UK - The Indepedent Apologises for launching a decriminalize cannabis campaign.

[Trebor]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2368994.ece

In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today...

By Jonathan Owen

Published: 18 March 2007



Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago.
More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.
A decade after this newspaper's stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London's Hyde Park - and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C - an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.
The decision comes as statistics from the NHS National Treatment Agency show that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006, and that 13,000 adults also needed treatment.
The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue.
The findings last night reignited the debate about cannabis use, with a growing number of specialists saying that the drug bears no relation to the substance most law-makers would recognise. Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalised, has also changed his mind.
He said: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."
Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."
"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."
Politicians have also hardened their stance. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has changed his mind over the classification of cannabis, after backing successful calls to downgrade the drug from B to C in 2002. He abandoned that position last year, before the IoS revealed that he had smoked cannabis as a teenager, and now wants the drug's original classification to be restored.

Just when we thought "Yes, a major paper has seen the bright side." this shit happens.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good find

[Nagognog2]

10 years ago THC didn't cause psychosis and now it does? What affected the human g-nome in such a radical way in half a generations' time?

[xctico]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

10 years ago THC didn't cause psychosis and now it does? What affected the human g-nome in such a radical way in half a generations' time?

The general public seems to have becomed a little dumber in the last ten years.

does anyone know the name of that strain of skunk? Q will like to order a few seeds, as to verify the information on the newspaper...

[Shiacmkmleer]

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29537 O.o

with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient,

wtf? I have a feeling someone pulled a number out of their ass.. and as for THC causing mental problems. Coralation and Causeation confused. After all someone with mental problems is more likly to use drugs then someone without.

[Alicia]

Originally Posted by Shiacmkmleer

After all someone with mental problems is more likly to use drugs then someone without.
[/LEFT]

Very true, they dont see these things that way rather then the direct cause. the media and bullshit propaganda does the rest.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

10 years ago THC didn't cause psychosis and now it does? What affected the human g-nome in such a radical way in half a generations' time?

I rember a trial in the north of scandinvia conducted to investigate the influence of margarine compared to butter, in a group of generally overweight and not so healthy living individuals conducted over 10 years or so.

The margarine-group improved 50% in life span ect. while the normal group improved 100% due to enviromental (emphasis on "mental" *lol* maybe not, somehow mostly everything was cooler in the 70ies^^) changes.

[Trebor]

Bush. Or else nothing and it's all just propoganda.

[Bildo]

SWIM would like to try some of this amazingly strong and dangerous "skunk" the media seem to have gotten hold of. More dangerous than acid and exstacy eh? Wish SWIM's dealer could get some in.

[enquirewithin]

The Independent has some good articles but any paper owned by a millionaire is going to tend to tow the line. This time they should be ashamed of themselves. This is deliberate misinformation.

The Lancet article does say that cannabis is more dangerous than LSD or "Ecstasy" but far less dangerous than tobacco or alchohol!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...04644/fulltext

Look at the table:

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

The Independent has some good articles but any paper owned by a millionaire is going to tend to tow the line. This time they should be ashamed of themselves. This is deliberate misinformation.

The Lancet article does say that cannabis is more dangerous than LSD or "Ecstasy" but far less dangerous than tobacco or alchohol!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...04644/fulltext

Look at the table:

this table is BS -is Cocaine-damge including those killed or incancerated during C.I.A., D.E.A., F.B.I
and police implications? -would Heroin still cause that much harm, if it was legally available -isn´t Ecstasy an Amphetamine... ? I could go on and on...

[Lunar Loops]

More of the same from another UK broadsheet (this time The Telegraph):
Skunk killed my beloved son

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/03/2007


As a newspaper apologises for its 10-year campaign to decriminalise cannabis, Kate Summers asks why its about-turn took so long
As a child, Guy was the liveliest, most happy-go-lucky boy that a mother could wish for.
He was mischievous, charming and always on the go; if there was a tree to be climbed, he was there. He loved music, he loved life.
In 2003, at the age of 16, he started experimenting with cannabis.
I assumed it was just a phase he would grow out of and, to some extent, turned a blind eye. But within six months my ebullient boy was transformed into a quivering, paranoid wreck, who was bombarded by voices in his head and who rarely left the house. A year later he committed suicide.
Five months after he started using the drug, doctors diagnosed him as suffering from cannabis-induced psychosis. He stopped smoking it immediately, but the damage was done.
I was stunned to learn that cannabis could be so harmful - it bore no resemblance to the drug I had puffed once or twice at university. And although it has been around for years, I had never heard of skunk, the superstrength variety that is now increasingly available. It bears almost no relation to the resin sold 10 years ago, containing 25 times the amount of tetrahydrocannabidinol, the main psychoactive ingredient.
Had I known, I would have acted differently. I'm convinced that it was skunk that ultimately killed Guy.
Recent reports state that record numbers of teenagers now need treatment as a result of smoking skunk. Last year, more than 22,000 people were treated for cannabis addiction - almost half of them under 18. It's a terrifying statistic, because behind every number there is a real person whose life is being destroyed.
With a dramatic front-page apology, the Independent on Sunday newspaper last week reversed its 10-year campaign to decriminalise cannabis. It cited new research published in the Lancet, showing that the drug is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy, and confirmed that a link has been established between strong cannabis and psychosis.
I applaud that decision, but what took them so long? This highly potent cannabis isn't new, nor are its terrible effects. In 1997, the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence warned that skunk could be responsible for some cases of psychosis.
I wasn't anti-cannabis, and I still think that it has a therapeutic role in pain relief for sufferers of multiple sclerosis, but what I have learnt about this lethal form of the drug has made me rethink my views. You can't tell who will be affected by skunk. I had no reason to think my lovely son would fall victim, but he did.
Guy was our middle child - my husband and I have an older son and younger daughter - and was invariably described as a lovable rogue, who would get into trouble at school but could melt the hardest heart with his cheeky grin.
His problems began when he was 16. He had left school and was waiting to start sixth-form college. He and his friends had lots of time on their hands and, some time in May, Guy started experimenting with cannabis.
He already smoked roll-up cigarettes, but I realised he'd progressed to soft drugs when I found large cigarette papers and little tubes rolled from cardboard in his room. I tackled him about it, in a low-key way, and told him it wasn't good for him, but the last thing I wanted to do was to make it into a big deal. And besides, I had no concept of how dangerous it was or how bad things could get.
In a way, I was so relieved that he wasn't out binge-drinking and being picked up by the police that I was happy for him to smoke quietly in his bedroom. He was a bright boy, and I thought he would know his limits.
But I didn't realise how much he was smoking, nor how powerful it was. It was only much later, when his illness had taken hold, that his friends told me that the roll-up he would smoke first thing in the morning was a joint.
I have raked over the past again and again, wondering if things might have been different if I had known the facts about strong cannabis. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and there's nothing I can do to change the terrible sequence of events that led me to discover my son's body, hanging from the top bar of his bunk.
There was no sign of any problems until that October. It was coming up to his birthday and he wanted a party, so my husband and I went out for the evening.
When we came back, we expected the house to be a bit of a mess, the way it usually is after a teenage party, but the place was just as we left it. Guy, however, was sitting on the floor in the corner, shaking, with three of his friends sitting on the sofa looking shell-shocked.
Apparently some people had arrived whom Guy didn't particularly like, and he had started screaming and yelling and telling everybody to go, which was completely out of character.
I sat down and talked to him all night: it was obvious then that he was extremely depressed and terribly paranoid. I took him to the GP, who put him on anti-depressants and referred him to a psychiatrist, who said Guy's psychosis - the paranoia, mood swings, and loss of concentration - was caused by the cannabis.
The stronger the cannabis and the younger the person who smokes it, the greater the risk. Not everyone will be affected, but I believe that the drug acted as a trigger for his mental illness: had he not smoked cannabis he might never have become mentally ill.
Guy stopped smoking at that point, and was placed in the care of the Crisis Resolution Team - an NHS home-treatment service - which meant he was monitored through weekly home visits and daily phone calls. But despite that, he took an overdose of anti-depressants and, shortly afterwards, was sectioned briefly for his own safety.
By then, his personality had transformed. His behaviour was erratic and bizarre: some days he would become obsessive about cleanliness, have four or five baths and tidy every room in the house. On other occasions, he wouldn't wash for weeks and just sit listlessly in his room.
He veered from wanting to be with me the whole time to shunning all contact with me and the rest of the family. He was frightened to go outside and never saw his friends; there were voices in his head and he was convinced that people were out to get him. It was pitiful to see the state he was in.
When he was going through a bad patch, he would wear a beanie hat, night and day. I grew to dread the sight of the thing, because it symbolised his pain.
However, by April 2004, the good days appeared to be outnumbering the bad and he got a job in the bar of a local hotel. He held it down for a couple of months and came off his anti-depressants because he felt he was better; in truth, it was the anti-depressants that were making him feel better.
He still heard the voices, but he said they were under control. Then, believing he was on the mend, he smoked a cannabis joint with friends - something I discovered only later.
It sent him spiralling into a deep depression. Days later, his paranoia increased and he started self-harming - cutting his body. We were all devastated and the strain was tearing us apart. I desperately wanted Guy back; he was unrecognisable, a shell, rather than my son.
In October, he was put back on anti-depressants, but, although our GP was brilliant, she couldn't get the same rapid response from the other health agencies that Guy had received before. He was put on a waiting list for Crisis Resolution, which made him feel unsupported.
He was lower than ever before; there were no good days any more. His bedroom was festooned with notes saying "Leave me alone" and "Get out of my head".
The voices drove him to burn his arms with a cigarette lighter yet, when the Crisis Resolution Team eventually came to see him in January, two days before he died, they said he wasn't suicidal.
The day he died, I had taken him to the doctor for his anti-depressant prescription. I dropped him off at home and went across the road to the chemist. I was about to go straight to work, but for some reason I went back to the house: I was greeted by silence.
I called to Guy but there was no answer. I dashed upstairs and there he was, hanging from a scarf he'd made into a noose. He was just 17 years old.
I can't begin to describe the feeling of seeing your own child dead. But I do remember a sense of relief that it was me who had discovered his body. If I'd gone to work, his younger sister would have found Guy when she got back from school, which I can't bear to even imagine.
On the day he died, I felt bereaved, but in truth we'd lost Guy a long time ago. He wasn't happy, and he was never going to be happy.
Cannabis had robbed him of his joy and his future. Again and again I think about how different things could have been, and I would urge all parents to be vigilant and to arm themselves with information about strong cannabis and its effects.
I hate to think of other families going through the nightmare we endured. We will never recover from this, any of us. Guy may have taken his own life, but it was cannabis that killed him.

[Lunar Loops]

This from Transform http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/...war-round.html :
Sunday, March 25, 2007

The Independent's born-again drug war: Round Two



The Independent on Sunday have followed on last week's Cannabis panic front page splash with another front page splash. This time it is 'The Great Cannabis Debate'. Inside we get more news coverage revelling in the faux-controversy they have stirred up, scary brain scans showing how cannabis 'may' melt your brain, two opinion pieces; one by the head of the UN drug agencies Antonio Costa, another by child psychotherapist Julie Lynn Evans, and another leader defending their retraction of support for cannabis law reform (on the basis that it is more dangerous than they thought).

Jonathan Owen from the Independent on Sunday, who is apparently taking the lead on this latest salvo of cannabis coverage, rang me on Friday. He had read the Transform blog critique on last weekend's IOS cannabis 'apology' and wanted a response for this weeks 'Great Debate' follow up piece. This is what I sent in:

"The IOS makes the mistake of confusing their legitimate concern with the health impacts of cannabis misuse amongst a small group vulnerable young people, with support for the failed ideological policy of prohibition. Rather than supporting an evidence-led regulatory response based on public health and harm reduction principles, they advocate a policy that has not only failed to address the problems they describe (and has arguably created many of them), but also one that offers no prospect of sorting them out. The blanket criminalisation of millions of non-problematic occasional users that the IOS has now re-stated its support for, cannot be justified on the basis of a relatively tiny vulnerable population, especially of teenage heavy users, who have serious problems with the drug (even if this group has grown proportionally with the overall population of users over the last three decades). This is akin to prohibiting cars because of a small population of teenage joy-riders.
Cannabis use undoubtedly involves risk, as does all drug use, legal or illegal. But these risks have been well documented and well understood for generations. The debate around our response to cannabis use is not well served by hype and misrepresentation of statistics on potency, impact on mental health, or treatment and addiction – all of which last week’s IOS coverage was guilty of. This was scaremongering in the cause of an attention grabbing headline, very much in the pattern of many previous cannabis scares and precisely the sort of moral-panic the recent RSA report criticised for historically distorting policy priorities. The IOS also perpetuate the misunderstanding that the cause of cannabis law reform is predicated on the fact that cannabis is harmless. On the contrary – the exact opposite is true: Is precisely because drugs are dangerous that the need to be appropriately regulated and controlled by the State rather than be left in the hands unregulated criminal profiteers. This remains true however harmful a particular drug is shown to be.”

Whilst they have printed some similar-ish sensible comments from others in the follow up (in micro print, beneath the massive banner-headlined UN propaganda fest), they haven't included my comments in their 'great debate', which is mildly annoying since they actually asked for them. Maybe they will feature I next week's retraction-retraction?

Anyway, there's various things that jump out from the coverage deserving of some sort of response:

• Owen refers to 'outrage on pro-cannabis websites and blogs' in response to the IOS's cannapology. Read our blog post: it is not outraged and it is certainly not pro-cannabis, any more than advocates of drug policy and law reform generally are 'pro-drug'. They are pro effective evidence-based public health responses to the obvious failings of prohibition. As the late Eddie Ellison, former head of the met drugs squad and Transform Patron, liked to point out, being anti-drug is entirely compatible with a rational pragmatic position on drug law reform (see here and here). Pro drug / anti drug is a false binary that the IOS deploys as part of its own self justification: drugs are bad, we are anti them, we must be right. Once again, they totally miss the point.

• After last weeks 'drugs bad for you' scoop, the big scoop this week is that the UN agrees with them: 'The United Nations has issued an unprecedented warning to Britain about the growing threat to public health from potent new forms of cannabis, saying there is mounting evidence of "just how dangerous" the drug has become'. Actually this is in no way 'unprecedented', and to suggest so is just poor journalism. Costa, his predecessors, and the UN drug agencies saying exactly this, loudly and frequently, for years, especially since UK cannabis reclassification in 2004. Almost every comment in Antonio Costa's article is copy and pasted from these earlier statements.

• It is hardly surprising that Costa would say what he does. The UN drug agencies oversee the UN drug conventions to which most countries in the world are signatories. These conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988) enshrine the IOS's beloved criminal penalties for drug production, supply and use into domestic law of over 150 states. They are the legal foundation and ideological bedrock of global drug prohibition. So its hardly surprising that Costa has come out in support of the IOS 's born again war-on-drugs stance. Costa is like prohibition's end-of-level-boss, he is literally the last person on earth you would expect to get a balanced position on drug policy from. Its a bit like an IOS scoop that the Pope sensationally backed their new position on the virgin birth. Indeed, Peter Cohen, in an essay for the International Journal of Drug Policy, titled 'The drug prohibition church and the adventure of reformation', makes a telling comparison between prohibition and religious dogma:

Whatever the origin of the UN Drug Treaties, and whatever the official rhetoric about their functions, the best way to look at them now is as religious texts. They have acquired a patina of intrinsic and unquestioned value and they have attracted a clique of true believers and proselytes to promote them. They pursue a version of Humankind for whom abstinence from certain drugs is dogma in the same way as other religious texts might prohibit certain foods or activities. The UN drug treaties thus form the basis of the international Drug Prohibition Church. Belonging to that Church has become an independent source of security, and fighting the Church's enemies has become an automatic source of virtue

• Picking apart what Costa and prohibition's other high-level evangelists have to say has been done a million times. The UN drug agency's drug war propaganda is as tediously repetitive as it is economical with the truth. He repeats the myth that legalisation advocates claim cannabis is harmless, and blanket misrepresents all of the theory and practice of alternative policies to absolute prohibition as 'vague, laissez fare' or 'libertarian'. He uses a crackpot quote from a random online head-shop as a source of 'truth' regards the real dangers of cannabis, and has a charming line on not being swayed by 'misguided notions of tolerance'. Anything but tolerance!
• We then get the utterly ridiculous: "People who drive under the influence of cannabis put others at risk. Would even the most ardent supporter of legalisation want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?" OK. Deep breath... Look, no one, literally no one calling for legal regulation and control of cannabis (or any other drug) is saying driving whilst competence is compromised by drug intoxication is OK or should also be legal. I'm also not aware of anyone ever suggesting that flying planes whilst stoned was acceptable. Decriminalising drug use does not give license for secondary offences committed whilst intoxicated - these will obviously remain criminal, as they should. To suggest different is pretty desperate, and from the rational reformers perspective actually quite offensive.

• The most egregious nonsense in the Costa piece is where he claims: "drug control works. More than a century of universally accepted restrictions on heroin and cocaine have prevented a pandemic. Global levels of drug addiction - think of the opium dens of the 19th century - have dropped dramatically in the past 100 years. In the past 10 years or so, they have remained stable. The drug problem is being contained and our societies are safer and healthier as a result." Seriously, what can you say to that? How can you argue against that sort of statement that crosses the boundary from shaky institutional propaganda into full-blown Orwellian 'ministry of drug truth' delusion. At this point, I could produce a torrent of graphs, from official government and even UN sources, exposing this statement to be the polar opposite of reality, but hopefully if you are reading this blog, in fact if you can read at all, graphs wont be necessary as you will appreciate that such claims for the success of drug control over the past century are a total joke. It would actually be quite funny - if this man wasn't in charge of global drug policy. If the IOS is relying on this sort of analysis to bolster its case they really have blown it. To find out more about the UN drug policy see this excellent page of TNI publications on international drug policy. See also the recent blog: UN INCB is 'obstacle' to HIV prevention and drug treatment programs
  

• The other prominent drug 'expert' the IOS pull in is none other than music / TV / airline /cola mogul Richard Branson. He talks about 'genetically engineered skunk' suggesting that skunk - the ill defined catch-all term for smelly indoor-grown cannabis - is in fact some sort of sinister new species of franken-pot. Actually it's no more 'genetically engineered' than any other farmed plant, flower or vegetable that has been bred to develop certain properties - i.e. everything in your fridge. Rosie Boycott on Radio Four's Today programme last week, despite elsewhere talking a lot of sense, got it even more wrong when she described 'skunk' as 'genetically modified', which is just flat out incorrect. Breeding plants is very different from inter-species DNA splicing. The worst thing about this is that both Branson and Boycott seem to be buying into the hype of the potency panic (explored in last weeks blog and also examined in this week's Guardian Bad Science column by Ben Goldacre). The Independent also seems to imply that Branson is backing their born-again prohibitionist stance when in fact he is not. He specifically only calls for a debate on the harms of cannabis, and also says that people with drug problems should get help on the NHS 'free from blame'.

I could pick more holes in the coverage but I grow weary. Apologies to Julie Lynn-Evans then; its not that your plan to make 'skunk' posession punishable with 14 years in prison, but legalise 'the old stuff' doesn't warrant annihilating, just that I think the point has been made well enough now, and I can't be bothered.

To be honest I'm incredibly bored with the endless recycling of the cannabis debate, the endless retreading of exaggerated claims about the drug itself (either its dangers or its safety). If there is one small mercy in the IOS coverage it is that they spared us the dreaded 'gateway theory'. Most of all I'm bored of the myths, misrepresentations and misunderstandings about people who call for reform of a policy that has manifestly failed on each and everyone of its stated objectives to reduce supply, use or harm associated with the drug.

This has all been going on for literally decades now, in fact generations; bear in mind the original reefer madness film was made in 1936, several decades before the 'good old days' of the flower power era (as Costa calls it) when cannabis was apparently a nice harmless drug used by hippies.

This endless tail chasing has been fuelled by lazy journalists looking for an easy headline and populist politicians looking for a way to score points against opponents. Its just too easy: hype the danger then sound all righteous by coming up with a tough new way to fight it - evidence of effectiveness not required.

At some point we will have to get off this pointless merry-go-round. If nothing else the cannabis debate is a massive distraction from far more pressing issues in drug policy around heroin and cocaine in particular, and the catastrophic impact that those illegal markets have here as well as in Afghanistan, Colombia and elsewhere.

the Independent have changed their position from 10 years ago, and will probably change it again when they realise how the call for a war on pot really isn't the answer to the problems they identify, even if they were half as bad as the make out. Maybe the cycle-time for them changing their minds again will be a bit less than ten years. Maybe next time they will not confuse the debate about drug dangers with the debate about how to deal with them. You live in hope, but this week's spade work suggests they are determined to dig themselves into an ever deeper hole.

It was only last month that the IOS leader was arguing:

"It is true that there is a growing body of opinion that says some of the varieties of cannabis available today, in particular "skunk", are more dangerous than they were in the past. But this does not alter the fact that heavy-handed prohibition is failing."

and

"There are strong signs that the public is far less one dimensional in its attitudes than parts of the media and the political establishment believe. Almost a third of adults in this country have taken some form of illegal drug. There is a growing awareness that present policies are not working."

Just three weeks ago stablemate, the (daily) Indepedent with whom the Sunday version shares a website, had a leader about the RSA drugs report which argued that:

"Of course, the reason ministers are clinging on to the crude policy of prohibition is that there is still a wide-spread mindset in this country, stoked up by the populist press, that all drugs are "evil" and that, by extension, so are those that take them. The summersaults performed by ministers over the downgrading of cannabis demonstrate just how in thrall to this popular prejudice they remain. The RSA report argues that: "The evidence suggests that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming themselves or others. The harmless use of illegal drugs is thus possible, indeed common." One can already predict the shrieks of alarm that will emanate from the prohibitionist lobby at this eminently reasonable statement."

Weeks later another leader makes big play of unambiguously calling specifically for prohibition (its an absolutist position, there is only one kind and its always heavy handed), and also stating that the present policy is 'about right'. Its all a bit confused, why, its almost a bit...schizophrenic. Actually I don't really know what they're thinking, and to be honest, I don't think they do either.

Reputation Comments on this post:

great effort, great post

[Evil GIR]

Somebody some where is putting the pressure on to change there initial idea.

[Nagognog2]

With the Bush Regime proving to the world that Americas' number 1. export is a bullet to the head - no wonder they are "towing the line." How long will it be before some major newsgroup publishes the truth? That the USA is a fascist dictatorship hell-bent on ruling the world.

[VincentVan]

According to the last issue of "The Indipendent" marijuana is extremely dangerous and addictive, specially the variety denominated "skunk.
22000 people sought medical help in 2006 in England for cannabs detox and relaed issues.
According to the doc being interviewed, modern cannabis sativa is 25 times more powerful (and dangerous) than what it used to be; this guy therefor goes on recomanding legislative action being taken in the form of more strict prohibitionist laws.
Did anyone read this story?
Any comments? (specially about the cannabis addiction and the "25 times stronger " thing).
A question for our british members now: - Did any other media pick up the story and maybe ampify it or elaborate on it?-
I´m curious.

VV.

[Alfa]

25 times stronger than it used to be. Extremely potent cannabis hardly goes beyond 25% THC. So that would mean that cannabis used to be around 1% THC, which is not active and comes closer to the THC levels of industrial hemp, than recreational cannabis.

[Alfa]

UN warns of cannabis dangers as it backs 'IoS' drugs 'apology'

By Jonathan Owen

Published: 25 March 2007



The United Nations has issued an unprecedented warning to Britain about the growing threat to public health from potent new forms of cannabis, saying there is mounting evidence of "just how dangerous" the drug has become.
Writing in today's Independent on Sunday, Antonio Costa, the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, says each country has the " drug problem it deserves", and warns that the British government must " avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance".
Mr Costa's comments follow disclosures in last week's IoS that a record 22,000 people needed National Health Service treatment last year for drug rehabilitation, together with doctors' warnings that skunk cannabis is creating a generation with mental health problems.
He says: "Many [people] subscribe to the vague, laissez-faire tolerance of cannabis which is increasingly prevalent among educated people in Western countries. That consensus needs to be challenged. Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use is mounting and cannot be ignored."
The intervention, which will be seen as an attack on the Government's liberal stance on cannabis use, follows the decision by the IoS to reverse its support for the drug to be decriminalised, 10 years after launching a high-profile campaign for legalisation.
Mr Costa proposes that young people found in possession of the drug should be penalised in the same way as people caught drink driving, adding that the cannabis "now in circulation is many times more powerful than the weed that today's baby-boomers smoked in college. Cannabis is a dangerous drug."
After a week of debate in newspapers, television and radio * as well as outrage on pro-cannabis websites and blogs * the UN's unprecedented foray into the debate about drugs policy coincided with a new study proving links between mental health problems and smoking skunk. Research published yesterday predicts that cannabis may account for a quarter of all new cases of schizophrenia in three years' time.
The study, published in the journal Addiction, also says that rates of schizophrenia will increase substantially by the end of the decade, particularly among young men. The use of cannabis among under-18s rose 18-fold in the 30 years to 2002, according to the researchers from Bristol University.
Dr John MacLeod, co-author of the study, said: "If you assume such a link [with cannabis] then the number of cases of schizophrenia will increase significantly in line with increased use of the drug."
Sir Richard Branson, a prominent supporter of the IoS campaign for decriminalisation, yesterday added his voice to those calling for the new facts about skunk to prompt a policy rethink.
"The arrival of genetically engineered skunk has merited a new look at the situation," Sir Richard said. "If people have serious problems with drink, drugs or cigarettes, there should be NHS centres to help them where they can walk in free from blame."
Additional reporting: Rob Sharp and Chris Havergal

[Alfa]

Just released:
p1-250307_244535b.jpg

Antonio Maria Costa: Cannabis... call it anything but 'soft'

The debate over the drug is no longer about liberty. It's about health

Published: 25 March 2007



Seldom does a leading newspaper take a high-profile stand in favour of drug liberalisation. It is less common still for such a campaign to be publicly retracted. The Independent on Sunday deserves great credit for having the courage to change its mind on cannabis on the basis of mounting evidence of just how dangerous the world's most popular illicit drug has become.
It cannot have been an easy decision. Many readers undoubtedly subscribe to the vague, laissez-faire tolerance of cannabis increasingly prevalent among educated people in Western countries. That growing consensus needs to be challenged.
Supporters of legalisation would have us believe that cannabis is a gentle, harmless substance that gives users little more than a sense of mellow euphoria and hurts no one else. It's not an unattractive image. Sellers of "skunk" know better. Trawl through websites offering cannabis seeds for sale and you will find brand names such as Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow. "This will put you in pieces, then reduce you to rubble - maybe quicksand if you go too far," one Glasgow-based seller boasts. This is much closer to the truth.
The cannabis now in circulation is many times more powerful than the weed that today's ageing baby-boomers smoked in college. In the flower-power era, the concentration of THC, as the main psychoactive substance in cannabis is known, was typically 2 or 3 per cent. Present-day cannabis can contain 10 times as much.
Today's skunk is a product of several developments in cannabis cultivation: the "sinsemilla technique" (the cultivation of only unfertilised female plants); the use of indoor growing technologies; and the use of plant strains bred for higher yield and potency.
Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use - from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis - is mounting and cannot be ignored. Emergency-room admissions involving cannabis are rising, as is demand for rehabilitation treatment.
Amid all the libertarian talk about the right of individuals to engage in dangerous practices provided no one else gets hurt, certain key facts are easily forgotten. First, cannabis is a dangerous drug - not just to the individuals who use it. People who drive under the influence of cannabis put others at risk. Would even the most ardent supporter of legalisation want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?
Second, drug control works. More than a century of universally accepted restrictions on heroin and cocaine have prevented a pandemic. Global levels of drug addiction - think of the opium dens of the 19th century - have dropped dramatically in the past 100 years. In the past 10 years or so, they have remained stable. The drug problem is being contained and our societies are safer and healthier as a result.
The exception is cannabis, the weakest link in the chain. It is a weed that grows under the most varied conditions in many countries, which makes supply control difficult. But we can tackle demand, especially among the young. That need not mean sending them to jail. Young people caught in possession of cannabis could be treated in much the same way as those arrested for drink driving -- fined, required to attend classes on the dangers of drug use and threatened with loss of their driving licence for repeat offences.
I am increasingly convinced countries get the drug problem they deserve. Those that invest political capital - backed by adequate resources - in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation are rewarded with significantly lower rates of drug abuse.
Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously.
Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance. They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous - that is why the world agreed to restrict them.
The global cannabis market is changing. Traditional suppliers to the UK such as Morocco - the world's largest producer of cannabis resin - are slashing cultivation. That is more than offset by an increase in home-grown cannabis, now the main source of supply for most major markets. In Britain, demand will increasingly be met by well-organised indoor production with links to criminal networks. This represents a growing challenge for police.
Drug prevention and treatment will need to change in response to the effects of more powerful cannabis varieties on cognitive capacity, memory and emotional development, as well as schizophrenia among vulnerable individuals exposed to the drug. Public attitudes also need to change. The IoS has provided a valuable lead. It is time to explode the myth of cannabis as a "soft" drug.
The writer is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

[Alfa]

So how dangerous is skunk?

Our decision to drop The Independent on Sunday's 1997 decriminalise cannabis campaign has been applauded and decried throughout the world. At the heart of the controversy is the link between skunk and schizophrenia

By Jonathan Owen

Published: 25 March 2007



The UN called the move courageous. Mental health experts described it as a crucial intervention. Sir Richard Branson says it is time to think again. And on pro-marijuana blogs and chatrooms from Sydney to Sarajevo, the mood was more murderous than mellow.
Seven days after The Independent on Sunday published evidence that almost 10,000 under-18s needed drug rehabilitation for cannabis use in Britain last year, a ferocious debate has begun over whether a potent new form of the drug is leading to growing mental health problems.
Beneath the headline: Cannabis - An Apology, the IoS revealed last week that more than 22,000 people were treated last year by the NHS for addiction and psychological problems caused by smoking skunk, which is up to 10 times stronger than resin or grass.
Ten years after Rosie Boycott, this newspaper's then editor, launched a campaign to have marijuana legalised, the IoS last week reversed its stance, stating that the evidence of mental health problems among smokers made the current 'C' classification correct.
The move has provoked an international debate about the threat posed by cannabis in general and skunk in particular. The warnings about the effects on mental health were underlined yesterday in a new report, saying almost a quarter of all new cases of schizophrenia would stem from cannabis smoking by 2010.
The study, published in the journal Addiction, also predicts that young men who smoke cannabis will be particularly at risk. The use of cannabis among under-18s rose 18-fold in the 30 years to 2002, according to the researchers.
Dr John MacLeod, co-author of the study, said: "If you assume a link [with cannabis] then the number of cases of schizophrenia will increase in line with increased use of the drug." Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, yesterday called for people to wake up to the fact that cannabis is now a dangerous drug wrongly portrayed as a "gentle, harmless substance".
Writing in today's IoS, Mr Costa says that is no longer the case as a result of the potency of skunk, adding: "The cannabis now in circulation is many times more powerful than the weed which today's ageing baby-boomers smoked in college. Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use - from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis - is mounting and cannot be ignored."
Sir Richard Branson, head of the Virgin Group, who was a supporter of the IoS decriminalisation campaign, said yesterday: "The arrival of genetically engineered skunk has merited a new look at the situation."
Medical experts are now warning that the addictive nature of the drug means that detox clinics are needed. A report published in The Lancet last week showed how cannabis is more harmful than drugs such as LSD and ecstasy - but less so than alcohol and tobacco.
The number of people needing emergency treatment due to cannabis has virtually doubled in five years - from 581 in 2001 to near 1,000 last year.
But not everybody has welcomed the debate. Pro-legalisation campaigners claim the evidence for cannabis's damaging effects shows an association between the drug and psychosis, but not that one is the cause of the other. A more likely explanation, they argue, is that people in the early stages of mental illness may use the drug as a form of self-medication.
Roland Hyams a music PR and a supporter of decriminalisation, said: "I think alcohol is far more to blame for mental illness than cannabis. I've smoked plenty of skunk and never had problems."
However, some doctors now believe cannabis users have to take increasing quantities to experience the same "hit". A third of users are said to experience physical or mental withdrawal symptoms. One user in 10 is at risk of becoming an addict. "The strength of skunk means that users are more likely to become addicted to cannabis now," said Professor Peter Jones, professor of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge. "Withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, sleep disturbance and tremors."
J-Rock, from the rap group Big Brovaz and a former skunk addict, gave up the drug a year ago. He said: "Cannabis and skunk are definitely addictive and lead to psychological and physical changes in any person."
The 28-year-old musician started using when he was 13. When he came off the drug, he experienced headaches and mood swings. He describes the detox process as one of getting his sanity back. He says that skunk-induced paranoia is behind the surge in violent crime: "If you're on skunk and you have a confrontation with somebody, you feel almost untouchable."
Is this the evidence that shows cannabis is bad for your brain?
The controversial findings, published in the 'Journal of Psychoactive Drugs', give an indication of the possible effects of cannabis.
Images of the brain were created by single-photon-emission computerised tomography, which works by looking at blood supply and brain activity. Patients are injected with a radioactive substance which goes into the bloodstream and shows up on a brain scan. 'Mottled' areas represent areas where brain function is weakened . But some doctors question the validity of the images.
Normal brain
The brain image has a relatively smooth, uniform surface, with little indication of a loss of any brain function. It is the brain of someone who does not use cannabis and is an example of what an average brain can look like.
The 16-year-old who smokes every day
This scan, which shows a marked difference from the normal brain, is of a teenager who began using cannabis daily at 14 years of age. The image suggests that after just two years of using the drug, the brain is already affected
The 18-year-old who smoked for two years
The brain of a teenager who started using cannabis when 16 is badly pitted and scarred. The subject took the drug several times a week. Like the previous scan, this also apparently shows damage after two years of cannabis use.
The 28-year-old who smoked for 10 years
This scan shows how long-term damage can be caused by cannabis use. The subject had smoked skunk for 10 years. As with the other images shown, it appears to show decreased activity in the pre-frontal cortex and temporal-lobe areas.

[Alfa]

Leading article: The cannabis debate

Published: 25 March 2007



Our front-page headline last week, "Cannabis: an apology", certainly grabbed the attention of a lot of people. No issue since the Iraq war has provoked such a reaction from our readers and from other media. Today we publish a selection of letters, including many from people dismayed by our repudiation of our 1997 campaign to decriminalise cannabis.
Our front page was no mere attention-seeking device, however. The Independent on Sunday has changed its view because of the growing weight of evidence that cannabis contributes to mental illness. Yes, we sought to dramatise that change, not least in order to question some outdated assumptions and suggest people look again at the latest evidence.
It may be, though, that last week's headline did not do full justice to our special report. Certainly some of the journalists who contacted our office to follow up the story of our "U-turn" had not read much beyond the headline. Our "apology" was not a complete reversal of everything this newspaper stands for, or a repudiation of our fundamental liberal values. We still believe that adults should be free to live their lives as long as they cause others no harm. But the argument about the harm caused to family, friends and the wider society by cannabis-induced psychosis has changed. As we made clear in this space last week, what was a law-enforcement argument about priorities in 1997 has become, in 2007, a medical debate about mental health. Two things changed in the intervening 10 years: one was the increasing evidence that cannabis is a trigger factor in psychosis, especially for males, with the risk greater the younger cannabis use starts and the stronger the dose; the other was the big switch to high-strength "skunk".
Some of our readers doubt the medical evidence, and suggest that the growth in reporting of mental illness might have suggested causation where none exists, or even that those who are susceptible to mental illness would be more likely to misuse cannabis. We would urge them to read the testimony, on page 43, of Julie Lynn-Evans, a child psychotherapist with extensive experience in the field, which makes persuasive reading.
Others noted the Lancet study last week that compiled an "index of harm" for a number of mood-altering drugs, legal and illegal. Cannabis was ranked in the middle of the table, as more harmful than ecstasy and less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. Two fallacious arguments are made on the basis of this kind of ranking. One is that cannabis should be legalised because more harmful drugs are already legal. That is a bit like the argument, which this newspaper never made, that we should not invade Iraq because North Korea was a worse tyranny. The other is that the risks of taking cannabis - or ecstasy - are low. There is a difference between overall "harm" and individual risk. Last week, another teenager died after taking ecstasy. And if you are among the one in four who is susceptible, to use cannabis, especially at a young age, is to take a terrible risk with your mental health.
Nor is our position the only one that has changed over the past decade. We hear much less of the "war on drugs" from the Government now, and the emphasis of public policy is much more focused on information, education and harm reduction. That is how it should be, and we should say so.

[enquirewithin]

Feature: Reefer Madness Strikes a Leading British Newspaper

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...tish_newspaper


Careful observers of the British press are accustomed to tabloid-style grotesqueries. Even a cursory review of stories about drugs in the British press reveals breathless headlines -- "Cannabis Boy in Drugs Shame," "Heroin Girl in Drugs Tragedy" -- and mind-boggling statements right out of Reefer Madness. Just this week, the tabloid Liverpool Echo warned that "SUPER-strength cannabis so potent that just one puff can cause schizophrenia is being grown by Merseyside drug gangs."

UK press: backsliding into reefer madness
Along with topless models, lottery appeals, and gossip, lurid drug stories are to be expected in the tabloid press. It's another thing when one of Britain's premier serious newspapers gets down in the muck with the tabloids, but that's just what happened Sunday when the Independent on Sunday reversed course on cannabis. A decade ago, the upstart newspaper launched a campaign to legalize the weed, but this week it said it was wrong. In a series of articles led by the editorial "Cannabis: An Apology," the newspaper said the emergence of powerful cannabis varieties like skunk and increasing evidence of mental health problems for smokers prompted its recantation. "In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalize the drug," began the editorial penned by Jonathan Owen. "If only we had known then what we can reveal today... Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago. More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction -- and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalized."
The newspaper also cited "growing proof that that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis" and statistics showing "that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled" between 2005 and 2006. And again with the skunk: "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin -- with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s."
The newspaper cited several academic specialists who have been at the forefront of the campaign to prove that cannabis has serious mental health consequences. According to Professor Robin Murray of the London Institute for Psychiatry, cannabis use accounts for fully 10% of all schizophrenics in the UK. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."
The Independent also cited veteran anti-drug campaigner Professor Neil McKeganey from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties," he said.
But proponents of drug law reform and academic marijuana experts were shocked and dismayed by the Independent's new stance and its seeming fall into tabloid-style reporting. "This is very reminiscent of the potency panics in the US a few years ago," said Steve Rolles of the London-based Transform Drug Policy Foundation, who earlier this week wrote a highly critical blog post about the Independent's change of course. "If you take the weakest cannabis from one era and compare it to the strongest from the current era, you can make that 25:1 argument, but that just doesn't represent reality. It is fair to say there has been an increasing prevalence of more potent indoor grown cannabis, but the Independent was just cherry-picking the data. What they did was to grossly overstate it to make it seem a bigger issue than it is, and that's both bad science and lazy journalism."
"This is one of the most ridiculous and flaccid attempts to justify prohibition I have ever seen," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "The UK media is ensconced in incredible reefer madness that even the US can't match at this point. I keep a file called bad journalism. It's a fairly large dossier, but I never added so much material to it as I did last Sunday. That skunk they keep talking about must be extremely strong; look at the incredibly deleterious effect just writing about it has on people's ability to think rationally," he told Drug War Chronicle.
Dr. Mitchell Earleywine, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany and author of "Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence," scoffed at the Independent's claims about potency and the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. "There has probably been a two- or three-fold increase in potency on average," he told Drug War Chronicle. "Estimates from the 1970s are likely underestimates because we didn't understand how storage in hot police evidence lockers degraded THC. Most of the estimates from back then were around 1% THC. When we give folks marijuana that's 1% THC in the laboratory today, it's so weak that they get a headache and think they've received a placebo. Obviously, the plant wouldn't have become popular if it just gave people headaches."
Even if cannabis is stronger today, it does not follow that it is more hazardous, and stronger may even be better, Earleywine added. "The tacit assumption that stronger equals more dangerous is also wrong. Data on the subjective high that people obtain suggest that folks don't get any higher than they used to," he pointed out. "They may end up smoking less, using less total cannabis as a result, and therefore limiting the chances of developing any respiratory symptoms. Although cannabis use doesn't increase lung cancer risk, it can increase cases of cough, wheezing, et cetera. Those who smoke stronger cannabis tend to take smaller hits and deposit less gunk in their lungs."
Earleywine also raised questions about the science behind the claimed link between marijuana and schizophrenia. "The obvious stuff, that pot doesn't cause schizophrenia but schizophrenics like pot, tends to apply here," he said. "The longitudinal studies often do a great job of assessing psychosis at the end of the period but a poor job of assessing symptoms at the beginning of the study. There are now about five longitudinal studies suggesting increases in 'psychotic disorders' or 'schizophrenic spectrum disorders' in folks who are heavy users of cannabis very early in life. There are also six studies to show more symptoms of schizo-typal personality disorder in cannabis users. Note that none of these are full-blown schizophrenia, the rare, disabling disorder that affects about 1% of the population," he said.
"The best argument against this idea comes from work showing that schizophrenia affects 1% of the population in every country and across every era, regardless of how much cannabis was used at the time or up to ten years before," Earleywine added.
The alleged schizophrenia connection is more hype, said Rolles. "Nothing has really changed. The dangers associated with cannabis have been documented for years. Certain groups, particularly teenagers and people with preexisting mental health problems, can have problems if they use cannabis," he conceded. "But again, this is more cherry-picking of the statistics, the Reefer Madness thing used to justify prohibition. You hype the dangers. We see this over and over again with all drugs."
As for the Independent's claims that strong cannabis is driving record numbers of young Britons into drug treatment, Rolles was equally skeptical. "The experience in America is instructive," he said. "There, your drug czar talks about huge numbers of young people in treatment for cannabis-related problems, but if you look at the numbers, most of them are referred by the courts. The same is true here."
"This schizophrenia thing is unique to England and, to a lesser degree, Australia," NORML's St. Pierre said. "The principle advocate of this thesis, researcher Robin Murray, is literally trying to create a new myth around cannabis. It seems like we have a new myth every decade or so. In the '30s, pot made you crazy; in the '40s, it made you a criminal; in the '50s, it made you want to use hard drugs; in the '60s; it made you a hippie or radical communist; in the '70s, it made you apathetic and unmotivated. Now we have this latest version -- that cannabis is a source of psychoses. The way the British media has bought into this is a disgrace," he said.
"Empirically, this is one of the easiest marijuana myths to shoot down," St. Pierre said. "From London, you can practically see the Netherlands, a country where cannabis is readily available and fairly potent. If one one-hundredth of what they claim were true, you would be walking over bodies in Amsterdam."
St. Pierre noted that the marijuana-schizophrenia connection has not migrated to the United States. "Where is the American Psychological Association, where is the American Psychiatric Association?" he asked. "They should be the natural allies of the Brits on this, but they're not because this is absolutely bonkers."
Like NORML, Transform is an advocacy group working to end marijuana prohibition. British mental health organizations have a different take. "We now know that cannabis can be a trigger for mental health problems and smoking it under the age of 18 can double people's chances of developing psychoses," a spokesman for the mental health group Rethink told Drug War Chronicle. "The government must invest in a wide-scale public health campaign so that young people know cannabis is not risk-free."
While Rethink has led the charge for higher awareness of the dangers of cannabis through its Cannabis and Mental Illness Campaign, the group is not advocating for a reclassification of the drug. Instead, it believes its current classification as a Class C drug is appropriate.
That's not what Member of Parliament Paul Flynn thinks. Evidence of possible harms doesn't change the underlying dynamic of his anti-prohibitionist position. "My view is exactly the same. Prohibition doesn't work," he said. "It's much worse to have the market controlled by dangerous criminals than for it to be properly controlled."
And so the debate over cannabis in Britain roils.

[Bikelbees]

According to the mental health charity “Rethink”, smoking cannabis more than 50 times as a teenager increases the chances of developing schizophrenia by 6 times. In my view it is impossible to measure the experience and effects of using drugs in isolation from a multitude of other environmental factors, experiences and changes of all kinds. It seems doubtful that anything other than standardised tick-box symptoms are used to make this diagnosis in many cases.

Nowadays people define themselves more readily as victims, as that is the political shape of society. In the past if someone had a problem at work for example, it would be the power of collective bargaining that could assist them, work colleagues acting united - today its more likely to be going to get legal aid from a solicitor armed with a doctors note and moaning to the unelected court somewhere about mental illness - its the way things get done today. Its hardly surprising when faced with a dismal life, people now often try and blame something external, not being able to accept any responsibility for their situation. When the environment is depressing, drugs not only represent an escape, but an ultimate suitable crux to add to the explanations of why the individual is unhappy.

The suggestion that stronger skunk cannabis is a more dangerous drug in comparison to older traditional products is probably incorrect. The Independent was waxing lyrical about the good old days of moroccan, red leb and gold seal. These are pretty strong products themselves and I recall hash oil was also available. You could get pretty trippy eating or smoking these products or by "pinning" hash as was popular 25 - 30 years ago. I think its just personal preference and this anti-skunk message is just nonsense.

The proposed medicalisation of the problem as is now being campaigned for by the RSA and mental health organisations is in my view problematic. Why, if such commonplace activity was so proven to be dangerous, did the Court find in the recent tragic double-murder case of Palmer, that when the defence raised medical evidence that the defendant’s smoking of cannabis since his early teens had increased his problems with hallucinations and panic attacks, was this point rejected (and subsequently his plea of diminished responsibility)?

Reputation Comments on this post:

another excellent post

[xctico]

reefer madness...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...82420128930236

[Jatelka]

Just for reference: Here's the Ben Goldacre "Bad Science" column (I love this guy!)

Cherry picking data to prove a point about cannabis

Ben Goldacre
Saturday March 24, 2007
The Guardian

The more I see of the world the more it strikes me that people want more science, rather than less, and that they want to use it in odd ways: to abrogate responsibility, validate a hunch, or render a political or cultural prejudice in deceptively objective terms. As long as you cherry pick the data and keep one eye half closed, you can prove anything with science.
Last week's Independent on Sunday splashed with the headline: Cannabis - An Apology. It went on: "In 1997 this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today ... record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago."

Twice in this story cannabis is said to be 25 times stronger than it was a decade ago. For Rosie Boycott, in her melodramatic recantation, skunk is "30 times stronger". In one inside feature the strength issue is briefly downgraded to a "can". It's even referenced. "The Forensic Science Service says that in the early nineties cannabis would contain around 1% tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), the mind-altering compound, but can now have up to 25%."

Well I've got the Forensic Science Service data right here, and the earlier data from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the UN Drug Control Programme, and the EU's Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. I think that people are well able to make their own minds up when given true facts.

The LGC data on mean potency goes from 1975 to 1989. Resin pootles around between 6% and 10% THC, herbal between 4% and 6%, with no clear trend. The Forensic Science Service data takes over to produce more modern figures, showing not much change in resin, and domestically produced indoor herbal cannabis doubling in strength to between 12% and 14%.
The rising trend of cannabis potency is gradual, and driven largely by the increased availability of intensively UK grown indoor herbal cannabis. You could argue that intensive indoor cultivation of a plant that is easy to cultivate outdoors is the cannabis industry's reaction to illegality. It is dangerous to import in large amounts, dangerous to be caught growing a field of it. So perhaps it makes more sense to grow it intensively indoors, producing a more concentrated product. There is little incentive to produce a perversely strong skunk product for the mass market, since most people tend not to pay any more for unusually strong skunk.

There is exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The UN Drug Control Programme has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, the highest 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized resin, six from Morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%. To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger. This scare isn't new. In the US, in the mid 1980s, during Reagan's "war on drugs", it was claimed that cannabis was 14 times stronger than in 1970.

[Trebor]

Yes, it's official. The debate has begun. And come May 5th it'll escalate to a new height. The revelution has begun.