Print Page | Close Window

Science vs Prohibition

Printed From: Sensi Seeds Shop
Category: Sensi Seeds
Forum Name: Latest News
Forum Discription: Hemp and cannabis news from around the world
URL: http://forum.sensiseeds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1464
Printed Date: 12 December 2017 at 03:37


Topic: Science vs Prohibition
Posted By: Ganja
Subject: Science vs Prohibition
Date Posted: 31 May 2006 at 14:48
I am thinking of a little research project, and anyone who wants to join in is welcome.

The project is to dig up the numerous reports and studies published over the last 100 years or so that have found cannabis to be overwhelmingly useful, safe and undeserving of prohibition.

The thing is, there are dozens of these studies which consistently find the hysterical view of cannabis and its dangers to be false - from The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1894 - 3000+ pages) to the Wooton Report (1969)
to the various studies by the World Health Organisation (UN), to the recent report published in the British medical journal The Lancet and the studies done when the UK made cannabis a class 'C' drug.

The problem is that each one of these studies represents years of work - compiling and assessing data in a rigourous, scientific manner, then drawing rational conclusions and finally publishing them - only to be forgotten a few weeks after being made public. If they make the news services at all, they usually attract very little attention.

The process I've noticed in recent years is:
1) A reliable, neutral and above all informed organisation of experts (doctors, scientists, professional researchers) publishes a report finding cannabis to be relatively harm-free. In the case of recent studies, it's usually been to report that there's no real link between cannabis and mental illness (or, most recently, no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer).

2) If the study is reported at all in the media, it's newsworthy for a day or two, then slips into obscurity

3) Within a week or two, a body of non-experts - 'family' groups, concerned citizens' organisations, advocacy groups for law-enforcement professions, etc. - issue a call for 'more studies into the effects of cannabis on mental health' or something similar, usually enhanced with emotional references to 'the children'. Such reactions are usually given much more publicity than the study itself.

In this way, the years of research and large sums of money that went into the study are effectively negated in the media with the simple and very low-cost technique of acting like the report never existed.

Every study that reports findings contrary to official cannabis propaganda just seems to disappear down the 'memory hole'. The calls for studies into the dangers of cannabis stay in the public imagination for much longer, due to their emotional content and their frequent repetition.

So, despite the flawless credibility of report after study after report, the impression that remains in the mind of the public (at least, that part of it with little personal experience of cannabis) is that there are unspecified 'concerns' about the safety of cannabis and of the mental state of cannabis users.

Compiling a list of the favourable studies done over the years may be 'preaching to the choir', given that all or most forum members already have a rational, informed view of cannabis.

Still, such a list will make interesting reading and a good reference.

Also, the real studies of cannabis are especially informative when their content, tone and interpretation of data are compared with the reports issued by prohibitionist organisations (most notably the US government).

Even without judging the merits of the arguments given by each side, the fact that anti-cannabis material is always filled with emotional appeals, anecdote and disingenuous framing of data, while the studies which find little or no danger in cannabis tend to be reasoned, neutral and present their findings in a scientific way.

It's almost as if one side has something to hide...



Replies:
Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 31 May 2006 at 21:01

I may edit later to add links, or titles to the links ...

Economics
The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html - http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html
The economics of cannabis cultivation in europe
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html - http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html

Comparative properties of drugs
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm - http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Practical social & medical aspects of cannabis legalisation
http://www.pharmo.nl/pdf/reports/Medicinal%20cannabis%20in%20the%20Netherlands-summary.pdf - http://www.pharmo.nl/pdf/reports/Medicinal%20cannabis%20in%20the%20Netherlands-summary.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Trends and patterns in the cannabis use in the nederlands http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation- - http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-

Cannabis withdrawal syndromes

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00026.x - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00026.x

Press
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/05/28/weed_control/ - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/05/28/weed_control/   < fine read
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=708564 - http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=708564

Compassion

http://www.hr95.org/majors.htm - http://www.hr95.org/majors.htm

Politicics, organizations, public opinion
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/423.asp - http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/423.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1425723.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1425723.stm
http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm - http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/253/canadiansenate.shtml - http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/253/canadiansenate.shtml
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html#18 - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html#18
http://www.encod.org/ - http://www.encod.org/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm - http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm

Knowledge and ressources
http://www.norml.org/ - http://www.norml.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoids - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoids

Cannabis and the brain
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6832 - http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6832
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5686 - http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5686
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5105 - http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5105
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.%2020051014.wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/ - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.%2020051014.wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

Smoke
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21 - http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21
http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.htm - http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.htm

Overviews/misc
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/875400410.Ns.r.html - http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/875400410.Ns.r.html

Drawing false conclusion regarding drugs is easy, lets do it:
"44% of all cigarettes used in the US are smoked by the mentally ill"  = cigarettes turn sane persons into mad people ! schizophrenia ahoy !
http://www.schizophrenia.com/smoke.htm - http://www.schizophrenia.com/smoke.htm


Cannabis potency through time
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.001137.x - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.001137.x

History of use
http://mojo.calyx.net/%7Eolsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha5208.html - http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha5208.html

Therapeutic cannabis
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915 - http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8155 - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8155
http://www.nature.com/ncpcardio/journal/v3/n3/full/ncpcardio0504.html - http://www.nature.com/ncpcardio/journal/v3/n3/full/ncpcardio0504.html http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1975_munson_nci_1/1975_munson_nci_1_text.shtml - http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1975_munson_nci_1/1975_munson_nci_1_text.shtml
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC9-4GFCR48-5&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2006&_alid=383162461&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5949&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000046147&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=861681&md5=bc4585eff74c3b32c92ca75d4f359247 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC9-4GFCR48-5&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2006&_alid=383162461&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5949&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000046147&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=861681&md5=bc4585eff74c3b32c92ca75d4f359247

 



Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 31 May 2006 at 21:29
Prohibition of cannabis is an easy way for politicians and police to look though on crime at little expense, if not for the taxpayer (who often agrees to give €200/$200 of his pocket [so very rough estimation of mine of the by citizen cost for arresting, convincting and imprisoning non-violent drug ofenders] a year to get some stoners in jail) or, the stoner.

All in all, as long as people will buy into it, therefore as long as it permits to cops and politics to spend their time eating donuts while beating on the not so vindicative stoners instead of doing their job (or loose it), science won't have a word in the discussion at hand. People often only listen to what they want to hear. People wouldn't look at all those justicial tv shows like FBI if they didn't profoundly want human justice to counter divine fate, and they think they participe to the good going of the world by not accepting canabis use. Of course they are doing the exact opposite, as prohibition always does, but well, hell, here logic is not really the point, people just want to feel themselves the rightfully ones when going to bed. That's their drug.

A little interesting derail, occidental christian culture, wich today rules the whole world including the billions of muslims or any other belivers from china, india, africa, etc...,  and cannabis may also have a history of opposition back to the biblical times. According to scholars, the gnostics, wich were labelled as 'heretics' and purchased, whose books were burned, by the early "straight thinking" church, probably, for part of them, knew and used cannabis, even if it doesn't matter an awfull lot. The gnostic believed that Jesus was a man, that the resurection was an idea and not a reality,  and that  personal enlightment like expressed in the arts made anybody an 'anointed one', ie a christ. The straight church insisted that Jeebus was god, made miracles by dozens, and rose from the deads. Wich is alltogther more interesting if you have to build a whole society on those beliefs. If people can trust that, they can trust anything Dead generally speaking, cannabis and occidental culture have no particulary positive links.



Posted By: Grasso
Date Posted: 31 May 2006 at 22:56
Hello,


In order to give this thread a philosophical note I would like to add that Mister Nietsche called the church a moloch and called the state a vulture.

Uli
    


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 06:07
Hi Kidsreturn,
 
Why are your links non "clickable"?
 
Cheers,


Posted By: Arjun
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 13:11
I made all the links in kidsreturn's post clickable.
It is a nice list of usefull links ... thanks for this contribution.


Posted By: DonQuichote
Date Posted: 03 June 2006 at 21:53
In the Netherlands, there was a mention of a doctor about a year ago, who used to be fiercely against the use of drugs. He had a good reason to, because he worked with psychiatric patients that had some disorder that made them quite sensitive to smoking weed. That was strange, because the cannabis use in this group was significant higher then for other people. You would expect that the bad experiences would stop the patients from smoking weed.
The doctor discovered that for those patients, a little weed actually improved their situation, but that a "helpful" dose was hard to achieve by smoking.

But off course I forgot the name of the doctor and the institue he was working for...


-------------
The world's first phyberpunk


Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 03 June 2006 at 23:25
(thanks Arjun for editing the previous post links)


As far as the scientific litterature goes (well... as far as i followed it), there is no definitive direct and complete answer to the link between cannabis and mental disorders,in this case schizophrenia and maybe bi polarism... Some studies say that cannabis predates psychotic episodes -those studies being discuted in the Norml link below-, other say the opposite. For now, i will just think by myself: as i have half a dozen persons that i know who have been interned for mental disorders.. i see the story of some (sexual violence while young, suicide of a parent) or others (long time acknowledged mental problems, psychotic onsets clearly before any cannabis use)... i  put my little brain in action, and it says:  mental disorderly persons tend to use cannabis more than  mentally ordered persons. Life events, psychic predispositions, various abuses, have such a great and direct influence on the onset of psychotic problems that i have trouble fitting cannabis in the picture otherwise than like a mild tranquilizer. And that will not turn mad people who weren't already on the tip for much greater reasons, if it ever does anyway.

last edit:
http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=564 -


This NZ-Norml page

http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=564 - http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=564

adresses the studies that try to link cannabis use to onsets of psychotic episodes, wichever often rely on the same swedish conscript study.

The other great mental disorder issue that cannabis opponents have is linking cannabis to depression. More and more studies rule that out (just by finding that cannabis users are less depressive than non-users, http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05.n1126.a01.html? - http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05.n1126.a01.html? ), and it appears since quite recently, as seen in http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.%2020051014.wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/ - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.%2020051014.wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

that

Most "drugs of abuse" such as alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine suppress growth of new brain cells. However, researchers found that cannabinoids promoted generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampuses.

Hippocampuses are the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, and the study held true for either plant-derived or the synthetic version of cannabinoids.

"This is quite a surprise," said Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

"Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," he added.

The research by Dr. Zhang and a team of international researchers is to be published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, but their findings are on-line now.

The scientists also noticed that cannabinoids curbed depression and anxiety, which Dr. Zhang says, suggests a correlation between neurogenesis and mood swings. (Or, it at least partly explains the feelings of relaxation and euphoria of a pot-induced high.)

Other scientists have suggested that depression is triggered when too few new brain cells are created in the hippocampus. One researcher of neuropharmacology said he was "puzzled" by the findings.

LampHeart


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 04 June 2006 at 01:45
Thanks for making the links "clickable"!!! That way many more people will
visit the sites, furthering education.
 
As a science nut, I see many new reports that are studies drawing from the "body of scientific knowledge". There will be future reports, published in peer reviewed scientific journals, summing up the bulk of information in a new report. The science is maybe lost to the popular media rather quickly, but researchers always are prudent to draw from the largest pile of data possible, so all the past reports will be referenced in new studies at some time. Science is a body of knowledge, continually added to and referenced to include all available info. It is our....your job to spread the word and educate and inspire the people you know to seek understanding. Unfortunatly, there are "war on drugs" types that spread misinformation and propaganda. It is a battle, and we know which side will win in the long run. I personally speak out, distribute information, and challenge the ignorance, something everyone should do. It will not
change anything in the short term, but every new person who gains understanding is a vote in the right direction.
 
Cheers!!!


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 04 June 2006 at 01:53
Hi Kidsreturn,
 
There is also the opinion's that those with schizophrenia mental disorders are "self medicating" making it seem to be a cause, also there is the opinion that those that choose pot are a unique subset that includes those with schizophrenia mental disorders. The same could be said for peaceful people, does pot "cause" people to be peaceful, or do a subset of people who are peaceful choose pot?? Did "hippys" choose pot, or did pot cause people to become "hippys"??
 
 
Cheers,,,,


Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 04 June 2006 at 02:28
"also there is the opinion that (...)"

Yes I edited my previous post so to hihlight this a little more.


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 07:48
Hi Kidsreturn,
 
You are doing great! I admire your knowledge and seemingly endless resources on this subject!
I wish I had more time to study them all, personally I am interested in all science, and read all
the latest research news as it is published, which occasionally contains news about pot.
 
Education of the known accurate facts on the subject seems to fall on deaf ears for those
on the "right", who gobble up all the misinformation to maintain a self-deceived opinion.
 
Keep up the good work!
 
Cheers
 
 
Smoking Marijuana

Smoking marijuana is gaining moral acceptance, particularly among Democrats and Independents. Forty-seven percent of you believe that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but there are stark differences by party. Democrats are more likely to approve the use of marijuana, while a majority of Republicans feel it is never permissible.

source:
http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_090105.html - http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_090105.html


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 08:10
Hi Kidsreturn,
 
Here is a link to that published study about pot being good for your brain by
promoting new brain cells, be sure to check the long list of references at the
end of the report:
 
 
Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects
 
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104 - http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104
 
Thanks again!!
 


Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 06 June 2006 at 21:21
Originally posted by enkigooroo

Hi Kidsreturn,
 
Here is a link to that published study about pot being good for your brain by
promoting new brain cells, be sure to check the long list of references at the
end of the report:
 
 
Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects
 
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104 - http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104
 
Thanks again!!
 


Yes, thanks too, glad if some linked pages do interest people. And yes i'd seen this cannabic neurogenesis, pretty astonishing (puzzling, as say some scientist). It's incredible how much things we know on some subjects, and how some less politicaly correct subjects can be scientific no man's lands. Hopefully the trend to scientifically study cannabis is bound to stay, exept for where it's still totally illegal to grow cannabis even for research purposes.


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:17

I was reading a couple of articles the other day that really made my blood boil.

First was the DEA's scheduling of illegal drugs in the
US. Schedule 1 drugs are the most seriously prosecuted, attract the biggest punishments, and are rated as having a 'high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value'. Schedule 2 drugs are those that the DEA/US govt. considers 'less' dangerous.

SCHEDULE 1 - Heroin, morphine and their synthetic equivalents (huge medicinal value, but very dangerous and addictive drugs), plus LSD, MDMA, psilocybin, DMT, GHB and .... wait for it ... CANNABIS!

SCHEDULE 2 - Cocaine, crack cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, PCP, oxycontin, opium,

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/scheduling.html

Truly amazing. Most of the drugs which ANY scientist will tell you are known to cause insanity, death, violence and massive addiction are rated as less serious than cannabis and other hallucinogens.

MDMA (ecstasy) is the love-inducing, slightly psychedelic relative of methamphetamine. The latter is highly addictive, mood altering, prone to abuse and very prone to induce psychosis (whether temporary or permanent); it's THE drug that's currently tearing through the young populations of the west and
Asia.

And meth is listed by the DEA as less serious and harmful than ecstasy. That's not a matter of opinion, that's simply and wildly incorrect. Maybe meth's 'medical value' comes from the fact that it's given to 'ADHD' kids under the brand-name desoxyn?

It's right there, codified on government websites - drugs which are generally non-addictive, which make people think and laugh, and some of which grow naturally form the planet and need no processing - they're the ones that are a danger to society and the people who take them. The drugs which unquestionably cause violence, stupidity and, crucially, less thinking - they're the ones that are seen as less harmful.

Not a mistake, a conscious plan for evil, IMHO.

And a few days later, this little bit of text almost made my head explode (maybe I'm suffering from cannabis psychosis):


"Since 2001, Craker has been seeking a license from the Drug Enforcement Administration to establish a medical-marijuana growth facility at UMass-Amherst. It would be the second such facility in the
US; at present, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a federal agency, produces the only legal supply of cannabis in the country at the University of Mississippi.

The DEA lists cannabis as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical uses. However, marijuana is unique on the Schedule I roster-which also includes cocaine, LSD, and MDMA (Ecstasy)-as the only substance that is not available from multiple independent producers for clinical research purposes."

Aaaargh!



Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 07 June 2006 at 12:41
Originally posted by enkigooroo

Hi Kidsreturn,
 There is also the opinion's that those with schizophrenia mental disorders are "self medicating" making it seem to be a cause, also there is the opinion that those that choose pot are a unique subset that includes those with schizophrenia mental disorders. The same could be said for peaceful people, does pot "cause" people to be peaceful, or do a subset of people who are peaceful choose pot?? Did "hippys" choose pot, or did pot cause people to become "hippys"??
Cheers,,,,


Wel, it did mellow me out a bit, when I was an irascible teenager...

There is a lot of noise made about a Swedish study (possibly produced by Jasmine Hurd at the Karolinska institute) which looked at army conscripts (ie the entire Swedish male population born in a given year, since they have mandatory national service).

The study seemed able to 'predict' future mental illness, with some correlation to those conscripts who smoked cannabis. Based on this kind of reverse-science, a pattern could be perceived by anyone who was already decided about the horrific effects of cannabis.

The funny thing is that if the same study is performed with alcohol considered as a factor, heavy drinking is four times as reliable a predictor of future mental illness as cannabis.

Similarly, people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are far more likely to smoke cigarettes than the average person.

Naturally, such studies are not done very often (or not publicised), as there are rich and powerful interests which are sure that their product does not cause such problems...

I don't think the higher use of cannabis (or tobacco, or alcohol, for that matter) has much bearing on mental health. The question is presented as a 'chicken and egg' type  of problem - do they self-medicate or are their problems caused by the substance they use?

The simple way to see through the hype is to recognise that while sufferers of mental illness may have a higher incidence of smoking cannabis, cannabis smokers definitely do not have a higher incidence of mental illness.
Simple. No chicken and egg. The equation has to balance on both sides.

Incidentally,
if you believe in evolution, the chicken also had to come first...


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: kidsreturn
Date Posted: 10 June 2006 at 12:36
To get back on a earlier point, i wonder how much progress of science is linked to common public enlightment. Certainly a little, and it's hard to imagine that logic (economic, social, medical, any kind of logic) can be disconected so much longer from the prohibitions' popular support.
 
At the same time theres a thresold of the cumulative anger and problems directly caused by prohibition (problems such as health problem linked to black market drugs or enjailment, in longtime degraded structures, of otherwise non dangerous citizens) that our governments most often know how to handle. The part of smokers that are made legal example of is apparently not enough to push the others to defend the issue as an important civil right issue (that would be crossing the thresold), nor to diminish the drugs consumption for that matter; and the part of smokers that suffer from drugs but because of prohibition will often by themselves, like the society, point finger at the drug but not at the prohibition. Thats some textbook vicious circle. [/rant mode off]


Posted By: hidingtree
Date Posted: 10 June 2006 at 14:41
ok , science in united states has said cannabis is of medicinal value . yet the government says it has none . the united states made cannabis illegal around 1937 . this was the first part of thier evil plan .it was easy because the american peple were just recovering from the historical "great depression " where the stock market crash left many people penniless and to fend for themselves this began the selfishness most americans have to deal with where they are only concerned about themselves and thier families and screw everyone else . there was a great boook that came out in the late 80s or early 90s ... by jack herer called " the emperor wears no clothes " it makes sense of how cannabis (hemp ) can literally save the world and how the uprising of corporations producing synthetic fibers (chemicals and oil ).were threatened by the long lasting, easily,and naturally produced fiber of cannabis hemp.the huge cotton farming industry that raped the land and left it dead also had alot to do with prohibition in united stastes and thus the entire world!!!! however the evil beings that have governed this country (and many other countries) don't seem to want to save te world ... they want to destroy it ...and make thier selfish money . one conversation i had with a friend was about how maybe it is the plan of the Almighty to see if we can spread the consciousness and opening of the minds doors through the use of cannabis to those that have thier minds door closed by years of brain washing . with the huge non acceptance of cannabis by republicans (who dominate the government in our country it can be quite frightening ... being a martyr for the sacred plant ?????? how do we fight it non violently .... we must .... or????????
    


Posted By: enkigooroo
Date Posted: 02 July 2006 at 09:02
 
 
 
 
I was reading through some of Kidsreturn's links, (thanks KR) and wondered if anyone
had studied or reported on the "70 different cannabinoids" in weed? (see source below) This is an interesting thing to me, since different weed has different effects, could this be nailed down to a particular unique set of cannabinoids? I always theorized the different highs had to mean there were different drug variants involved.
Would it not be as interesting to the smoker as to the researcher to identify these differences, and be able to test for them individually?
 
Cheers!
 
Source:
 
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915 - http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915
 
 
Just what have you been smoking?
 
THC is the best known active ingredient of cannabis, but by no means the only one. At the last count, marijuana was known to contain nearly 70 different cannabinoids, as THC and its cousins are collectively known. These chemicals activate receptor molecules in the human body, particularly the cannabinoid receptors on the surfaces of some nerve cells in the brain, and stimulate changes in biochemical activity. But the details often remain vague—in particular, the details of which molecules are having which clinical effects.

More clinical research would help. In particular, the breeding of different varieties of cannabis, with different mixtures of cannabinoids, would enable researchers to find out whether one variety works better for, say, multiple sclerosis-related spasticity while another works for AIDS-related nerve pain. However, in the United States, this kind of work has been inhibited by marijuana's illegality and the unwillingness of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to license researchers to grow it for research.



Posted By: Q´sGhost
Date Posted: 22 August 2007 at 19:39
hey its the first time a MS patient gets cannabis from the doctor against pain here in germany ... arent these good fckn news ? :) gd smoke !

-------------
1 TIME FOR YOUR MIND, BODY AND SOUL !


Posted By: Antt
Date Posted: 07 February 2008 at 19:24
What I've been dwelling on recently is the tenuous Schizophrenia concept.
 
Considering it is generally accepted that Cannabis' connections to Schiz is 'unknown' (Meaning either 'non-existant' or 'existant but clearly not a huge problem') I find it quite disturbing that this 'problem' is pretty much the only 'solid' reason not to smoke cannabis.
 
Now, let's do a quick check... Hands up who has smoked Cannabis regularly (ie. daily, several times a week) for a year or more. Uh huh.
    Now hands up which of you has Schizophrenia.
I see.
 
They can keep spouting this almost-entirely unfounded nonsense for years; it's bring no one any closer to definitive proof. I think it's about time they launched a serious, huge-scale investigation into this, with the legality of cannabis hanging on the result.
 
Antt.
 
No, wait. Ganja - I had a look at that Scheduling nonsense. When I read your post, my mouth gradually opened more and more, until a small goose flew into it and I had to close it. It is quite amusing, that they can publish such blatant biased misinformation on a Government site. Says a hell of a lot about the priorities of the world.
 
Antt (Again).


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 16:46
I made a helpful chart:




-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: Antt
Date Posted: 13 February 2008 at 15:27
Thanks Ganja, that is incredibly interesting. So potency has actually increased in the last few decades, consumption is obviously higher than ever, but mental illness is static (or does it even decline slightly? - Can't tell if it's just me)
 
Thanks
 
Antt.


Posted By: Alibaba
Date Posted: 13 February 2008 at 15:32
Hi Ganja!

Love the helpful chart and understand and agree with the sentiment but are you sure that incidence of mental illness hasn't increased in the last 50 years? I find this a little hard to believe.

For example there have been many 'advances' in psychiatry over this time, resulting in all kinds of new illnesses which were unheard of then. These 'new' illnesses would previously been ignored or dealt with in alternative ways (a child with 'ADHD' would probably have been given the cane/birch/cat'o'nine tails on a regualr basis for bad behaviour until they'd got over it) and not recognised as mental illness. Just by the fact there are more  illnesses (and indeed people) to diagnose and more pyschiatrists means it is likely that there has been an increase in the incidence in mental illness.

Though I don't have any evidence to support this.



-------------
lots and lots of pot head pixies riding round in teapot taxis


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 17 March 2008 at 11:55
That's the thing, the status of conditions like ADHD, 'restless foot syndrome' etc, as mental illnesses is highly debatable. Many doctors and researchers who are not owned by pharmaceutical interests question whether these are real conditions, or merely vague sets of 'symptoms' cobbled together in order to sell a product to treat the hypothetical illness.

When considering real mental illness - schizophrenia, severe depression, psychosis - and factoring in the various changes in methodology (both the greater ability to detect when something is wrong and the more exact classification of the problem), serious mental illness has remained level in industrialised nations for about a century (including population growth). There are good records of this in the UK, Australia and the US.

When considering hypothetical mental illness, newly defined conditions may indeed be on the increase, but there is an enormous profit motive involved that undermines the neutrality of such hypotheses in the eyes of many serious researchers.

In recent news - prozac has been found to be no more effective than a placebo.

In other news (and the reports of this are getting more numerous every year) it has been shown that half a dozen different SSRIs (prozac analogues) are not only unsuitable for young people, but actually cause many of the feelings and behaviours that worry parents so much - suicidal thoughts, self harm, depression, etc.

By coincidence, in the US, where SSRIs and other antidepressants are being fed to children under 5 (the fastest growing segment of the medicated population), cannabis is said to cause many of the same effects. Freaky.

You will occasionally get a quack claiming that his personal experience of mental ilness incidence is on the rise. There is one doctor in Southwark (SE1 London) who makes just such a claim - that mental illness in his area is rising - and attributes it to cannabis.

Leaving aside his anomalous statistical bubble, having visited Southwark extensively, I can state with certainty that if the increased incidence is real, there are about a million things in Southwark that any sane person would identify as contributing factors to mental illness before considering cannabis.


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: [sensi_noob]
Date Posted: 13 July 2008 at 16:09
IMHO, the US is by far the most hypocritical and inconsistent country when it comes to drug laws in general... I should know, having lived there for 8 years. Just a few anectodes:
 
1) The Volstead Act, aka alcohol prohibition in the 20's and early 30's - maybe they should have kept it that way though, seeing as alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of people yearly, directly or indirectly...whereas I've never heard of anyone ever being killed by cannabis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Origins - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

2) George Washington, the very first, and one of the most respected US presidents, grew marijuana on his farm and actually encouraged its development, both for industrial hemp and the psychoactive form we all love.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm - http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm
And of course, everyone knows about the "I didn't inhale" quote by Bill Clinton, another quite well respected and liked US president (unless you're a hardcore republican). Not to mention our little friend W Bush who had been arrested in possession of cocaine and publicly admitted having smoked marijuana.

3) More recently in history (50's - 60's), project MKULTRA - LSD and other drug experiments on US soldiers, CIA members and other individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

Incidentally, more or less around that time, heavy LSD experiments were conducted on schizophrenic patients as well chronic alcoholics to see if the drug could help. This was actually the subject of my semester essay in a class I took in college called "Drug use and behavior". Got a B- in that class... must have spent too much time doing lab experimentation at that time Wink 

Though there were mixed results in the case of schizophrenia, several experiments with alcoholics were actually quite successful, with success rates often much higher than standard group therapy or other methods. There are thousands of articles on this, but here's one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061007111350.htm - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061007111350.htm


4) On the plus side now... but still showing how ridiculously inconsistent that country is when it comes to its laws (granted this is due by their dual law system: state vs. federal laws, and in some cases, even city laws): several states have allowed marijuana for medical uses. Oakland, CA has actually fully decriminalized marijuana (including for recreational use) on the city level, but it's unclear how that goes into conflict with state and federal laws and how it actually affects day-to-day life in reality. If anyone here lives in Oakland, they could tell us... Other cities or counties have allowed growing within specific limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_marijuana_in_the_United_States - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_marijuana_in_the_United_States
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuana.html - http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuana.html

People like Steve Hager, editor in chief of High Times magazine, have actually been fighting and lobbying for years to make this happen, at least for medical users... Let's hope that this movement can expand in the future.
 
Originally posted by Ganja

It's right there, codified on government websites - drugs which are generally non-addictive, which make people think and laugh, and some of which grow naturally form the planet and need no processing - they're the ones that are a danger to society and the people who take them. The drugs which unquestionably cause violence, stupidity and, crucially, less thinking - they're the ones that are seen as less harmful.

Not a mistake, a conscious plan for evil, IMHO.
 
I couldn' t agree more.

If I may add, drugs that are likely to make people see the world in a way that will reveal governments' lies, manipulation and true intentions (ie. most psychedelic drugs and marijuana) are a threat to them. They'd much rather see us brainwashed and watching TV all day, while a handful of - mostly anonymous and low-profile - billionaires who never appear in the media allied to a military industrial complex, slowly take control over our planet...

Cheers,

-sn


-------------
"Truth is what stands the test of experience." - Albert Einstein


Posted By: reddeathdj
Date Posted: 08 August 2008 at 10:37
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6701 - http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6701
 
Thought you guys might wanna check out this link (above) its something i stumbled upon in school tryin to tell people that marijuanas not as bad as proclaimed on t.v. I hope you find it interesting.so%20high


-------------
Legalize Today, Smoke Tonight


Posted By: [sensi_noob]
Date Posted: 08 August 2008 at 10:46
Hey reddeath,
 
Good article dude ! Thanks for the link ! It's kind of funny though that it says:
 
"cannabis is non-toxic and may hold significant neurological benefits, including the treatment of certain neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease"...
 
Because we've all had those times where we were so stoned that the state of our short term memory was close to someone with alzheimer's Wink.

Did anyone see that recent episode of Weeds where Doug keeps going to the kitchen every 5 minutes, opens the fridge and says "where did all the cheese go ?"... That had me cracking up Smile


-------------
"Truth is what stands the test of experience." - Albert Einstein


Posted By: slowburn
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by Ganja

I am thinking of a little research project, and anyone who wants to join in is welcome.

The project is to dig up the numerous reports and studies published over the last 100 years or so that have found cannabis to be overwhelmingly useful, safe and undeserving of prohibition.

The thing is, there are dozens of these studies which consistently find the hysterical view of cannabis and its dangers to be false - from The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1894 - 3000+ pages) to the Wooton Report (1969)
to the various studies by the World Health Organisation (UN), to the recent report published in the British medical journal The Lancet and the studies done when the UK made cannabis a class 'C' drug.

The problem is that each one of these studies represents years of work - compiling and assessing data in a rigourous, scientific manner, then drawing rational conclusions and finally publishing them - only to be forgotten a few weeks after being made public. If they make the news services at all, they usually attract very little attention.

The process I've noticed in recent years is:
1) A reliable, neutral and above all informed organisation of experts (doctors, scientists, professional researchers) publishes a report finding cannabis to be relatively harm-free. In the case of recent studies, it's usually been to report that there's no real link between cannabis and mental illness (or, most recently, no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer).

2) If the study is reported at all in the media, it's newsworthy for a day or two, then slips into obscurity

3) Within a week or two, a body of non-experts - 'family' groups, concerned citizens' organisations, advocacy groups for law-enforcement professions, etc. - issue a call for 'more studies into the effects of cannabis on mental health' or something similar, usually enhanced with emotional references to 'the children'. Such reactions are usually given much more publicity than the study itself.

In this way, the years of research and large sums of money that went into the study are effectively negated in the media with the simple and very low-cost technique of acting like the report never existed.

Every study that reports findings contrary to official cannabis propaganda just seems to disappear down the 'memory hole'. The calls for studies into the dangers of cannabis stay in the public imagination for much longer, due to their emotional content and their frequent repetition.

So, despite the flawless credibility of report after study after report, the impression that remains in the mind of the public (at least, that part of it with little personal experience of cannabis) is that there are unspecified 'concerns' about the safety of cannabis and of the mental state of cannabis users.

Compiling a list of the favourable studies done over the years may be 'preaching to the choir', given that all or most forum members already have a rational, informed view of cannabis.

Still, such a list will make interesting reading and a good reference.

Also, the real studies of cannabis are especially informative when their content, tone and interpretation of data are compared with the reports issued by prohibitionist organisations (most notably the US government).

Even without judging the merits of the arguments given by each side, the fact that anti-cannabis material is always filled with emotional appeals, anecdote and disingenuous framing of data, while the studies which find little or no danger in cannabis tend to be reasoned, neutral and present their findings in a scientific way.

It's almost as if one side has something to hide...


Posted By: martiniGR
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 20:26
I remember  a research program of the government of the U S A  in the Netherlands in i believe the 80'S
it was to prove that using cannabis in traffic is dangerous, i believe it was in the area of VENLO, on a new highway wich was not in use at the moment of research.
it stood in dutch newspapers: the conclusion was BLOWERS ARE BETTER DRIVERS, less accidents,better behavior all possitive!!!
the results of the researchtest were NEVER PUBLISHED IN THE U S A!!!
........


-------------
Some say friends do not exist, we cant make words for things that do not exist...
Willie van het Kerkhof, Groningen NL


Posted By: Zach
Date Posted: 16 December 2010 at 06:19
Doctors and People have already proved that Cannabis has a medical benefits and I think this reason is fair enough. I mean, why do Government still prohibit the use of cannabis  when in fact it can be use to cure illness or other stuffs. 

-------------
tasty sig spam


Posted By: martiniGR
Date Posted: 26 February 2011 at 08:28
by the way i read about schizofrenia in this thread, since a few years it is proven that schizofrenia is not an illness.
Science can prove all they want, its cheaper that it is not an illness, so no illness.I told doctors this 10 years ago, but i am not a scientist.I believe my eyes,ears and experience.


-------------
Some say friends do not exist, we cant make words for things that do not exist...
Willie van het Kerkhof, Groningen NL


Posted By: MindSponge
Date Posted: 26 February 2011 at 10:46
hey this Fascist Website won't let me recommend another website? what gives????? FUCK YOU GUYS!! I"M trying to make money!!


Posted By: Rastakolnikov
Date Posted: 26 February 2011 at 20:56
it is proven that schizofrenia is not an illness
Source???

I believe my eyes,ears and experience.
Eyeball witnesses are unreliable, evidence is much better.


-------------
Champagne for my real friends.
Real pain for my sham friends.


Posted By: Narstrabest
Date Posted: 22 August 2015 at 08:10
There are certain restrictions beyond which there are dangers. We must get abide by such measures.

-------------


Posted By: SkinupPinup
Date Posted: 27 August 2015 at 18:09
We've got the DEA in the U.S. just now admitti ng that marijuana is probably less dangerous than heroin and it's being applauded as a big step. I think you can throw as many independent studies at the government as you can find but it won't matter until its their authorized departments doing the research.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 27 August 2015 at 19:54
must be a pretty high horse to get off of after all this time being wrong and having policy influenced by lobbyists and vested interests... 

-------------
Nec Plus Ultra


Posted By: SkinupPinup
Date Posted: 28 August 2015 at 19:14
Yeah, it's fun to watch organizations like the DEA eat their words. "Ummm, ok, so heroin might be a bit more dangerous than marijuana. But we're not experts on that sort of thing."


Posted By: mellow
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 13:31
feck the DEA shouldn't even be asked. What they gonna say, yeah legalise everything, I'll get a job in maccies :). On a side note, I read about a month ago that Durham in the UK is fine for growing a couple of plants. The chief constable has said that he will not arrest people with with bud or a couple of plants in there garden.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 19:36
round my way if you get burgled you likely wont even get a visit, just a number for the insurance. but they would bust you for growing your own medicine that meant you cost the NHS less. its a funny old game innit. when the police funding is slashed to ribbons what will they do then i ask. going after organized gang who wreck properties and steal electricity should still be a priority but the persecution of your average guy with a meter square should stop.


Posted By: Narstrabest
Date Posted: 25 September 2015 at 15:28
Great..so whats the present status of your project



Print Page | Close Window