Cannabis - safe for over 18's!

[rory_20_uk]

Link

Starting under 18 causes a drop in IQ which appears irreversible - but not in over 18s.

So, for over 21s only and away we go! I am delighted we finally have a proven substance which has demonstrably no chronic toxicity that can be used for recreational purposes.

Next - LSD analogues!

[Idaho]

No, no, no. You are completely misreading the research. It conclusively says "drugs* are bad" and as such the official policy of locking people up and getting them kicked out of their jobs for partaking is totally legit.




*Booze is not a drug, it's a drink and it's all jolly japes as you know full well - don't be awkward.

[Fragony]

We had a rather baffling change of policy here, from the liberal party out of all. In the south of the Netherlands you have to carry a card to be able to get weed, to combat drug tourism so they say. What they never expected is that people aren't going to register themself as a drug-user and street-dealing is now rampant. In the south the damage done is irreversable. Typically politicians, they will never understand that they simply don't get it.

[Kralizec]

"drugs are bad"

mmmkay

[naut]

No, no, no. You are completely misreading the research. It conclusively says "drugs* are bad" and as such the official policy of locking people up and getting them kicked out of their jobs for partaking is totally legit.

No, what rory says is correct, I direct you to quotes of one of the researchers in the article:

"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."

"What it shows is if you are a really heavy stoner there are going to be consequences, which I think most people would accept."

"This is not occasional or recreation use."

===

I'd be interested to read the entire study and their definitions of certain statements (heavy use, etcetera) and why they chose IQ as the point of reference, as it does not account for intelligence as a whole, and has a distinct Western "bias". This is encouraging, this is what society needs, less scaremongering, more hard facts!

[CountArach]

I think Idaho was being sarcastic

[rory_20_uk]

I'd be interested to read the entire study and their definitions of certain statements (heavy use, etcetera) and why they chose IQ as the point of reference, as it does not account for intelligence as a whole, and has a distinct Western "bias". This is encouraging, this is what society needs, less scaremongering, more hard facts!

You are of course right. But then every study that is done is flawed in some way. Either it was too short, too few people or the exclusion criteria was too strict to name a few.

To chart 1,000 over 25 years is a herculean task (studies that last 3 are considered long in the industry).

But in the West, anti-drugs is more religious in its fervour than based on anything resembling evidence.

[naut]

I think Idaho was being sarcastic

Egg on my face!

[Sigurd]

Next research will show that weed causes lung cancer or birth defects.

[InsaneApache]

If they lower your IQ why are they called mind expanding drugs?

[rory_20_uk]

Next research will show that weed causes lung cancer or birth defects.

Smoking anything will cause lung cancer.
The number of substances that should not be taken in either part or all of pregnancy is legion. That cannabis is amongst these is neither here nor there - smoking and alcohol are both known to cause worse outcomes in pregnancy; one of the few that isn't is opiates as long as you abstain just before birth.

Eating BBQ meat for one meal a day has been shown to increase rates of cancer.

No one is saying that this is without risk - after all, what is? But the risks are perfectly acceptable for consenting adults to take.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Idaho, drugs are bad. So is alchohol. That doesn't mean government should ban them.

[Sigurd]

I had to google a little as I thought the opinion was that cannabis did not cause lung cancer or induce birth defects (used as a stimulant on Jamaica to help overdue pregnancies).
It is also claimed that it had great positive effects on MS patients.

Well... the MSRC in UK warns that the risk of getting lung cancer is increased by about 20 times greater than for ordinary tobacco smokers and 400 times greater than for non-smokers. "Safe"?


link (written by a Dr M R Lawrence )

[Vladimir]

Well I'm happy that smoking is completely safe now.

[rory_20_uk]

In the Pharmaceutical Industry, the word "safe" is banned. We use "relative risk". Nice article. No references I note. Pseudo-science then. Not peer reviewed or a referenced review. If someone came to me with that I'd tell to try again.

And it appears they are referring to smoking cannabis. That is thought to be cannabis smokers inhale deeper to get a greater hit than cigarette smokers. Possibly one effect that cannabis is more expensive due to the current laws, althoug would be cheaper to produce than tobacco. No mention on other methods of ingestion. Could they be trying to imply a drug effect as opposed to a method of administration? I even read one paper that discussed the risks of injecting ground cannabis - which of course were serious. It didn't mention what injecting any ground up plant mater would do.

The use of relative risk in the Pharmaceutical is also banned in the UK unless clear evidence of absolute risk is also shown.

Using a drug in the first trimester will have very different effects compared to the third. After a point, pregnant women are completely safe of the effects of thalidomide as the limbs have developed - and it has been found only one isomer causes the problem.

[InsaneApache]

As cannabis is not soluble in water I'd hesitate to recommend injecting it.

[rory_20_uk]

The parent compound might not be, so there are several approaches one can use:

Encapsulate with something more hydrophilic
Inject a suspension
Alter compound with more hydrophilic groups, either permanently such as hydroxide groups, or else by esterification / glucaronidation.

Something that is done all the time, so easy to do.

[Moros]

Just bake a cake, make chocolate milk out of it or,... and there's no longer any lung cancer effect possible. Don't forget to cook it in butter before adding it though, otherwise it will not work.

Also I've seen a dutch article about it yesterday. Doesn't look like much of a proof. Since it just assumes direct correlation based on some numbers that could very well have a very different meaning.

[rvg]

The parent compound might not be, so there are several approaches one can use:

Encapsulate with something more hydrophilic
Inject a suspension
Alter compound with more hydrophilic groups, either permanently such as hydroxide groups, or else by esterification / glucaronidation.

Something that is done all the time, so easy to do.

But will the end result be something that you'd want to course in your veins?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't know. That's what clinical trials are such a good idea, although some options would have more predictable results than others - dissolving in a suspension would be physiologically almost identical to fat miscelles from the gut. Permanent addition of hydrophilic groups would be more likely to have odd effects, but drug / reception steriochemistry could give some likely outcomes.

Personally I think eating it is the easiest and frankly safest. I'm pretty confident I can hit a vein as I've had a lot of practice (and medical students correctly identified my brachial artery as a good vien...). Hit a vien on my own arm? Less confident.

Most of the food we eat and illegal drugs we take have never had any toxicological studies, and people are managing to survive.
The body is very good at getting rid of xenobiotics - after all the active ingredients of these fantastic "natural" "detox" treatments need to be... detoxed by the liver before excretion and generally they have had no testing whatsoever.

[Sigurd]

Nice article. No references I note. Pseudo-science then. Not peer reviewed or a referenced review.

I don't know... a lot of stuff coming from doctors of medicine is just like the article. Should we question every statement any doctor brings to the patient?
I have been in and out of hospital the last 6 years and have gone through a dozen of medical practitioners. Having contact with many, you soon realize contradictions... I am at a stage where I will only listen to chief physicians. I have Polycythemia Vera and one of these n00b physicians prescribed iron supplement for me because I had "empty" iron deposits. That near took me out cold.

But still... any layman would listen when an experienced physician gives an opinion. This Dr. Bob Lawrence in the article has MS himself.

[Major Robert Dump]

Eating BBQ once a day causes cancer? Good thing I smoke it

[Strike For The South]

How else are we suppose to lock up all these brown people?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't know... a lot of stuff coming from doctors of medicine is just like the article. Should we question every statement any doctor brings to the patient?
I have been in and out of hospital the last 6 years and have gone through a dozen of medical practitioners. Having contact with many, you soon realize contradictions... I am at a stage where I will only listen to chief physicians. I have Polycythemia Vera and one of these n00b physicians prescribed iron supplement for me because I had "empty" iron deposits. That near took me out cold.
But still... any layman would listen when an experienced physician gives an opinion. This Dr. Bob Lawrence in the article has MS himself.

I would. But then I'm a pharmaceutical Physician and although my industry is viewed with suspicion it ironically has to have a higher level of evidence than most doctors who can spout whatever comes into their head. I know I used to.

I'm not saying Bob is wrong. But without reviewing the evidence I can't say he's right.

One that always makes me smile was two physicians discussing a patient who had a really unusual neurological condition. One says to the other he'll read the Wikipaedia article before he starts.
The patient walks in and sits down. "Before we start, I'd just like to say I wrote that Wikipaedia article..."

[Vladimir]

How else are we suppose to lock up all these brown people?

In your basement. Duh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would. But then I'm a pharmaceutical Physician and although my industry is viewed with suspicion it ironically has to have a higher level of evidence than most doctors who can spout whatever comes into their head. I know I used to.

I'm not saying Bob is wrong. But without reviewing the evidence I can't say he's right.

One that always makes me smile was two physicians discussing a patient who had a really unusual neurological condition. One says to the other he'll read the Wikipaedia article before he starts.
The patient walks in and sits down. "Before we start, I'd just like to say I wrote that Wikipaedia article..."

If the substance can genuinely be shown not to have long-term detrimental affects in people whose brains have developed, then by all means legalise it for people over the age of 21 - but make it illegal to smoke it in public on the grounds of assault.

As you say though - only one study, and we hvan't even discussed confounding factors such as whether the Hash just makes you lazy and therefore you don't bother to learn.

[Idaho]

I've heard personally from a leading lung cancer specialist that there is no evidence that cannabis is carcinogenic.

Also the deeper inhaling and longer holding in is not needed. The active ingredients are absorbed very quickly.

[rory_20_uk]

If the substance can genuinely be shown not to have long-term detrimental affects in people whose brains have developed, then by all means legalise it for people over the age of 21 - but make it illegal to smoke it in public on the grounds of assault.

As you say though - only one study, and we hvan't even discussed confounding factors such as whether the Hash just makes you lazy and therefore you don't bother to learn.

Absolutely. I've not read the study to see how and if they managed to exclude confounding factors.
I'm with you 100% on smoking in public = assault. On a similar vien I'd legalise cocaine etc in public as it doesn't affect others. If people commit civil disorder etc then laws exist to deal with this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've heard personally from a leading lung cancer specialist that there is no evidence that cannabis is carcinogenic.

Also the deeper inhaling and longer holding in is not needed. The active ingredients are absorbed very quickly.

Any smoke is carcinogenic, so he was blowing smoke up your arse - smoking long-term will also cause all those other lovely illnesses aside from cancer.

The way people smoke Pot isn't just about the drug, it's about holding the texture of the smoke in their lungs for the pleasure for it

Absolutely. I've not read the study to see how and if they managed to exclude confounding factors.
I'm with you 100% on smoking in public = assault. On a similar vien I'd legalise cocaine etc in public as it doesn't affect others. If people commit civil disorder etc then laws exist to deal with this.

Cocaine is somewhat different, the stuff was rampant in the part of Devon I live in about ten years ago, as were other drugs (drugs are not an urban problem, they are an economic problem - take note Socialists). Anyway - there were several young men who died from massive heart attacks at the time who were known to be users. So I'm not in favour of legalising Conaine, similarly all attempts at controlled usage of Opiatee seem to fail as they inevitably lead to a rise in adicts.

Hash, however, is largely a social drug that most people take occasionally and are not particularly addicted to - often less so than alchohol - my objection to it has been partly that I don't like being exposed to it, it stinks like rotten meat, and it causes serious problems for minors up to and including schizofrenia (sp?).

So - if it's safe for people to start using in their twenties then legalise it for people over the age of 21, educate EVERYONE about what the drug does to your brain and come down harder on people who supply to underage users than with bakki or booze.

[Idaho]

While I would contest a few details PVC, I fully agree with your conclusion.