of THC is one of the main reasons why there's not a stronger withdrawal effect). My emotions about this make no difference one way or the other - my gut still aches. I find that an understanding of the processes at work gives me some measure of control, in a way that I can't see any other story doing. In this way I resign myself to the yes, machine-like way my body responds to environmental stressors by releasing CRF, which seems to me to be the best that can be hoped for.



What a load of reductionist nonsense.  What do you think irritabilty and depression are?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Nope, sorry, if anything it's a muddying of the waters. The state/government claim that is a "gateway drug" and causes schizophrenia. The government do not comment on the quality of the substance or the production methods used: it doesn't give a monkeys about such matters; it is more concerned with prohibiting its use and nothing else; and in pursuance of this it will resort to research data that is weighed heavily in favour of prohibition.
> 
> Those of us who smoke cannabis are more likely to comment on issues like quality than the government.
> 
> Anyway, what is so wrong with the position I have adopted? Why should I assume a "middle ground"?



You claim that cannabis is harmless.  The govt claim it leads to psychosis and heroin addiction.  I think the truth is somewhere in between these 2 poles.  Whats so hard to understand about that?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> "Smoking" causes lung damage Jim, cannabis does not
> 
> There is no *scientific proof* that cannabis causes mental health problems. Only the anti-cannabis scaremongerers say it does
> 
> ...



AFAIK there is no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer either.  What there is are statistical links, hypotheses, not proof.  Its not only "anti-cannabis scaremongerers" who claim it can cause mental health problems either - a lot of drug workers and mental health workers think the same, from experience.  Lots of people have also been concerned about cannabis and mental health long before soapbar was on the scene too.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

Your first Google is completely different to mine. Ah the multiplicity of results from a simple algorithm. Still, I don't find course-lists that illuminating.



> What a load of reductionist nonsense. What do you think irritabilty and depression are?



I am absolutely reductionist in my thinking. 'Nonsense' - I'm afraid you'll have to back that bit up...


----------



## Jim (Jun 23, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> "Smoking" causes lung damage Jim, cannabis does not
> 
> There is no *scientific proof* that cannabis causes mental health problems. Only the anti-cannabis scaremongerers say it does.
> 
> ...


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> When I stop smoking weed, the first week or so I get highly irritable, depressed, stomach ache etc.


Symptoms like that would worry me *hugely * - what is your general state of health ?

I have partaken off and on for years - never had any noticeable withdrawal symptoms at all. 

I see my recent daily cannabis smoking (0.15 grammes over an evening - never smoke during the day) as a problem roughly on a par with my slight overeating - the one makes me a bit more amotivated than I am by nature, and hinders sleep, the latter gives me a Buddha belly.

Both these habits grow out of / are made possible by my lack of a social life (I'm working on that)

Maybe your smoking is masking an underlying problem ?
.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> AFAIK there is no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer either.



That's because it doesn't cause cancer. It's a risk-factor for cancer. However, studies in the 90's demonstrated patterned changes in the p53 gene after exposure to benzopyrene (a constituent of cigarette smoke), then a 1996 study showed benzopyrene's interaction with p53 mirrored mutations found in actual human lung tumors, so there's a pretty good case for an actual carcinogenic effect of a cigarette smoke constituent.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

Gentlegreen - I reckon your buddha belly is probably your saviour. THC and other cannabinoids reside in fat cells, from where they gradually leach out when you stop smoking, which eases the withdraw from cannabis, extending it to up to a month. I reckon I get more noticeable withdrawal because I'm a skinny bastard.

If you give any regular smoker a cannabinoid antagonist then they go into a pretty steep and unpleasant withdrawal with the symptoms I've described.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Your first Google is completely different to mine. Ah the multiplicity of results from a simple algorithm. Still, I don't find course-lists that illuminating.



Using google ain't that hard.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I am absolutely reductionist in my thinking. 'Nonsense' - I'm afraid you'll have to back that bit up...



So you can say for certain that the chemical process you described is 100% correct and the whole story and you can link that up with how that makes you actually feel and experience irritability and depression?  Wow, you're next in line for a Nobel Prize if you can!  Explaining chemical reactions means nothing - it is so divorced from everyday experience of being human, its useless as a method of understanding these things.  Do you _feel_ the chemical reaction?  Or do you intellectualise it?  What is it you actually _feel_?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Gentlegreen - I reckon your buddha belly is probably your saviour. THC and other cannabinoids reside in fat cells, from where they gradually leach out when you stop smoking, which eases the withdraw from cannabis, extending it to up to a month. I reckon I get more noticeable withdrawal because I'm a skinny bastard.
> 
> If you give any regular smoker a cannabinoid antagonist then they go into a pretty steep and unpleasant withdrawal with the symptoms I've described.



So cannabis has withdrawal symptoms?  But you still can't get addicted to it right?  Errrr....


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

CRF is a common factor in a number of withdrawal syndromes including opiates, many of which have common symptomatic aspects as well. I don't think it's out of order to link the common neurochemistry and the experiential similarities, and in fact this has already been done in the literature.

None of this is my idea, but I'm trying to avoid a PubMed-fest with us both just quoting research abstracts at each other, as it'll bore the pants off everyone else (assuming it isn't doing so already).


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

> So cannabis has withdrawal symptoms? But you still can't get addicted to it right? Errrr....



I've explained this twice already. It would have substantial withdrawal effects, but for most people the persistence of cannabinoids in fatty tissue keeps them to a sub-clinical level. 

Edited to add: I never said you can't get addicted to it, although I think the whole question is a bit vexed. Is someone who's addicted to shopping (which has a normal reward curve) because they have poor impulse control 'addicted' in the same way as someone who's 'addicted' to crack (which bypasses the normal checks and balances and stimulates reward centres directly), or someone who's taken low-dose benzos for years, who might have no psychological problem stopping at all, up to the point where they fit and then die?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2005)

Jim - i said 15 pages or so back that it cannabis isn't 100% harmless. Any psychoactive substance can be potentially more harmful to anyone with a predisposition to mental health problems. 

What's more harmful to mental health "today" is the poisons people are smoking IMO. The majority of kids who have mental health issues, supposedly from cannabis,  nine times out of ten haven't actually been taking "cannabis" - this is my point.

I'm off for a spliff


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Gentlegreen - I reckon your buddha belly is probably your saviour. THC and other cannabinoids reside in fat cells, from where they gradually leach out when you stop smoking, which eases the withdraw from cannabis, extending it to up to a month. I reckon I get more noticeable withdrawal because I'm a skinny bastard.



Well I'm not "Freewheelin' Franklin", but I'm no "Fat Freddy" either  !


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> CRF is a common factor in a number of withdrawal syndromes including opiates, many of which have common symptomatic aspects as well. I don't think it's out of order to link the common neurochemistry and the experiential similarities, and in fact this has already been done in the literature.



What has that got to do with what you _feel_?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> None of this is my idea, but I'm trying to avoid a PubMed-fest with us both just quoting research abstracts at each other, as it'll bore the pants off everyone else (assuming it isn't doing so already).



You're intellectualising about emotions.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I've explained this twice already. It would have substantial withdrawal effects, but for most people the persistence of cannabinoids in fatty tissue keeps them to a sub-clinical level.
> 
> Edited to add: I never said you can't get addicted to it, although I think the whole question is a bit vexed. Is someone who's addicted to shopping (which has a normal reward curve) because they have poor impulse control 'addicted' in the same way as someone who's 'addicted' to crack (which bypasses the normal checks and balances and stimulates reward centres directly), or someone who's taken low-dose benzos for years, who might have no psychological problem stopping at all, up to the point where they fit and then die?



I've explained about addiction too - although you seem to be intent on intellectualising an emotional process for some reason.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Jim - i said 15 pages or so back that it cannabis isn't 100% harmless. Any psychoactive substance can be potentially more harmful to anyone with a predisposition to mental health problems.
> 
> What's more harmful to mental health "today" is the poisons people are smoking IMO. The majority of kids who have mental health issues, supposedly from cannabis,  nine times out of ten haven't actually been taking "cannabis" - this is my point.
> 
> I'm off for a spliff



But you are arguing that its harmless - every time someone mentions cannabis and mental health, you start with the soapbar/organophosphate arguments.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 23, 2005)

What does what you feel matter? What matter is what _is_. In any case 'symptoms' and 'experience' describe what is felt by a subject - I'm not discounting it entirely.



> You're intellectualising about emotions.



Which emotions? It seems you want me to emote about concepts. 

Coming back to the idea of music for just a minute (in the manner of a 'final thought', as I have to go home and smoke that first spliff of the day) if you are of the opinion that the primary object of music is to convey affective states, or even induce them (which I'm not, but we'll shelve that for the moment) then you have to be able to explain how this process might happen.

Music isn't generally speaking mimetic, so the only way in which it could convey information about an emotion would be through some kind of signification that exists prior to any affective content. If you doubt that this information is semiotic and enculturated, try discerning the emotions from a piece of Chinese opera, or listening to certain types of African death-music (which is really fast and frenetic, for some reason). The very fact that we can potentially share emotional states through the medium of culture is based on elaborate shared codes and structures that are themselves affectively neutral, and which for the most part are not innate.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What does what you feel matter? What matter is what _is_. In any case 'symptoms' and 'experience' describe what is felt by a subject - I'm not discounting it entirely.



What does it matter?  What does it matter he asks?   Because its about your experience you fool.  You don't experience a biochemical reaction, you experience an emotion, you _feel_.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Which emotions? It seems you want me to emote about concepts.



The emotions you mentioned.  You mentioned that you feel depressed and irritable when you have no weed, then gave me some bollocks about biochemistry.  You also gave me some behaviourist guff about impulse control and reward curves.  Total fucking nonsense - what matters is what people _feel_ their primary experience of the world, not some over-intellectualised shite.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Coming back to the idea of music for just a minute (in the manner of a 'final thought', as I have to go home and smoke that first spliff of the day) if you are of the opinion that the primary object of music is to convey affective states, or even induce them (which I'm not, but we'll shelve that for the moment) then you have to be able to explain how this process might happen.
> 
> Music isn't generally speaking mimetic, so the only way in which it could convey information about an emotion would be through some kind of signification that exists prior to any affective content. If you doubt that this information is semiotic and enculturated, try discerning the emotions from a piece of Chinese opera, or listening to certain types of African death-music (which is really fast and frenetic, for some reason). The very fact that we can potentially share emotional states through the medium of culture is based on elaborate shared codes and structures that are themselves affectively neutral, and which for the most part are not innate.



Who gives a fuck?  I put tunes on, I feel happy or sad or excited or regretful or bittersweet etc.  You seem very keen on avoiding talking about feelings and actual experience in favour of some theorised bullshit.


----------



## Siliconbob (Jun 23, 2005)

I've only just managed to watch this programme tonight.

I apologise in advance if this has been said somewhere in this pretty lenghty thread.

The one thing that really struck me was this.



> Skunk is smoked because it is so strong



I really thought they would mention the dangers of contaimated "hash".

......

Anyone who missed it as I did theres a torrent here:
http://www.uknova.com/browse.php?search=panorama&cat=0&incldead=1


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But you are arguing that its harmless - every time someone mentions cannabis and mental health, you start with the soapbar/organophosphate arguments.



I've just said to JIm that it ain't harmless. I said pages ago that it isn't harmless. 

Get off ya shrinks couch mate & have a look at the bigger picture 

sb - 





> I really thought they would mention the dangers of contaimated "hash".



Neil Montgomery's research will hopefully, highlight & produce solid evidence to prove that this widely smoked toxic adulterated menace is a major contributor to mental health problems in young people today.

Blags if you wanna diss this, then fine, diss it. But the fact is "kids" are smoking a fuckin' poison.


----------



## Siliconbob (Jun 23, 2005)

On the soapbar thing, panorama reckons "skunk " makes up only 15% of the uk cannabis market.  Bollox IMHO, if true though what percentage of these mentally ill teenagers have been smoking rocky...


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> Neil Montgomery's research will hopefully, highlight & produce solid evidence to prove that this widely smoked toxic adulterated menace is a major contributor to mental health problems in young people today. ... But the fact is "kids" are smoking a fuckin' poison.



Sorry, but that seems unlikely. 

Emphysema, lung and throat cancer, susceptibility to bronchitis... all these are things you'd _rationally suspect_ soap bar of producing. For these, there are mechanisms given what we already know about what may be in it. 

Given what may be in it, you might expect to find unexpected effects. But given that I've seen so little in the extensive discussions here about soap bar containing actual psychoactive substances, psychiatric effects would be very very unexpected.

With THC, there's at least the smell of a mechanism. The whole point of smoking weed, after all, is a certain distortion or felt enhancement of perception, and a loosening of the filters of significance and narrative coherence that consciousness applies to the world. It's not quite unfair to call being stoned _temporary, reversible_ minor psychosis. 

That does not in any way show that it can *cause* _permanent, irreversible_ major psychosis. After all, fasting can produce some of the same effects and no-one's suggesting that not eating causes permanent psychosis - because there's no political or funding mileage in that. And the balance of the studies I've seen that examine this question of causing psychosis is "pretty bloody unlikely".

It does suggest that there's a plausible mechanism, worthy of proper investigation, for THC *precipitating* psychotic episodes in people with a pre-existing susceptibility. Maybe job stress or moving house would have brought out the same effects a tad later in the same people. And the balance of the studies I've seen that examine this question of precipitating psychosis (that was going to happen anyway) is "we still really don't know".


----------



## METH LAB (Jun 23, 2005)

"we still really don't know".

Well its been on the planet for f*ckin eons b4 us lot, just how much f*ckin reaserch do they need to do?? and who cares?? 

soap = poison

"given what we already know about what may be in it."

Which isnt any weed thats for sure..

25 soapy spliffs aday and a 3-fag mix init... or one, maybe one and a half joints of real gear.

Less smoke = less smoke damage, less brain damage *twitch* and errr... etc..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> I've just said to JIm that it ain't harmless. I said pages ago that it isn't harmless.
> 
> Get off ya shrinks couch mate & have a look at the bigger picture



I think its you that needs to get your head out of a cloud of smoke and look at the bigger picture.




			
				Mr.Bishie said:
			
		

> sb -
> 
> Neil Montgomery's research will hopefully, highlight & produce solid evidence to prove that this widely smoked toxic adulterated menace is a major contributor to mental health problems in young people today.
> 
> Blags if you wanna diss this, then fine, diss it. But the fact is "kids" are smoking a fuckin' poison.



You're obviously not reading my posts properly - I'm not dissing it, I think it is well overdue.  But I also think that not everyone is smoking "poison", a lot of people are smoking decent weed and still suffering mental health problems.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that seems unlikely.
> 
> Emphysema, lung and throat cancer, susceptibility to bronchitis... all these are things you'd _rationally suspect_ soap bar of producing. For these, there are mechanisms given what we already know about what may be in it.
> 
> ...




At last, some sanity on this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

METH LAB said:
			
		

> "we still really don't know".
> 
> Well its been on the planet for f*ckin eons b4 us lot, just how much f*ckin reaserch do they need to do?? and who cares??
> 
> ...




Who cares?  People who have been affected by mental health problems thats who. 

Jesus.


----------



## Wilson (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But I also think that not everyone is smoking "poison", a lot of people are smoking decent weed and still suffering mental health problems.



I personally think that very few people are smoking decent weed, most commercial growers are far too interested in making money to give a shit about wether they grow it properly, resulting in much of the weed avaliable containing residues of organo phosphates, pesticides and fungicides, I know quite a few people who have suffered health problems whilst smoking the stuff most commonly starting with a painful itchy rash.
As for soapbar being non psychoactive well thats just total and utter bullshit, I have no idea whats in it but it sure as shit contains something wacky.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2005)

Wilson said:
			
		

> As for soapbar being non psychoactive well thats just total and utter bullshit, I have no idea whats in it but it sure as shit contains something wacky.



OK, yes, it has an effect. 

Smoking pure henna has an effect (though not much) - I'm afraid it could be carbon monoxide poisoning. I'm not prepared to experiment with rubber


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 24, 2005)

> What does it matter? What does it matter he asks?  Because its about your experience you fool. You don't experience a biochemical reaction, you experience an emotion, you feel.



It seems to me that you're conflating sensory experience and emotion. You can experience a sensation (like fingers on the keyboard) without necessarily having an affective response. I think it would actually be quite disabling to experience an emotional response to every sensation, and it doesn't seem likely to me that such a trait would likely to be selected for, as a survival advantage - quite the reverse.



> Who gives a fuck? I put tunes on, I feel happy or sad or excited or regretful or bittersweet etc. You seem very keen on avoiding talking about feelings and actual experience in favour of some theorised bullshit.



Adorno identified 7 different types of music listeners, and this was quite a while ago, I reckon there are at least a couple more these days. Your description only fits for about two of the categories, which seem to me to display a certain narrowness of musical horizon. Whole musical traditions are excluded by such a constricted notion of what music is for. That 'theorised bullshit' is the way I understand things, after a number of years of trying to see them in all their variation and complexity (not that this is an acheivable aim, it's just an interesting process).

Back to cannabis: What does everyone think about the issue of genetic susceptibility via the COMT gene variants (I think they're called valine and methionine). Would you support blood-tests for smokers if it meant vastly less incidences of cannabis-related psychosis? I know my genotype for the SiRT transporter gene that predisposes you to long-term damage from taking ecstasy, but only a handful of people have this opportunity at the moment, which seems a shame.


----------



## Wilson (Jun 24, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> OK, yes, it has an effect.
> 
> Smoking pure henna has an effect (though not much) - I'm afraid it could be carbon monoxide poisoning. I'm not prepared to experiment with rubber



 well if youve never smoked it and youre only experience of it is what youve read here then you wouldnt know shit about the subject


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Wilson said:
			
		

> I personally think that very few people are smoking decent weed, most commercial growers are far too interested in making money to give a shit about wether they grow it properly, resulting in much of the weed avaliable containing residues of organo phosphates, pesticides and fungicides, I know quite a few people who have suffered health problems whilst smoking the stuff most commonly starting with a painful itchy rash.
> As for soapbar being non psychoactive well thats just total and utter bullshit, I have no idea whats in it but it sure as shit contains something wacky.



My experience is that lots of people are smoking decent weed, so many people grow it or have mates that grow it these days.  My experience is that decent weed can cause mental health problems.


----------



## nosos (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> My experience is that lots of people are smoking decent weed, so many people grow it or have mates that grow it these days.  My experience is that decent weed can cause mental health problems.


But what proportion do they actually represent of smokers in general? I remember in my first year of uni being suprised when some people from my halls thought that the draw I was smoking (which was pretty was average) was absolutely fucking amazing. My experience is that a lot of people really aren't smoking particularly high quality gear.

I do agree with you though that high-grade can (& does) cause mental problems.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you're conflating sensory experience and emotion. You can experience a sensation (like fingers on the keyboard) without necessarily having an affective response. I think it would actually be quite disabling to experience an emotional response to every sensation, and it doesn't seem likely to me that such a trait would likely to be selected for, as a survival advantage - quite the reverse.



You're the one that mentioned that you have depression and irritabilty when you don't have any weed, then went on to deny that these were emotional.  Fucking weird. 




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Adorno identified 7 different types of music listeners, and this was quite a while ago, I reckon there are at least a couple more these days. Your description only fits for about two of the categories, which seem to me to display a certain narrowness of musical horizon. Whole musical traditions are excluded by such a constricted notion of what music is for. That 'theorised bullshit' is the way I understand things, after a number of years of trying to see them in all their variation and complexity (not that this is an acheivable aim, it's just an interesting process).



Oh, how and why is interesting, but what does it add to my immediate experience of listening to music?  Nowt.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Back to cannabis: What does everyone think about the issue of genetic susceptibility via the COMT gene variants (I think they're called valine and methionine). Would you support blood-tests for smokers if it meant vastly less incidences of cannabis-related psychosis? I know my genotype for the SiRT transporter gene that predisposes you to long-term damage from taking ecstasy, but only a handful of people have this opportunity at the moment, which seems a shame.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> But what proportion do they actually represent of smokers in general? I remember in my first year of uni being suprised when some people from my halls thought that the draw I was smoking (which was pretty was average) was absolutely fucking amazing. My experience is that a lot of people really aren't smoking particularly high quality gear.



I have no idea, there needs to be some research.  Its something I'd like to get into eventually, research on drug use for Drugscope or COCA or similar.




			
				nosos said:
			
		

> I do agree with you though that high-grade can (& does) cause mental problems.



Yep.  There seems to be a lot of denial however.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You claim that cannabis is harmless.  The govt claim it leads to psychosis and heroin addiction.  I think the truth is somewhere in between these 2 poles.  Whats so hard to understand about that?



Where did I claim that? Even so, it is less harmful than alcohol. The government will never budge unless something cataclysmic forces their hand. If anything the government will respond to pressure from the tabloid press who will continue on their moral crusade. That is the bottom line. There is little reason for optimism. Now what is so hard to understand about _that_?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Where did I claim that? Even so, it is less harmful than alcohol. The government will never budge unless something cataclysmic forces their hand. If anything the government will respond to pressure from the tabloid press who will continue on their moral crusade. That is the bottom line. There is little reason for optimism. Now what is so hard to understand about _that_?



Nothing - but I claimed the debate was polarised, you questioned what I meant and I stated what I meant.  It doesn't do the legalisation case any good however, when the pro-cannabis lobby is dishonest.


----------



## Wilson (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> My experience is that lots of people are smoking decent weed, so many people grow it or have mates that grow it these days.  My experience is that decent weed can cause mental health problems.



Well i only know a few people that grow it for personal use, they dont have mental problems, wheras i know a few people who use commercial weed and soap who do have mental problems which they associate with their use, In one particular case i know someone who has exclusively used soap and complained of severe paranoia and anxiety caused by it.

I personally believe that if any form of cannabis is used by a suceptable person or if it is used to excess theres a definate possibility that it could cause/trigger mental problems but i also believe that if cannabis is used sensibly then it is not harmful


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nothing - but I claimed the debate was polarised, you questioned what I meant and I stated what I meant.  It doesn't do the legalisation case any good however, when the pro-cannabis lobby is dishonest.



I think we've reached a point where we need to ask who leads on policy: is it the government or the [tabloid] media? With regard to social policies (such as this), I would argue it is the media.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 24, 2005)

Why the rolleyes? If only a quarter of people were vulnerable to cannabis psychosis, and you could potentially warn those people in advance, wouldn't it be a good idea?



> Oh, how and why is interesting, but what does it add to my immediate experience of listening to music? Nowt.



Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. 'Structural hearing' gives you some pretty deep insights into how tonal music means stuff, although I can understand that not everyone can be bothered.



> You're the one that mentioned that you have depression and irritabilty when you don't have any weed, then went on to deny that these were emotional. Fucking weird.



Irritability is an interesting one. I would have said it's more like a propensity to an emotion than an emotion per se. I never said that depression wasn't an emotion, although now I think about it, I'm actually not that sure.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Why the rolleyes? If only a quarter of people were vulnerable to cannabis psychosis, and you could potentially warn those people in advance, wouldn't it be a good idea?



You wouldn't like the answer.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. 'Structural hearing' gives you some pretty deep insights into how tonal music means stuff, although I can understand that not everyone can be bothered.








			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Irritability is an interesting one. I would have said it's more like a propensity to an emotion than an emotion per se. I never said that depression wasn't an emotion, although now I think about it, I'm actually not that sure.



Depression isn't an emotion?  Irritabilty isn't an emotion?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Wilson said:
			
		

> Well i only know a few people that grow it for personal use, they dont have mental problems, wheras i know a few people who use commercial weed and soap who do have mental problems which they associate with their use, In one particular case i know someone who has exclusively used soap and complained of severe paranoia and anxiety caused by it.



Which proves nowt, just as my example proves nowt - what it does show however is that there is uncertainty.




			
				Wilson said:
			
		

> I personally believe that if any form of cannabis is used by a suceptable person or if it is used to excess theres a definate possibility that it could cause/trigger mental problems but i also believe that if cannabis is used sensibly then it is not harmful



I'd be inclined to agree, but that then begs the question - what is sensible use?  IIRC, I got involved with this debate because of my opinions around the culture of cannabis smoking, i.e. its seen as harmless, only a herb, not really a drug, its OK to smoke everyday, if you get anxiety/paranoia then its your own fault etc etc.  I think this needs to be challenged.


----------



## METH LAB (Jun 24, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Who cares?  People who have been affected by mental health problems thats who.
> 
> Jesus.



Who do you fink ya speakin to then silly?? lol

I could blame acid weed booze and speed till im blue in the face but what differance do it make? f*ck all... they all talk shite, the reaserch is more backwards than i can comprehend... 

Thats allright though... lets have a beer


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 24, 2005)

> You wouldn't like the answer.



Ha! I haven't liked many of them so far. Try me...

A    for structural hearing? Do you even know what I'm talking about?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 24, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Ha! I haven't liked many of them so far. Try me...



I can guess what your reaction will be too.




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> A    for structural hearing? Do you even know what I'm talking about?



Nope.  I just looked it up, found a book on Amazon about it.  Something to do with music theory.  Sounds a bit dull really, unless you're a muso.  I'm not, I'm just someone who loves music.  Understanding theories about how it all "works" doesn't bother me, nor many people I suspect.  How many people think about "structural hearing" when chilling out to some reggae or getting down to some house?  Not many I suspect.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 24, 2005)

> I can guess what your reaction will be too.



Don't go all behaviourist on me now. Who can tell what I might be emoting at the time?



> Nope. I just looked it up, found a book on Amazon about it. Something to do with music theory. Sounds a bit dull really, unless you're a muso. I'm not, I'm just someone who loves music. Understanding theories about how it all "works" doesn't bother me, nor many people I suspect. How many people think about "structural hearing" when chilling out to some reggae or getting down to some house? Not many I suspect.



Most people probably don't think about grammar and syntax when they read a poem either, but it's there, and it's essential to any communication that might be taking place. An awareness of how it all works opens up possiblities for a greater constructive involvement in the expressive potential of a piece of music, but you can still sit back and let it all wash over you if you so choose. You're still using pretty much the same interpretative schema though, whether you choose to make them conscious or not - there's no magic shortcut to understanding.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2005)

Wilson said:
			
		

> well if youve never smoked it



 

I meant I wasn't prepared to grate up a car tyre and smoke it to compare with soap bar.

Years ago, out of curiosity, I smoked some henna to compare with soap bar...


----------



## Wilson (Jun 24, 2005)

Oh i see   , well in that case im sorry for being rude


----------



## Psychonaut (Jun 24, 2005)

*Organophosphates*

Is this stuff really used by commercial UK growers, or just in imported outdoor?  

Im pretty sure importing unused OP's into the UK is banned*. A huge range of cannabis-specific chemicals is openly sold on  trading estates and generic pesticides at any garden centre. Are OPs really so much more effective to be considered worth organising an illegal importation/distribution network?  

Ive always envisaged UK hydro production as many different operations, who would keep their identities and location private, and have no contact with each other. Its hard to see how  individual  farming teams could get connected with the OP dealers in the first place, unless they all go to the trouble of importing it themselves? 

*the Mark Thomas Show exposed a legal loophole whereby OP treated grain could be freely imported.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 24, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Back to cannabis: What does everyone think about the issue of genetic susceptibility via the COMT gene variants (I think they're called valine and methionine). Would you support blood-tests for smokers if it meant vastly less incidences of cannabis-related psychosis? I know my genotype for the SiRT transporter gene that predisposes you to long-term damage from taking ecstasy, but only a handful of people have this opportunity at the moment, which seems a shame.


But don't 25% of people have the 'at risk' gene combination? 



> ...The team found that in people with two copies of the "normal" version of COMT, smoking cannabis had little effect on their mental health. In people with one normal and one "bad" form of the gene, smoking cannabis slightly increased their risk of psychosis. But for people with two copies of the bad gene, smoking cannabis as a teenager increased their likelihood of developing psychosis by a factor of 10. According to Professor Murray, 25% of the UK population carry two 'bad' copies of the COMT gene...


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4109360.stm

I wonder how much of an impact knowing this would really have on most of the people who want to smoke marijuana in the first place? I would imagine that unless proper research is done on doseages people will just say "I won't smoke too much" - with 'too much' being a very vague 'amount'.

People are already being told to not drink too much. I am not sure it is making a lot of difference to the amount being drunk is it - this seems to be dictated more by the amount of money people have and 'other factors' (friends, environment, 'social norms', availability etc.)?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 25, 2005)

It's true, some people would still overdo it - I mean, look at all the people that still smoke fags given the understanding of the health impacts of that, but at least they'd be forwarned. And if there was a general understanding that some people are more at risk than others, people might be slightly less likely to just go along with what their mates are doing, and listen to their own body/mindest a bit more. 

I guess on the other hand it runs the risk that people with two of the valine COMT genes would see it as carte blanche to go nuts with it.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (Jun 26, 2005)

Most people assume they wont get mental illnesses from alcohol, doesn't mean everyone is drunk 24/7. Positive side would be those who were more susceptible would be able to know about it before they developed psychosis. Negative side means people who its unlikely the cause a major problem in have to make a choice about their own usage, forcing some kind of self responsibility. Which isn't so bad really.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

Unfortunately, all this talk of blood-testing would open up the door for further misuse of medical info by the insurance industry.  Just makes me uneasy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Most people assume they wont get mental illnesses from alcohol, doesn't mean everyone is drunk 24/7. Positive side would be those who were more susceptible would be able to know about it before they developed psychosis. Negative side means people who its unlikely the cause a major problem in have to make a choice about their own usage, forcing some kind of self responsibility. Which isn't so bad really.



Aye, mental illness that is the product of alcohol over-indulgence is never talked about, nor is the psychosis that accompanies regular, excessive drinking. This tells us one thing: the drinks industry is incredibly powerful and will not tolerate a challenge to its dominance of the recreational drugs market. The government is only to happy to keep the alcohol producers on side.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> The government is only to happy to keep the alcohol producers on side.



And regulated. Hopefully nothing like this can happen in Britain:-
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=147376088&p=y47376794
Illegal brew leaves 20 dead in Kenya
25/06/2005 - 14:22:33 

At least 20 people died Saturday and 26 others were hospitalised after drinking an illegal brew in eastern Kenya, the police said.

Some of the victims were found dead in their homes early Saturday and others died during the day in Machakos, 34 miles south-east of the capital, Nairobi, said the Eastern Provincial Police Officer Thomas Chigamba.

“At least two people are already blind – they are still alive, but blind - after drinking that brew,” said the director of operations for the Kenya Police, David Kimaiyo.

“We suspect that this is some kind of industrial alcohol,” Kimaiyo said. “We are mobilising officers to comb the area and confiscate the remains of the brew.”


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> And regulated. Hopefully nothing like this can happen in Britain:-
> http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=147376088&p=y47376794
> Illegal brew leaves 20 dead in Kenya
> 25/06/2005 - 14:22:33


Fair point.  Illegal moonshine blinding people would not be an improvement.

Now we want the same logic applied to Cannabis.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2005)

Does anyone remember the dodgy batch of heroin that killed scores of people in Glasgow and Dublin a few years back? There was plenty of governmental hand-wringing but absolutely no action whatsoever. The tacit line seemed to be "Heroin is bad. These people got what they deserved". But the simple fact is, access to clean heroin would prevent this from happening. William Burroughs lived to a ripe old age, even though he was a junkie. But he had access to clean skag. Your average addict doesn't have this luxury.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> And regulated. Hopefully nothing like this can happen in Britain:-
> http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=147376088&p=y47376794
> Illegal brew leaves 20 dead in Kenya
> 25/06/2005 - 14:22:33
> ...



Remember the anti-freeze in the wine scandal years ago?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember the dodgy batch of heroin that killed scores of people in Glasgow and Dublin a few years back? There was plenty of governmental hand-wringing but absolutely no action whatsoever. The tacit line seemed to be "Heroin is bad. These people got what they deserved". But the simple fact is, access to clean heroin would prevent this from happening. William Burroughs lived to a ripe old age, even though he was a junkie. But he had access to clean skag. Your average addict doesn't have this luxury.




There were several heroin deaths in the Truro area a while back due to a bug called lacto something or other in it. Other than a few lines on the local TV text pages there was no publicity about it at all. At the very least I would have thought a warning on the local radio stations and local TV news was warranted.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 29, 2005)

Thought this might add to the debate,

The latest NIDA magazine states that marijuans related disorders  ( defined by DSM-iv but doesn't seem to include anything psychotic )have increased over the decade ( Now suspend the arguement about this for a mo ), but the prevalence of marijuana use hasn't!

One of their conclusions was that marijuana was getting stronger, but another explanation coould be that it was being cut with something ( it doesn't say what they use in US soapbar or grass ).

long winded article


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 29, 2005)

> One of their conclusions was that marijuana was getting stronger, but another explanation coould be that it was being cut with something



It isn't getting "stronger", but it is definitely being grown using an array of dangerous chemicals.


----------

