Other - On arguments with War On Drugs people - cannabis. Help & support needed,thank you!:)

[Waffa]

I have been in conversations whit my country version of war on drugs people, and they are really convinced on these facts they have..

Currently i am in argument whit people behind one (anti)drug website owners. But this is not just a website, this is out country main drug information website advertised my gov & health organisations everywhere. They also link teens.drugabuse.gov as "world best and most accurate website about drugs"..well..

Like you can expect they are all about "The purpose of this site - to give an honest and objective information about drugs and the consequences of their use. All information is based on facts." ..well, their facts.


One of the studies they point out and what i would like you take a look if you have time to find real errors/mistakes (of course if there is any) from there: "Adverse health consequences of cannabis use. A survey of scientific studies published up to and including the autumn of 2003'. Sweden: National Institute of Public Health fhi.se "

www.ndc.hrb.ie/attached/2915-3089.pdf


this is the one they send to most people who "haven't understand the basic facts" like:

* cannabis causes cancer average 20 years sooner as tobacco
* cannabis smoke have way more many different kind of cancer causing agents then cigarettes (one joint has at least as much as in one pack of cigarettes)
* cannabis is way more harmful then tobacco or alcohol
* cannabis users will get easily psychical addiction what is more serious then pyhsical one according to (their) studies. many users are unable to quit smoking cannabis because serious sleep disorders or depression developed by marijuana
* cannabis is weary little studied plant but all these few mayor and important studies what have been made say clearly cannabis compared to all other drugs will cause more psychosis and mental illnesses then any other drug - on this aspect its way more dangerous then heroin! (they told me on email)

(according to them) Proof to this should be in this study and in all the linked studies what are mentioned there. They say pages 97-98 should make point really clear how much cannabis smoke is more dangerous.


Some other good ref. and links (pointers to 74 articles/studies) you can find from there : "Legalising illicit drugs: A signposting resource" http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti...ce.jsp?page=10 - and if anyone knows what is this board view past and present on drugs ?

Unfortunately i can not see from the study how these people smoked cannabis - if you smoke it from plastic bottle like junkie or from aluminum thin - of course you get shitload of extra dangerous chemicals - but unfortunately we do not know what kind of smokers was they. Also i haven't seen to many people like swim who is smoking only cannabis and not cigarettes, last time he smoke cigarettes was 10 years ago.
Holland should have a lot of studies on people who smoke cannabis freely, can not find any good one rigth now.

Anyway please people take your time, open this study up and let me/us know where is the BS there. I know here is a lot of smart people who have done these studies and experiments them selves - so this is the people i would specially appreciate to reply.


(they also go in saying that almost all MDMA users will have depression soon after effects go away & many of them this is severe and permanent, also that there is no proof that entheogens/psychedelics have any positive long term effect or medical use, because even cia dismissed LSD as useless for any medical use - this they wrote me on email, but i make other topic about this maybe).

There have been also talks that they get some (some say alot) of funding from alcohol and tobacco companies - but this sounds just way to good to be true..but i must check why they say on their website and conversations all the time why cigarettes and alcohols is way more harmless, They call it cosiety norm on their website.

I know all this has been thousand times re-talked here (at least) but i would really need to get as many factual answers as possible. Thank You!

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good idea, but when you can edit remove the self incrimination

[Lunar Loops]

Waffa, you are unlikely to find anyone to look at that document and put opposing points of view out there for you. We are for the most part busy people and have no more time on our hands than you.

Having said that, you will find all the information you need to refute statements in that document on the forums and in the file archive. Seek and you WILL find.

[Waffa]

Well, understand that. It just how do i know these documents are better then the ones they give me? I mean, they can say "these studies are nothing compare to this one we have" or something like that.

But am i right, if i say that most government funded studies are made this way:
"Here is 3 million to prove that cannabis IS bad, now find us some proof"
not
"here is 3 million to find out cannabis effects on humans"

I am also afraid many pro-cannabis studies are made this way "lets try to find all/anything positives about cannabis "

I newer expected to someone fully read this i was just thinking maybe there is some small points what are laughtable in this study or just wrong (like some of the references are proven to a kind of references you should NOT use for study's etc).

But well.. i will try to debate whit them whit my own knowledge and see how well this gos, considering that they was bringing Bob Marley as one of the proofs that cannabis is not good (yes im talking about government ppl not school debate) it should not be SO hard lol :P

But yes, the file archive seems to be good start & i keep reading it.

One thing i have learned:
One thing is to know you are right, but only thing what matters in debate - can you prove they are wrong/made mistake

Waffa added 1 Minutes and 22 Seconds later...

----
i meant " I understand that"

... damn i hate i can not edit the posts lol

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Waffa

But am i right, if i say that most government funded studies are made this way:
"Here is 3 million to prove that cannabis IS bad, now find us some proof"
not
"here is 3 million to find out cannabis effects on humans"

I am also afraid many pro-cannabis studies are made this way "lets try to find all/anything positives about cannabis "

Waffa, firstly may I apologise for being so brief in my previous response. I should at the very least have provided you with some pointers. Busy time is all that I can say in my feeble defence.

In answer to the above, I do not believe that all cannabis studies start with a predefined result and gear their studies to demonstrate such. One good example would be to look at the work of the ACMD (search on this) in the UK on the debate over the reclassification of cannabis and the potential downgrading of ecstacy. They are a government appointed body, but they did not come up with the results that the government wanted and so their advice was ignored. It served to show how governments are not interested in science and logic when it comes to the debate on drugs and drug classification (as if we didn't already know).

Also thanks to entheogensmurf and euthanatos for stepping in here.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Some good pointers & friendly :)

[Waffa]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Waffa, firstly may I apologise for being so brief in my previous response. I should at the very least have provided you with some pointers. Busy time is all that I can say in my feeble defence.

Thank you Lunar Loops, no problem

Lunar, take a look at this and see if you notice something strange: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publi...rt?view=Binary

There is list of "Members of the ACMD as of the 31st March 2008" (30 members) - ALL of them was apointed 2008 & in same time there is list: "Members of the ACMD that stood down in the year 2007-08." (13 members) - many of them has been there 9 years... i mean now there is no old members and 30 totally new ones - what you think this might change outcome of future reoprts they have planned for 2009?

If i am correct then these members who stood down was the members who come up with studies what gov did not like, no?


Also, does anyone know waht is past and future views on this "British Medical Association" about drugs ? They seem to also make a lot of work on this aria but they seem not to come out with clear answers (at least for me).

Also how independent is INCB ? ( The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the independent and quasi-judicial control organ monitoring the implementation of the United Nations drug control conventions)

Also im not sore i understand the meaning of "signposting resource" - what that means?

Legalising illicit drugs: A signposting resource - Conclusions

"'Therapeutic uses of cannabis' called on the government to change the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids, and for further research to be undertaken into the benefits of these compounds in treating certain conditions. The ARM subsequently resolved in 1998: 'That the BMA should persuade the government to change the law for the therapeutic use of cannabis based medicines'. ...

The BMA does not have any policy on the legalisation of other illicit drugs. At the BMA's 2003 Annual Representative Meeting, motions were debated regarding the legalisation of recreational drugs, which were overwhelmingly rejected.
....
It should also be noted that while countries are able to implement their own drug legislation, there are international laws controlling illicit drugs. The UN convention on drugs prohibits the legalisation of certain narcotic drugs, including opiates and cocaine, and the independent International Narcotics Control Board has rejected the legalisation of these drugs.
....
On the question of decriminalisation of drugs, the BMA believes there is no clear and compelling evidence either way on the impact this might have on levels of drug use and upon the medical consequences and harmful effect of such use. The social arguments for decriminalisation may be more persuasive than the evidence of medical harm reduction. The arguments about the numbers of people who would become users and possibly dependent if decriminalisation occurred are not persuasive in either direction.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Waffa

Thank you Lunar Loops, no problem

Lunar, take a look at this and see if you notice something strange: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publi...rt?view=Binary

There is list of "Members of the ACMD as of the 31st March 2008" (30 members) - ALL of them was apointed 2008 & in same time there is list: "Members of the ACMD that stood down in the year 2007-08." (13 members) - many of them has been there 9 years... i mean now there is no old members and 30 totally new ones - what you think this might change outcome of future reoprts they have planned for 2009?

If i am correct then these members who stood down was the members who come up with studies what gov did not like, no?

The short answer to that question is "No". They are not the ones who came up with studies that the government did not like. However, I suspect that the whole group has become somewhat of an embarrassment to the government with the report on cannabis and the current one recommending the downgrading of ecstacy. You will see from other posts that Professor Nutt is the chair and he has produced several reports that would not be to the government's liking.

The guidelines for membership of the ACMD are as follows:

"There is a statutory requirement that membership includes representatives of the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry other than pharmaceutical chemistry; and people who have a wide and recent experience of social problems connected with the misuse of drugs.

Appointments, usually for a term of three years, are ordinarily made by the Home Secretary, in accordance with guidance issued by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). Pursuant to this guidance, members can serve a maximum period of 10 years, although no member can be re-appointed unless they have received a satisfactory performance appraisal."


It should also be noted, that as with all other walks of life, there will be natural wastage (i.e. people who leave for personal or other reasons).


I'll try and get around to answering your other points when I have more time.

[Euthanatos93420]

I'm currently reading this document. It's wretched vile and disgusting but I'm reading it. I love to argue and finding a good devil's advocate is hard. I'm trying to make the same argument to Swim's friends & Family and this is exactly the sort of exercise I need.

Btw...avoid self incrimination next time you post.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/mis...inate_yourself!

even cia dismissed LSD as useless - this they wrote me on email, but i make other topic about this

You wrote to the CIA about Marijuana?

Euthanatos93420 added 30 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Page 19

Intensive research is being carried out to test the hypothesis that the cannabinoids (and
other substances contained in cannabis) have curative effects – or, rather, to determine
whether their curative effects, if any, are better than those of available pharmaceutical
preparations. Even though there is no direct link between this research and that on the
harmful effects of cannabis, the two fields are sometimes confused in the public debate,
which I think is unfortunate. In fact, what we are dealing with here are two entirely
separate medical fields which could, at best, cross-fertilise each other.

Scientific studies are carried out as a pure question in search of a pure answer; if, then hypothesis an a proposed testing standard. It does not serve a political 'side' of an argument.

That, however, does not stop scientists from doing just that. Just because science is an inhuman perspective doesn't mean that scientists are inhumanly impeccable individuals.

This quoted paragraph serves to point out the the bias this document was crafted with. As if it wasn't already apparent they went into a rather cheeky admission about it just to rub it in that they can get away with it.

Furthermore the document goes on to extrapolate about how opiates and its synthetic derivatives are the best pain killers because the pharmaceutical system uses them. Anyone care to leap that canyon of logic?

[Waffa]

LOL this is my bad English, sorry about that. If Pinocchio would have idea to write whit CIA then he would talk about Afghanistan heroine & drug gorillas/warlords financing against Taliban (who was only one who was able to controll things there,after Taliban was not in power drug trafic skyrocketed..) & cocaine trafficking past & present. Uhh.. i go to much in to the other story lol.:P
I meant in my main post, that gov doctors here was bringing out the point that LSD have no medical use because this was useless even for CIA.

But i hoped i did not use anything in this/these post what can be used against me because i haven't done anything illegal in my life you know. I believe, it's not criminal to have debate whit government doctors and workers (jet at least lol). All the illegal things are done luckily by my imaginary friend friend Pinocchio - so lucky me

But yes i was thinking about it but unfortunately i WAS not on this level to edit my posts jet so i leaved it and hoped for the best.

Thank you so much for helping me out - i know their proofs smells but im no level (jet) for telling them where is the sh*t.

(oanyway i can edit them now if needed)

[Euthanatos93420]

Originally Posted by Waffa

I meant in my main post, that gov doctors here was bringing out the point that LSD have no medical use because this was useless even for CIA.

Of course it didn't work for the CIA. They were trying to control people's minds. MKULTRA - Ex Nazi scientists using drugs, sleep dep, etc.for experimental mind control procedures and testing them on US Soldiers. They're right, LSD isn't a very good drug for a subject to take if you are trying to control their mind.

Pinocchio

LOL, good one.

In other words, this is not a report about cannabis in general, about how widespread it is,
how it is used, its legal status, its medical use and so on. Nor is it a guide on how to treat
cannabis abuse, or a treatise on the very important social interaction between abuse and
social environment. Moreover, this report is not intended as a direct contribution, for or
against, to the debate on the legalisation of cannabis – even though I do think its contents
are eminently suited to inform such a debate.

This isn't a politically motivated document but we think it would be good if politicians would read it.

It is a far too common occurrence that the dangerousness of cannabis is discussed in
general terms, without any form of specification. What are the circumstances? Who is the
abuser? What does the pattern of abuse look like?

Why are we studying the harm to an abuser? Why not study the harm on a user? The document lacks holistic perspective on this issue.

[Waffa]

you are good on this (Y)

LOL, i even did know about the MKULTRA and the mind control thing but i newer thought how sillythis idea actually it is to use LSD for mind control. Pinocchio have next great idea for them: let them thest Zolpidem to see if it's good for secret agents to be awake all night long when they are on missions or something like that xD

[Euthanatos93420]

Ha, they already have amphetamines for that. Hitler used Crystal meth...on his soldiers too...

...and all of the sudden we had a shitload of zombie movies...

btw-Love the blue pill red pill

[Waffa]

lol, Pinocchio wanders if someone like Richard Helms (or someone before him) was also visiting the rabbit hole :P

about hitler movies, have you seen Triumph of the Will (whit audio commentary) - its nice/scary thing to see, i have the DVD :P ... ( Pinocchio also is downloading Valkyrie right now :P ) ... but now back to pot xD

[entheogensmurf]

Visit:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3471
http://www.maps.org/mmj/

Originally Posted by Waffa

* cannabis causes cancer average 20 years sooner as tobacco

Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891

Originally Posted by Waffa

* cannabis smoke have way more many different kind of cancer causing agents then cigarettes (one joint has at least as much as in one pack of cigarettes)

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#3

Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.

Footnotes

1. D. Tashkin, "Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers," Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).

2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, "Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco," New England Journal of Medicine 318:
347-51 (1988).

3. Donald Tashkin et al, "Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung," loc.cit.

Originally Posted by Waffa

* cannabis is way more harmful then tobacco or alcohol

First there's this:
Study Finds Alcohol and Tobacco More Harmful than Marijuana, LSD, or Ecstasy--Drug Reclassification Should Follow
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificac...and_tobacc.php

And this:
About Marijuana
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=...m_format=print
This part is sexy:
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Originally Posted by Waffa

* cannabis users will get easily psychical addiction what is more serious then pyhsical one according to (their) studies. many users are unable to quit smoking cannabis because serious sleep disorders or depression developed by marijuana

Links that deal with marijuana and addiction:
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.co...icting&x=0&y=0

Example:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4217

NIDA Monkey Study Claims Marijuana Is Addictive
October 19, 2000 - Baltimore, MD, USA

A National Institute of Drug Abuse study released this week claimed marijuana "has the same potential for abuse as other drugs such as heroin and cocaine."
"That is an absurd claim," said Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Medical School. "Any research which lends support to such an unrealistic view that defies clinical experience must be suspect."
The doctors experimented with four squirrel monkeys by training them to self-administer shots of intravenous cocaine supplied through a catheter by pressing a lever 10 times after seeing a green light. The cocaine solution was then substituted with a saline solution and the monkeys stopped pressing the lever. The saline solution was then substituted with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and the monkeys resumed pressing the lever. From those actions, the doctors conducting the study conclude that marijuana is "addictive."
"To me it is a methodologically questionable procedure to start the squirrel monkeys on cocaine and then move them to THC," Dr. Grinspoon said. "They may be dealing with the effects of the monkey's involvement with cocaine. It certainly complicates what they say happened."
For more information, please contact Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Medical School at (781) 235-1368.

Originally Posted by Waffa

* cannabis is weary little studied plant but all these few mayor and important studies what have been made say clearly cannabis compared to all other drugs will cause more psychosis and mental illnesses then any other drug - on this aspect its way more dangerous then heroin! (they told me on email)

I think this may work -- There's a lot of info out there.

Cannabis, Mental Health and Context: The Case For Regulation
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6798

Read the whole darn thing but note this:
According to news from the Associated Press and others, investigators at London's Kings College reported that the administration of doses of synthetic THC temporarily interfered with activity in the inferior frontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with paranoia, while administration of the non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD) stimulated relaxation. The reports go on to suggest that chronic use of cannabis may precipitate various types of mental illness and cite a separate unpublished study indicating that cannabis use may exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia.
Such clinical findings and suggestions are not new. Scientists have known for decades that THC is psychoactive and that peak blood levels of its primary active metabolite 11-OH-THC are occasionally associated with temporary feelings of dysphoria, paranoia, and even panic attacks. (These events, when documented, typically occur in cannabis naïve users.)

Conversely, scientists have also been long aware of CBD's anxiolytic and anti-psychotic effects. In fact, many experts speculate that it is the lack of CBD in Marinol (the synthetic THC oral prescription pill) that is responsible for the drug's enhanced psychoactivity. By contrast, CBD occurs naturally in whole-plant cannabis, and is believed to modify and/or diminish some of the psychoactivity associated with THC when cannabis is inhaled.

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded. 12

**Again, read the whole thing and related articles. I was simply trying to **bring a base response to stem from. And never be fearful of acknowledging that cannabis is not for everyone. Just as umm peanuts are not for everyone


I hope that helps and I'll snag more later.

[Waffa]

you guys are just awesome!

huge rep. fore everyone! Keep it up, i will give them full report whit in week or so from now

No, really - thank you so much

[entheogensmurf]

I updated my post above with a bit of info.

Also I wanted to add as a separate post with the following (my ramble mode is on):

Do I smoke the reefer?
No.
Do I want to?
Not really, as in I constantly turn down free puffs here and there. It simply is not my thing. Just as drooling over sports cars is not my thing.

Nearly every single mother fcking time I promote the legal use of cannabis, be it for recreation or medicinal reasons what does the naysayer think? They think I smoke marijuana. This is not a problem for me, if someone thinks I do -- but it is the destructor of your debate at times. It discredits what you say - It puts an ulterior motive to your chatter. Then again, I do have one. An ulterior motive that it seems to be a fundamental right to use what doesn't harm others and while there are risks to nearly if not everything (i.e. sky diving), it is your right to choose to take the risk.
Look at the car accident fatalities! If we went by numbers alone, driving a vehicle should be utter restricted to emergency and work use only.

So just as more of a rant -- I think it can be of use to announce that if you don't use cannabis, but you advocate the use, make sure to say that you don't use it. Why?
To allow the audience/listener to see that you are not holding stake in the legal use. That is, you are not promoting legal use just so you can light up.

Have you ever promoted gay rights?
People think your GAY if you support the gay movement (and by movement I only mean equal rights). It's very odd that people assume that you must be or do what it is that you support. The concept of freedom of choice and liberty has fallen away from many, to where many, and this may be reflective of their own selfishness: they assume that you are so self serving that only which you do is what you promote.
Something like that. I hope that makes sense. I'm not in the mood to retype it in a coherent manner


I advocate that for the majority, it's pretty darn safe to vaporize or eat the ganja. Surely smoking a bit isn't "bad," but it seems reasonable that people shift over to vapor fun. But I'm not their boss, so if want to smoke - so be it (I'd wager that over time, vaporizing would be come more popular). No one wants to decrease their lung capacity (which is temporary from everything I've read) by a few percent and vaporizing is the answer for the most part I believe.

And I have not doubt that if many of the repressed and discontent with life USA citizens lit of a joint once and a while, we'd be in a better place. Imagine if those inane self depreciating Catholics would relax for once (for example).

If only Carl Sagan was still around to promote the use of cannabis for most or just some or simply that people should cast away reefer madness concept and let others be free to choose. It's rather nifty when you have a sexy n smart individual who can show the masses that it doesn't ruin your life/well-being.

The end for now. Time to pretend I'm working ...at work.

[Waffa]

Good point added and parallel with gay rights lol. I debate also on gay issues (pro gay) because i think it's just retarded to think that you kid would want to be gay because he saw it on street and it looked "cool". Also i know a lot of gay people and none of them ever wanted to compete whit my gf - so its all good:P There is some moral issues but it's just because society is like that not because its evil