Ann Druryan

If she and her late husband are the slackjaws, I’m headed over to the LHC to get some of that Quark Gluon Plasma out of their black holes.

There are a host of prescribed drugs on the market that have mental problems as a side effect. Prednisolone for example, used for the treatment of COPD, emphysema etc can cause psychotic episodes. Ventolin a very widely used asthma treatment can cause anxiety, which can sometimes lead to panic attacks, nervousness, most anti-psychotic drugs cause psychosis. Certain anti epilepsy mood stabilisers can cause depression. If these drugs can be controlled to the extent that they can be used safely then what’s wrong with cannabis use?

If cannabis causes even a tenth of the problems that prescription drugs cause then it is definitely less harmful, and seeing as it has now been proven that schizophrenia rates have not raised as cannabis use has increased I think it’s about time it was legalised regulated and taxed. Oh and also I think alchohol should be regulated tighter than what it is now. Allowing it to be sold in the same manner as groceries was a ridiculously irresponsible thing for the government to do. It should not be sold in supermarkets but in pubs and off licenses only.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/15/drugs-skunk-family

No doubt prompted by the Myersons. Any plans to revisit the topic Ben?

(Am tempted to tell an anecdote here about how I stopped working hard as teenager and how it was much more to do with my hormones than skunk which I’d never even heard of… but that would render the comment anecdotal!)

There’s not much more to say that hasn’t already been said too many times already, but the advertisers appear to have waited until the Government’s decision to ignore the Drugs Advisory Council recommendation to retain cannabis in category C was eclipsed by the Government’s refusal to follow their recommendation to degrade Ecstasy from category A to category B.

My understanding is that pot growing in the sixties tended to be rather haphazard, with little attention given to e.g. removing male plants whose presence (causing pollination and therefore seed production) tends to diminish the quality of “bud” from the females. Today, cannabis strains are such that whereas fourty years ago a plant at harvest time might’ve been by weight 90% leaf and other even less desirable parts of the plant and less than 10% bud, a well-tended plant may end up looking like a thick wedge of buds. The main branches of such plants are sometimes termed “bats” as their shape resembles that of a piece of baseball equipment and some could conceivably be swung around without breaking.

It would not surprise me if the difference in delta-9-THC (and its other active-ish friends) per total plant weight between the worst of mexican brick-schwag and the highest-quality modern Dutch skunk were indeed tenfold. The other 25 folds could be chalked up to media hyperbole; I’ve certainly seen the “order of magnitude” figure take many forms.

This of course says more about the production margins per square meter of growing space between then and now, than of the relative quality of pot available to your ordinary consumer.

Ironically, this can mean that the heavy skunk is being used because that’s all that is available because, say, the police had a big bust of a hash shipment that month. Another arse-about-face result of prohibition.

However after using cannabis for some 45 years I can say without a doubt that it is not so dangerous as using alcohol or tobacco. Despite what the government of Britain or the USA would like us all to believe. The proof of the pudding is eating it. Here Mr Bush could help by being honest about his past life as a cocain user and there is not one yet that I have met that has not used cannabis as well, so what really is all this scare mongering about? Honesty?

Its very naive to think that Britons did not smoke the hemp that made so many miles of rope for the navy or that Mrs Beaton did not have a recepy for hash cake in the original version of the cookbook. Cannabis has always been a poor mans relief (think about it) up untill recently, when the worm turned and is making some ‘poor’ extremely rich. It really has nothing to do with health but with taxes!

This whole discussion should be about the politics behind the witch hunting of everyting that the governments can’t tax and the health aspects of the prescription drugs for depression or the Ritolin they push legally into young hyper active youngsters. The real health problems are caused by the big drug companys and the unhealthy ambitions of our political superiors!

Bye the way smoking more does not increase the effects of cannabis, the effect is reduced, as there seems to be a sort of ceiling (no pun intended) to its ultimate effect. Less frequent use the stronger the effect despite the amounts of thc involved.

As I live in the Netherlands where an enlightened government has seriously looked at the drug problem for many years now and are tolerant of Koffieshops where one may purchase up to 5 grams for personel use, the use of cannabis itself has FALLEN not risen.
Special testing stations for xtc pills are to be found at most big ‘raves’ so the kids at least know what it is before they swallow the stuff and this is tolerated by the police for the simple reason that fueled up alcholic youths as seen on Britons streets cause more problems in the long run than sensible controls of less harmfull substances. The Dutch government has also a project for growing top quality ‘skunk’ for medical purposes and people suffering from MS can obtain this on a doctors precription at the local chemist.

So the real dangers lay with the politic and the politicians, they know but will they ever admit to it!
Viva Vanilla Sesimila

I’d say one good reason for being opposed to cannabis consumption is the fact that while it doesn’t kill people, it does turn them into idiots who waste their lives in a haze of stoned befuddlement.

Regarding ‘auto-titration’ – no not everyone auto-titrates very well, the evidence I have for this is purely anecdotal, but involves myself – and I’ve been observing the effects of cannabis on me for quite some years now!

I stick to hash. Not the horrible old soap-bar, stuff that’s a bit stronger (and less full of plastic) than that. I do find skunk is kinda too much for me, in the quanitities I smoke, even though it’s probably more the 10-15 per cent THC mentioned, rather than the 30% + that’s been claimed in the IOS and elsewhere.

Why? Because I just have the kind of neurology/personality/whatever that means I’ll smoke N spliffs a day, regardless of the strength of what I’m smoking. That means, if the dope’s too strong, I’ll get too stoned. As to comments about beer and whisky – a better comparison is 3% ‘session lager’ vs 5 or 6% ‘strong lager’. People do tend to have their 3 pints, or 6 pints, or whatever is their habit – and if they switch to stronger beer, they still have 6 pints – and get more drunk. They don’t cut down to 3 just because it’s Export or whatever. Consider that in the UK, nearly everyone makes a spliff as follows – 1 large rizla, most of a cigarette, some dope. Now, if the dope’s stronger, users take a smaller rizla, use only half a ciggie and half the dope, yeah? Err, no. Not anyone I’ve ever known anyway.

Another thing missing here is the balance of cannabinoids vs THC in various strains and preparations of cannabis. Now I realise this is a bit speculative but would anyone care to comment on this ‘thought’ – hash has more cannabinoids relative to THC, thus makes you more ‘dopey’ and sleepy. Skunk has more THC relative to cannibanoids, thus making you more ‘high’ and agitated. Thus hash is self-limiting, overuse leading to sleep. One of the worse things about skunk is you can smoke and smoke and get LESS sleepy. Extended, drugged-up insomnia accompanied by agitation and racing thoughts, is a really good way to bring on mental health problems.

In summary, skunk is vodka Red Bull, hash is cask ale. But not mostly due to the total ‘strength’ per se, more due to the balance of THC and cannabinoids.

Ok, I’ve posted a version of message #49 on the Transform blog.

“Charas” is the usual spelling I think.

The last straw was the column by the Sunday Independent’s so-called Readers’ Editor Michael Williams. Instead of putting forward any of the obvious criticisms of their disgraceful journalism he shamefully used his column for a purely rhetorical defence of the paper’s decision.

I have been reading the Independent and the IOS for years, and I can’t remember another case anything like this. I mean I know they are not perfect, but I was startled that they would publish such transparent rubbish. And then to announce they are going to base a policy reversal on it! I can only conclude that the people responsible simply don’t understand the issue.

They are in elevated company. When he was Home Secretary Charles Clarke asked his own Advisory Committe on the Misuse of Drugs to advise him about new “superskunk”: he had fallen for the same mythology as the Independent on Sunday.

He then let it be known (through the Independent) that he was “minded” to reverse Blunkett’s reclassification whatever the ACMD recommended. He may have thought, like the Independent, that nobody can prove anything either way.

But in fact there are lots of ways to prove there is no new superskunk, and the ACMD explored some of these ways, and showed the Home Secretary that cannabis has not changed and doesn’t present a new problem that wasn’t there before. Clarke was forced to accept that the reclassification was justified.

It is puzzling that the Independent on Sunday seem unaware that this issue has only recently been decided.

To be fair, my personal experience has been the former. But as we all know anecdote is not the singular of data and anyway I’m far from typical in my peer group. I believe the studies indicate an autotitration effect applies to most people.