The Demon that is Cannabis

Catsmokinpot

i just saw a thread that is locked because it is a couple of years old, and it just strikes me how some people demonize something that is so harmless, for years cannabis has been demonized, for unjust reasons and every time one of these reasons is proved to be false they make up other reasons...

i really dont mind people who just dont agree with it, but the people who go out of their way to be your mother and tell you why it should be completely illegal just piss me right off.. in my mind the law is inplace to stop people from harming themselves or harming others, who am i harming by smoking cannabis?

ill give you an example of one such person trying to demonize cannabis...

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ahem, to the fool who said I know nothing about drugs - just because I have a differing opinion on the issue does not mean I know nothing.
I also am not disillusioned about alcohol. I said in *moderation* it is *tolerable*, and I stand by that. You don't work in a pub for two years and not meet alcoholics with no lives. However, me and my best friend drinking wine and eating pizza on saturday nights is not an issue for concern. Legal, too.

oh thats grand so well all be like yourself there, but the problem with what you said there is moderation. not everyone agrees with your ideals definitely about drink..

and woweee its legal! so if you sit in and have a few cans on a saturday night and i sit in with a joint on a saturday night with my mates not hurting anyone thats bad, oh yes they are two completely different things arent they :rolleyes:

neuro-praxis wrote:

Long post about cannanis coming up now. Take a deep breath and read on if you give a crap.


People have a tendency to turn to cannabis generally because they realise that any low feelings that they are experiencing will drift away with a joint. This is because cannabis messes with the pleasure centre in the brain. This is the part of your brain that teaches you how to react to different experiences. Your pleasure centre reacts well to cannabis...it becomes relaxed and drowsy. This pleasure is a *fake* pleasure, unlike the normal pleasures experienced in life, and the brain cannot process this fully. The pleasure centre of the brain is what conditions you. Messing with it is risky. Cannabis does not leave the body. It has no exit. Over time, cannabis levels build up in the body. This means, that because the pleasure centre is activated by it, the body is unaware of damage being done.

..... isnt drink and cigarettes a *fake* pleasure? oh and over time cant cigarettes cause DEATH? tbh id rather be a bit dopey than dead.... im surprised you didnt mention cannabis' how cancerous it is.... which was recently found out to be *fake*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm

neuro-praxis wrote:

Cannabis can lead, used over a long time, to depression, paranoia, and ultimately, irreversible mental illness. It meddles with the switchboard in the brain, so that incoming and outcoming messages get confused. This is where the paranoia springs from.

irreversable? there are cannabis receptors in the brain whose sole function bond with any THC that comes in to your system they dont permanently attach themselves. ive been smoking for years, and after a heavy weekends smoking maybe on a monday i would have a hangover of sorts, but by tuesday i would be fine, just like a hangover from drink only you dont have a headache and you dont feel like you need to puke your guts up...

as for cannabis causing depression look at this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4338634.stm

and have a good read of a book called cannabis, it is not pro or con cannabis it is just a factual history of cannabis from litterally the beginning of time, from its first use in religious rituals, its first appearance in europe, the actual effects on the brain it has, and so on.

and have a look at a documentary called grass narrated by woody harrelson on americas war against cannabis from start to present day

you may say pro stoner books and films and throw an old roll eyes :rolleyes:, but unless you look at both sides of the story you can never have an unbiased opinion. all of these are based on 100% factual evidence.

unlike so called governments who actually told us that cannabis would make you get a thing called reefer madness and go around slaughtering innocent people. as far as im concerned once someone has lied to me once i find it hard to trust them again, especially if they have lied more than once.

neuro-praxis wrote:

The cerebrum (part of brain responsible for judgement), the cerebellum (part of brain for organising muscle function), and medulla and midbrain (connects cerebrum to spinal chord) are all damaged and slowed by cannabis use.

? so i wont know the difference from right or wrong? will it make me get reefer madness and go around killing people like we were told in the 20s? i mean comeon slowly your running out of excuses here

neuro-praxis wrote:

It is a sedative, and lowers the activity of the central nervous system. That means, if the body is attacked with a virus or is injured, it will be dull to react. This can stay with you all your life, thus meaning that you are more likely to die if ever contracting a disease.

i wont even comment on that because your talking a load of crap..... if that was the case again i would be more sick than i am only im no more sick than someone who doesnt smoke.....

same with every other cannabis smoker i know

neuro-praxis wrote:

Despite research, the way cannabis acts on the chemical make-up of the body is unpredictable. That is why it has not been used in medicine since 1930. Scientists believe that cannabis competes with other natural chemicals in the brain, thus retarding hormone growth. This lowers sex drive, and in women, can retard a baby's growth.

..... lowers sex drive.... first of all i dont think my sex drive is in anyway lowered... retarding baby growth? taking any drugs not prescribed by a doctor while your pregnant is irresponsible and idiotic... and everybody knows that one

neuro-praxis wrote:

The reason people who have taken cannabis over a long period of time seem slow, is because they are brain-damaged. I am not kidding. They have put their brain to sleep, and there is no way to wake it.

your brain isnt permanently damaged... but all your cannaboid receptors in your brain have thc attached to them, by simply stopping smoking solves that problem...

neuro-praxis wrote:

The force of action in cannabis a substance called THC, and is suurprisingly similar to LSD. These are both poisons. Not all hash is the same. Powder hash resin can be up to 16 times strogner than than ordinary marijuana. Depends where its grown, etc.

poisons? correction cannabis is a chemical that reacts with cannaboid receptors in the brain it is not and will never be poisonous... same with lsd. you know what is actually a poison if you want to be technical about it.... alcohol is classified as a poison - FACT. as it actually poisons your liver, your blood and it destroys braincells....

and not in ireland its not stronger... i havent found hash that comes close to being as strong as mary jane over here, over in amsterdam yes where its done properly, but again your putting that statistic in there as a scare tactic when infact there is nothing to be worried about smoking it isnt going to kill you infact youd need to smoke about a metric tonne of hash to die and youd pass out way before then

neuro-praxis wrote:

Temptation becomes tough to resist when cannabis is nearby because the smell activates the pleasure centre. Psychological dependance can occur very quickly. Physical dependance does *not* occur, though.

oh yes im going to kill someone for a joint, you know cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.... and thats a physical dependance which is much worse...

neuro-praxis wrote:

Effects on the body include bloodshot eyes, dizziness, headaches, backaches, dry nose, mouth and eyes, sick stomach, tendency to become accident prone, asthmatic attacks, sleeplessness, anxiety, depression and psychosomatic pain (ie - you imagine it).

lol, lol and lol you dont show the good effects that come from smoking hash, typical demonization there.. no possible medical benifits, physical uses as a fuel, food supliment, building material, synthetic plastic and actual good times you can have.

neah you just want to shoot yourself in the foot with stupid reasons like bloodshot eyes.... and what is wrong with bloodshot eyes? you can actually get eye drops that sort that out in a few seconds, saving you any embarrasment. and asthmatic attacks... people with bad asthma shouldnt be smoking anything full stop, and it has been found that eating it can be beneficial to asthma sufferers because THC opens out the lungs. drinking too much can give you a sick stomach, then so can eating too much chocolate, headaches..... just a normal night drinking wine can give you a headache, sleeplessness? ive never heard of a stoner that couldnt sleep at night, dry nose, lol! mouth, lol! get a drink of water sleeping with your mouth open can give you a dry mouth.... eyes thats just all the smoke in the room open a window, accident prone...... again, a night on the beer most people arent able to do much right

Catsmokinpot

neuro-praxis wrote:

Longterm, since the tars are much stronger and more numerous than those of tobacco, the risks of lung cancer, mouth cancer, throat cancer, painful mucus membrane problems (ie nasal tissues) and if you eat it, stomach cancer, are very high.

again proven recently to be false.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm

neuro-praxis wrote:

The story about nobody dying from hash and lots dying from cigarettes is an urban myth. People *do* die from hash poisoning, and from cancer related to their hash habits.

fact: there has been no recorded deaths from cannabis ever! hash poisoning.... hehehe

neuro-praxis wrote:

I know more stuff - but that is a summary. It is not good in any way. Do what you like - but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about. I have seen ruined lives because of drug use. I have done research and carried out surveys and won debates.

If anybody wants to know about other drugs, I have a smattering of knowledge about most things and I am always happy to spread the good word.

oh yes we smoke to drift away.... hehehe hash poisoning.... hehehe retarding the brain..... and the best one lowering sex drive...... id love to know what else you know....

for years people like you have been demonising cannabis, telling us that it was cancerous turned you in to a madman who goes round killing people (reefer madness), slowly as each reason gets disproved you make up another reason.... it makes you into a waster, a low life, turns you stupid makes you skitzo and most of all illegal. well i for one have a steady job doing technical support, i have friends who smoke and work in networks management for a huge ISP in england, someone who works for a software manufacturing company, all of them smoke, all of them still have their jobs and none of them are skitzo, i myself have never robbed, raped, killed, beat anyone up or cheated, i know drunk people who have done all of those....

in the end it comes down to the above for me, as long as noone robs rapes steals cheats, then they are fine by me. people dont seem to realise that making cannabis illegal actually adds to the problem by putting it in control of criminal organisations that rob steal rape murder and cheat... i know two words that come to mind, hypocritic and stupid

monkeyfudge

I have no problem with people smoking...

But I think the worst thing you can do is underestimate the drug and over indulge in the drug.

It's overuse can bring about psychosis in a fairly sizeable chunk of the population... I've seen this happen twice and both times has resulted in near fatal stabbings.

bonkey

I glanced at the title and saw "the dream that is canabis".

I'm all disappointed now...this looks like same old same old.

monkeyfudge wrote:

But I think the worst thing you can do is underestimate the drug and over indulge in the drug.

Indeed, substance abuse is always a bad thing, regardless of the substance.

Catsmokinpot

monkeyfudge wrote:

I have no problem with people smoking...

But I think the worst thing you can do is underestimate the drug and over indulge in the drug.

It's overuse can bring about psychosis in a fairly sizeable chunk of the population... I've seen this happen twice and both times has resulted in near fatal stabbings.

for every study that says cannabis causes psychosis there is another saying it doesnt so which ones are true and which are false? i know many people who smoke and all of them are fine, does that mean im right?

and drink causes psychosis many many people have been killed as a result a drunk person being in a psychotic state

monkeyfudge wrote:

Indeed, substance abuse is always a bad thing, regardless of the substance.

thats quite true there are dangers with abuse of any drug same as too much food will kill you your not going to ban food are you?

monkeyfudge

I'm not just basing my opinion on scientific research, I also basing it on personal experiences of someone I lived with sticking a knife in their chest and an other occasion where a member of my family sticking a knife in my chest. Both were heavy cannabis users.

The drug is clearly a mood altering, personality altering and behavior altering... how you can claim that this is harmless is beyond me.

Me over indulging in bananas, while not too good for my health in the long run, isn't going to result in a sudden and dramatic change in my mentality.

I'm not saying you shouldn't smoke it... I believe you have that right... I just think it's very dangerous to underestimate it and say that it is harmless.

Catsmokinpot

monkeyfudge wrote:

I'm not just basing my opinion on scientific research, I also basing it on personal experiences of someone I lived with sticking a knife in their chest and an other occasion where a member of my family sticking a knife in my chest. Both were heavy cannabis users.

The drug is clearly a mood altering, personality altering and behavior altering... how you can claim that this is harmless is beyond me.

Me over indulging in bananas, while not too good for my health in the long run, isn't going to result in a sudden and dramatic change in my mentality.

I'm not saying you shouldn't smoke it... I believe you have that right... I just think it's very dangerous to underestimate it and say that it is harmless.

and i am agreeing with you im sure it can cause problems if you smoke it 24/7

im just talking about the psychosis you mentioned, i dont believe that is possible(thats not to say that i am right)... you had an experience, that you linked to cannabis. i had experiences that have been absolutely fine, how can you link this to cannabis use if there are so many studies that say it doesnt and visa versa how do we make our decisions?

how are you so sure that it was cannabis that caused it? are you sure that they didnt have underlying problems already and cannabis use just amplified it?

and if that is the case then shouldnt there just be a warning for people who do suffer from slight mental illnesses just like the warning for pregnant women about taking certain drugs

Plankmonkey

My 2 cent: Anyone who says cannibis has no bad effects is obviously not smoking enough. Also you won't realise the bad effects its had on you until you give it up. I speak from experience. What are the bad effects? It kills your ambition, makes you lazy and worst of all turns you into a bad tempered paranoid head wrecker. Long term effects are memory problems.

It's great in moderation but come on who smokes it in moderation!?

I'd also like to add that despite this I am in favour of legalisation. The cra*p that dealers put in it is a very serious issue and is most likely the cause of all the bad effects it has. Smokers who go to Amsterdam all come back saying that the buzz is completely different and there is no paranoia. Also your head is clearer afterwards, there's no "cotton wool" head.

Corben Dallas

"Me over indulging in bananas, while not too good for my health in the long run, isn't going to result in a sudden and dramatic change in my mentality."

Eh if you over indulge in bananas you could kill yourself with a potassium overdose ~nes pas?
careful now

Zombrex

A few points -

1 - Hash is not harmless ... far from it, it is quite bad for you, both physically and mentally .. because it is not nearly as bad as something like cocaine, E or heroin is rather immaterial. I really wish people would stop classifing things "safe" or "harmless" because the substance can't kill you instantly, its a bit silly. Cigaretts won't kill you instantly but they are far from harmless.

2 - I am not in favour of legalistation for the simple reason that I don't think people should be allowed make money off selling substances that can only do harm to you. That is why I think cigarets should also be banned and a much larger restriction on alcohol than there currently is. I would be infavour of legalistation of hash if you had to grow it yourself, or some way that it was available free (ie non-profit), but I don't see that ever happening

3 - I would be in favour of hash used for medical purposes, but only with a perscription and available on the health service.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I am not in favour of legalistation for the simple reason that I don't think people should be allowed make money off selling substances that can only do harm to you.

yeah, ban chocolate! fat people need help! They've shown time and time again they can't make the proper dietary decisions so it's up to us, and the goverment to tell those fat assholes how to live their lives.

Hash is not harmless ... far from it, it is quite bad for you, both physically and mentally .. because it is not nearly as bad as something like cocaine, E or heroin is rather immateria

you got a link to back up this bull fecal matter? Cannabis isn't harmless, but it's certainly not "quite bad for you". Smoking is bad for you. Eating a fry every weekend is bad for you, Burgers and chips are bad for you. Most things we enjoy are bad for us, but we enjoy them so we do them. That's life.

More people die every year from caffeine overdoses than have ever died in the entirety of human history from a cannabis overdose.
The only way hash could kill you is if someone hit you over the head with a big enough block.

Lethal dose ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana )

It is generaly considered to be impossible to achieve a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of tested rats, is 42 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That is equivalent, for a 75 kg (≈165 lb). male, to ingest all of the THC in 21 one-gram cigarettes of maximum-potency (15% THC) cannabis buds, assuming no THC was lost through burning or exhalation. For oral consumption, the LD50 for rats is 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively, equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC cannabis. Only with intravenous administration— an unheard of method of use by humans— may such a level be even theoretically possible.

(edit), ok slight misread

I really wish people would stop classifing things "safe" or "harmless" because the substance can't kill you instantly, its a bit silly. Cigaretts won't kill you instantly but they are far from harmless.

Right, but what exactly will kill a human?
Pretty much everything. Water kills us, and it's supplied to our HOMES. our HOMES people, do you have any idea how big a powder keg this is? You could trip on a fork, fall into a sink with only three inches of water in it and there you go. Drinking too much water kills us too but we are expected to know the safe limit. Too much exercise can kill us, too much caffeine can kill us, too much computer exposure can kill us (apparently.. crazy asians), too much toothpaste can kill us. we are very, very very fragile. Just because something can kill us doesn't mean it's bad.

Moriarty

I'd have more of a problem with people funding organised crime via drug purchases rather than anything they're doing to their own bodies. As long as I don't have to watch people doing it, I couldn't care less what they do with themselves if it was legalised from production to end-market and taxed accordingly.

Nasty_Girl

I couldn't give a flying f*ck what the drug actually physically does to a person. The only reason I stay away is coz it's illegal and *can*(sometimes) attract unsavoury characters. Plus I wouldn't pay for it!!

Vangelis

What shocks me is that so many people think it's harmless.
I saw a tv-programme once, an interview with a girl who had tried many sorts of smoking drugs, incl hash. The damage it had done to her brain was shown on a CT-scan of her brain. There were lots of tiny cavities all around her brain. The hash had literally consumed her neurons(brain cells) and that had affected her memory, her ability to absorb knowledge and learn new activities, and her general thinking and speaking was much slower than in a healthy person.

Some will criticise me for not providing a link or an article, I'm sorry for that. It's odd however, if someone disbelives me. Why would I make this up?

Royale with Cheese

I smoke hash the odd time, whenever my friends have it. Have never bought the stuff. Really don't see what the big deal is. I seriously doubt it is harmful when used in moderation. Any drug is going to harm you when you abuse it... like alcoholics abusing alcohol or potheads smoking hash everyday nonstop.

Stark

Mordeth wrote:

Right, but what exactly will kill a human?
Pretty much everything. Water kills us, and it's supplied to our HOMES. our HOMES people, do you have any idea how big a powder keg this is? You could trip on a fork, fall into a sink with only three inches of water in it and there you go. Drinking too much water kills us too but we are expected to know the safe limit. Too much exercise can kill us, too much caffeine can kill us, too much computer exposure can kill us (apparently.. crazy asians), too much toothpaste can kill us. we are very, very very fragile. Just because something can kill us doesn't mean it's bad.

Reminds me of a classic Homer moment:

Homer's response to Marge lecturing him about doing something dangerous:
"What if Marge? What if I was taking a bath and I tripped on a bar of soap?"
*Pause*
"Oh my god, I could be killed!".

Vangelis wrote:

Some will criticise me for not providing a link or an article, I'm sorry for that. It's odd however, if someone disbelives me. Why would I make this up?

For the children maybe? But seriously, I'd be interested in reading that article if you ever manage to track it down.

Did they conclusively prove the brain damage was due to cannabis use specifically? You said she tried other drugs.

monkeyfudge wrote:

I'm not just basing my opinion on scientific research, I also basing it on personal experiences of someone I lived with sticking a knife in their chest and an other occasion where a member of my family sticking a knife in my chest. Both were heavy cannabis users.

The drug is clearly a mood altering, personality altering and behavior altering... how you can claim that this is harmless is beyond me.

I'm wondering if this is directly due to the cannabis use, or was cannabis use just a "symptom". As in they were abusing a drug to compensate for some otherlying problem.

I've done it a few times myself without ill-effects. But then I generally strike a balance when it comes to soft drugs, I usually drink very little caffeine or alcohol for example. I know other people who have no self-control whatsoever, drink caffeine and beer like they were water (how they avoid dehydration is beyond me) and some of those people smoke cannabis and cigarettes like they were air. For them I think their brain chemistry was out of whack long before they discovered weed.

Nasty_Girl

Dr J wrote:

Any drug is going to harm you when you abuse it...

Same for anything really,
My insides are buggered from consumming waaaaaay to much of a certain popular soft drink....

Moriarty

Vangelis wrote:

It's odd however, if someone disbelives me. Why would I make this up?

You didn't seem to have all that much of a problem wrongly implying other things here recently when it suited your beliefs.

Vangelis

Stark wrote:

For the children maybe? But seriously, I'd be interested in reading that article if you ever manage to track it down.

Did they conclusively prove the brain damage was due to cannabis use specifically? You said she tried other drugs.

It was a TV PROGRAMME.

Answer to last question: No, they didn't.

bounty_hunter

Catsmokinpot wrote:

for every study that says cannabis causes psychosis there is another saying it doesnt so which ones are true and which are false? i know many people who smoke and all of them are fine, does that mean im right?

In all fairness, you shouldn't have to look to any scientific study to determine the truth. We can all see the damage it does in the long-run, nobody should have to have it pointed out to them.

As for you knowing many people who smoke and who are all "fine", you just wait until 20/30 years down the line when you suddenly notice that their brains have deteriorated right in front of your eyes.

Of course they appear "fine" now. As several other people have mentioned, cannabis does not cause an instant visible deterioration in health, such as some other more notoriously dangerous drugs. However, this is not to say that it is harmless. Far from it, my dear. It baffles me how anybody can sit back and claim something so absurd without even a hint of doubt.


Note: my evidence to support this comes from personal experience, which, as far as I can see, is the most reliable source of evidence available. I don't particularly want to go into the gory details.

EDIT: This is not to say that I consider cannabis to be "bad". As someone else has said, just about everything is considered dangerous these days, we may aswell indulge ourselves. I'm just attempting to disprove your claim that it is harmless.

monkeyfudge

Stark wrote:

I'm wondering if this is directly due to the cannabis use, or was cannabis use just a "symptom". As in they were abusing a drug to compensate for some otherlying problem.

Well there are a lot of people with schizotypal traits.. and they might not even be aware of this fact... that's why it's important not underestimate the drug and consider it harmless as it is a fairly potent drug and as from my experience of using it, it does alter your mood and perception in ways something like alcohol doesn't.

Royale with Cheese

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Same for anything really,
My insides are buggered from consumming waaaaaay to much of a certain popular soft drink....

Damn, I drink pepsi by the bucketload. Couple that with an occasional use of hash and (according to some people) I'll be dead within 4 weeks. Oh well

Vangelis

Dr J wrote:

Damn, I drink pepsi by the bucketload. Couple that with an occasional use of hash and (according to some people) I'll be dead within 4 weeks. Oh well

They must have survived to tell you that.

Zombrex

Dr J wrote:

Damn, I drink pepsi by the bucketload. Couple that with an occasional use of hash and (according to some people) I'll be dead within 4 weeks. Oh well

Well considering the amount of caffeine in Pepsi you probably will be dead by 40 from a heart attack if you continue to drink high levels of Pepsi every day ... thats after your teeth fall out and you ballon to 20 stone due to the sugar ...

Catsmokinpot

Mordeth wrote:

Right, but what exactly will kill a human?
Pretty much everything. Water kills us, and it's supplied to our HOMES. our HOMES people, do you have any idea how big a powder keg this is? You could trip on a fork, fall into a sink with only three inches of water in it and there you go. Drinking too much water kills us too but we are expected to know the safe limit. Too much exercise can kill us, too much caffeine can kill us, too much computer exposure can kill us (apparently.. crazy asians), too much toothpaste can kill us. we are very, very very fragile. Just because something can kill us doesn't mean it's bad.

exactly

Vangelis wrote:

What shocks me is that so many people think it's harmless.
I saw a tv-programme once, an interview with a girl who had tried many sorts of smoking drugs, incl hash. The damage it had done to her brain was shown on a CT-scan of her brain. There were lots of tiny cavities all around her brain. The hash had literally consumed her neurons(brain cells) and that had affected her memory, her ability to absorb knowledge and learn new activities, and her general thinking and speaking was much slower than in a healthy person.

Some will criticise me for not providing a link or an article, I'm sorry for that. It's odd however, if someone disbelives me. Why would I make this up?

why should i believe any of this.......... that my point. time and time again we have been repetadly lied to. over in america it was because cotton was the big product and hemp would replace it (partly because it is lots more versitile and 60% stronger) but the cotton producers started a vendetta against it, also alot of mexicans and a large percentage of the black community used it and by making it illegal they had them under a sort of control. thats what im trying to say, why would i make this up, im gonna smoke wether the law says i can or cant, if i get caught its my own problem, i knew the risk, im not doing it because im addicted, im not doing it because im a waster im doing it because it feels good. oh yeah and its ketamine that is supposed to cause cavities in the brain,

stark wrote:

I'm wondering if this is directly due to the cannabis use, or was cannabis use just a "symptom". As in they were abusing a drug to compensate for some otherlying problem.

I've done it a few times myself without ill-effects. But then I generally strike a balance when it comes to soft drugs, I usually drink very little caffeine or alcohol for example. I know other people who have no self-control whatsoever, drink caffeine and beer like they were water (how they avoid dehydration is beyond me) and some of those people smoke cannabis and cigarettes like they were air. For them I think their brain chemistry was out of whack long before they discovered weed.

exactly what im thinking

monkeyfudge wrote:

Well there are a lot of people with schizotypal traits.. and they might not even be aware of this fact... that's why it's important not underestimate the drug and consider it harmless as it is a fairly potent drug and as from my experience of using it, it does alter your mood and perception in ways something like alcohol doesn't.

anyone who says that obviously hasnt been down to a pub in there intire life, drink makes you agressive, depressed, you lose control of bodily functions, damages your liver your brain and that is all fact.

i know a girl whos mother was an alcoholic, her and her sister tried to keep her mother home from the pub one night, she started kicking them and screaming shouting they should have died at birth like she wanted them to, just so she could get out of the house for a drink, i have had similar experiences with my own mother not as bad though thank god dont ever tell me that it doesnt alter mood or perception.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

yeah, ban chocolate! fat people need help! They've shown time and time again they can't make the proper dietary decisions so it's up to us, and the goverment to tell those fat assholes how to live their lives.

Is chocolate a substance that can only harm you?

No, so wtf are you talking about?

Mordeth wrote:

you got a link to back up this bull fecal matter? Cannabis isn't harmless, but it's certainly not "quite bad for you".

What are you basing that on? I can link about 774,000 webpages detail the effects of cannabis. How do you define "not quite bad"?

Mordeth wrote:

Smoking is bad for you.

Smoking is very very bad for you, I think cigarets should be banned. The the saving of the cost to the health service of looking after people dying from smoking related lung cancer would be justification enough.

Mordeth wrote:

Eating a fry every weekend is bad for you

I wouldn't recommend it, but it is only really bad for you only if you take very little excersise.

Mordeth wrote:

Burgers and chips are bad for you.

Well they ain't good for you. But the don't do nuerolgical damage to your brain when eaten

Mordeth wrote:

Most things we enjoy are bad for us, but we enjoy them so we do them. That's life.

That is life, and that is why smoking, alochol and bad diet cost the Irish tax payer millions each year ... so lets add more bad things, sure I really thought I wasn't paying enough tax anyways.

Mordeth wrote:

More people die every year from caffeine overdoses than have ever died in the entirety of human history from a cannabis overdose.

More people have had physcological and mental break downs from cannabis than have ever had them from caffeine.

Mordeth wrote:

Water kills us, and it's supplied to our HOMES. our HOMES people, do you have any idea how big a powder keg this is?

Water won't damage your body during normal, moderate usage. Cannabis does. You have to go way out of your way to damage yourself with water, but it is possible. That girl (forget her name) who died from taking her first E actually died from water consumption that was spurred on by the neurological effect the E tab caused.

Mordeth wrote:

You could trip on a fork, fall into a sink with only three inches of water in it and there you go.

True, or you could smoke some skunk and suffer a psychological break down. Which is more likely? How many people drown in 3 inches of water each year and how many suffer mental health issues due to cannabis smoking?

From wikipedia (grain of salt, etc etc ..)
A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those who admitted taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

Mordeth wrote:

Drinking too much water kills us too but we are expected to know the safe limit.

No, your biological instincts knows the safe limit. That is what happened to that poor girl with the E tab, the E had effected her brain so she believed she was still thursty when infact she was close to dead.

We haven't yet evolved a method to internally know a safe level of cannabis use.

Mordeth wrote:

Too much exercise can kill us, too much caffeine can kill us, too much computer exposure can kill us (apparently.. crazy asians), too much toothpaste can kill us. we are very, very very fragile. Just because something can kill us doesn't mean it's bad.

Too much drinking of petrol can kill us, doesn't mean drinking petrol is necessarily a bad thing ... oh wait ... :rolleyes:

rubadub

Plankmonkey wrote:

My 2 cent: Anyone who says cannibis has no bad effects is obviously not smoking enough...

Then you say..

Plankmonkey wrote:

It's great in moderation but come on who smokes it in moderation!?

So you have pretty much answered your own question before you even asked it. Thats like me saying "anybody who says alcohol has no bad effects is not drinking enough." are you sort of inferring or recommending people to smoke more?
Plenty of people drink and smoke cannabis in moderation. Its the overindulgers that give drugs a bad rep.

dalk

As my Mammy always says 'everything in moderation'...

AARRRGH

bonkey wrote:

Indeed, substance abuse is always a bad thing, regardless of the substance.

Agree totally. I hate the way it is only applied to certain things eg. drinking, drugs, gambling.

I do wish I could choose what I abuse, rather than being told what I can and cannot abuse. The government is supposed to represent the people. Why do we let them dictate our lives so much?

rubadub

bounty_hunter wrote:

As for you knowing many people who smoke and who are all "fine", you just wait until 20/30 years down the line when you suddenly notice that their brains have deteriorated right in front of your eyes.
.

Then you say

bounty_hunter wrote:

It baffles me how anybody can sit back and claim something so absurd without even a hint of doubt.

baffles me too....

Plankmonkey

rubadub wrote:

Then you say..



So you have pretty much answered your own question before you even asked it. Thats like me saying "anybody who says alcohol has no bad effects is not drinking enough." are you sort of inferring or recommending people to smoke more?
Plenty of people drink and smoke cannabis in moderation. Its the overindulgers that give drugs a bad rep.

OK I could have chosen my words better but I think you're misinterpreting me. I mean they aren't smoking enough to be able to realise the bad effects of it. People are arguing that there are no bad effects, I'm saying if you smoke enough of it you'll realise there are bad effects.

What is moderation when it comes to cannabis anyway? You may think you are a moderate smoker but that won't last long. You may keep it down to one or two but watch how much you're putting into those joints. You'll learn the fine art of being able to fool even yourself, "ah sure I'm only having the one to help me relax". Yeah right, you're packing it to the brim cause you want to get whacked off your tits. But hey its only the one so no harm eh? Soon enough you'll be rolling up a joint to "help you relax" after the smallest of things. It'll be the only solution to all your problems.

rubadub

Wicknight wrote:

No, your biological instincts knows the safe limit. That is what happened to that poor girl with the E tab, the E had effected her brain so she believed she was still thursty when infact she was close to dead.

The media and propaganda killed that girl. Scare tactics about people dancing themselves so hard that they get heatstroke and die. You brian does not make you think you are thirsty on e. The scare-mongering media warning people to drink lots of water made her drink too much. It is ironic that the media that killed her then went on to further demonize the drug, with few of them actually warning of the dangers of too much water.


The fact that there are so few e deaths with millions of users just goes to show how safe the drug actually is. Far more people die from allergic reactions to common OTC drugs. If a pharmaceutical company had a drug with such few deaths it would pass that side of its approvals easily.

AARRRGH

rubadub wrote:

The media and propaganda killed that girl. Scare tactics about people dancing themselves so hard that they get heatstroke and die. You brian does not make you think you are thirsty on e. The scare-mongering media warning people to drink lots of water made her drink too much. It is ironic that the media that killed her then went on to further demonize the drug, with few of them actually warning of the dangers of too much water.


The fact that there are so few e deaths with millions of users just goes to show how safe the drug actually is. Far more people die from allergic reactions to common OTC drugs. If a pharmaceutical company had a drug with such few deaths it would pass that side of its approvals easily.

Totally true. People won't believe you though. I don't know if this is because they're scared of reality or what.

Zombrex

What is moderation when it comes to cannabis anyway? You may think you are a moderate smoker but that won't last long.

Good point ... everyone goes on about moderation, but I would imagine that moderation is what ever they are doing, rather than a specific value. And that can vary wildly

If it turned out that the truely harmless moderate level of cannabis use was something like one joint every 2 months and for a period of not more than 2 years, I wonder how many people would actually stick to that?? :rolleyes:

(BTW, yes I am making that value up, but unless someone else has a proper definition of "moderate" my definition is as valid as anyone elses)

rubadub

Plankmonkey wrote:

I mean they aren't smoking enough to be able to realise the bad effects of it. People are arguing that there are no bad effects, I'm saying if you smoke enough of it you'll realise there are bad effects.

And others and I are saying if you do enough of ANYTHING you will realise there are bad effects. Be it drinking, excersise, eating lettuce....

Plankmonkey wrote:

What is moderation when it comes to cannabis anyway? .

You answered that yourself, the people who reckon there are no bad effects are probably smoking in moderation. But you consider such people to be "not smoking enough"

Plankmonkey wrote:

You may think you are a moderate smoker but that won't last long. You may keep it down to one or two but watch how much you're putting into those joints. .

I have been smoking for almost 15 years. I smoke less now than ever, same frequency but less amounts. I dont smoke joints, just weed or proper hash on its own. With weed I probably smoke 0.05-0.1g in a night, very little, with (proper) hash maybe the size of a pinhead at most.

Zombrex

rubadub wrote:

The media and propaganda killed that girl. Scare tactics about people dancing themselves so hard that they get heatstroke and die.

What are you basing that one on?

rubadub wrote:

You brian does not make you think you are thirsty on e.

No, it does, in fact it does the opposite. MDMA suppresses the human bodies system that deals with thirst and water consumption. You don't know if you were thirsty or not. I am sure everyone has heard of clubbers collapsing of dehydration cause they don't know they were thirsty and have no desire for water. MDMA works both ways, you don't know when you have had too much water, you can literally drink until you die. The girl drank herself to death because the normal system in the human brain to tell her body "no thats enought" was surpressed by the MDMA.

rubadub wrote:

The scare-mongering media warning people to drink lots of water made her drink too much.

I have no idea what made her think "I need some water", but it was the MDMA in her brain that made her drink too much.

rubadub wrote:

The fact that there are so few e deaths with millions of users just goes to show how safe the drug actually is.

LOL .. only if you define "safe" as "It won't kill you" :rolleyes:

rubadub wrote:

Far more people die from allergic reactions to common OTC drugs. If a pharmaceutical company had a drug with such few deaths it would pass that side of its approvals easily.

No it wouldn't, E damages the human brain, and has no risk/benefit factors. MDMA would fail every food and drug safety requirements in every major country in the world.

The Troll

Well, i'm a long time smoker. I agree with the OP on many issues but I still feel his position is too one-sided.

My feelings are that cannabis should be legalised, but that there should be an awareness campaign of the implicit dangers of using the drug. Cannabis use has a direct link with severe mental illness in young adults. It permanently alters the alpha brain waves and this cannot be reversed. It can result in schizophrenia, early Alzheimers, psychosis and a range of other severe mental defects.

The link is somewhat comparable with smokers and cancer ie. a smoker has an increased risk of getting cancer, but it not every smoker will get it

Similarly with cannabis, users have an increased risk of suffering from mental disorders but every user will be affected differently

As a smoker of 7 years (I smoke almost every day), I feel that most users aren't fully aware of the possible consequences of long term use. To say that smoking cannabis is less harmful than smoking cigareets is just wrong and has no basis in fact. Most cannabis users in this country at least smoke cannabis with tobacco. Even worse is that most smoke soap bar hash. This stuff alone is extremely toxic. It's made form boot polish, aniumal excrement, plastic and various other garbage. People should not be allowed smoke this. It so so damaging on our bodies. I havn't smoked soap bar in nearly 2 years now( I only smoke pollem or weed).

That is another reason i feel that it should be legalised - quality control. Make sure that users aren't being peddled garbage that consists of numerous toxic ingredients and instead are being provided with high grade products. The other pros of this have been debated into the ground - taxes etc etc.

Plankmonkey

rubadub wrote:

And others and I are saying if you do enough of ANYTHING you will realise there are bad effects. Be it drinking, excersise, eating lettuce....



You answered that yourself, the people who reckon there are no bad effects are probably smoking in moderation. But you consider such people to be "not smoking enough"


I have been smoking for almost 15 years. I smoke less now than ever, same frequency but less amounts. I dont smoke joints, just weed or proper hash on its own. With weed I probably smoke 0.05-0.1g in a night, very little, with (proper) hash maybe the size of a pinhead at most.

We're both agreeing It does have bad effects.

Again you're misinterpreting me: People who don't notice its bad effects are not regualr smokers or in my experience are in denial or as was in my case it wasn't until I actually gave it up that I noticed the effect it was having on my physical and mental health. I actually forgot what normal was.

If you can smoke any amount of cannabis and you can say you don't have a paranoia complex of some sort then I take my hat off to you. I suppose it affects different people in different ways, but in my experience and just about anyone I know who smokes/used to smoke it the negative effects are common.

bounty_hunter

rubadub wrote:

Then you say


baffles me too....

Could you please clarify what you were getting at here? I'm not quite sure.
Edit: I'm not being sarcastic, by the way.

Plankmonkey

The Troll wrote:

Well, i'm a long time smoker. I agree with the OP on many issues but I still feel his position is too one-sided.

My feelings are that cannabis should be legalised, but that there should be an awareness campaign of the implicit dangers of using the drug. Cannabis use has a direct link with severe mental illness in young adults. It permanently alters the alpha brain waves and this cannot be reversed. It can result in schizophrenia, early Alzheimers, psychosis and a range of other severe mental defects.

The link is somewhat comparable with smokers and cancer ie. a smoker has an increased risk of getting cancer, but it not every smoker will get it

Similarly with cannabis, users have an increased risk of suffering from mental disorders but every user will be affected differently

As a smoker of 7 years (I smoke almost every day), I feel that most users aren't fully aware of the possible consequences of long term use. To say that smoking cannabis is less harmful than smoking cigareets is just wrong and has no basis in fact. Most cannabis users in this country at least smoke cannabis with tobacco. Even worse is that most smoke soap bar hash. This stuff alone is extremely toxic. It's made form boot polish, aniumal excrement, plastic and various other garbage. People should not be allowed smoke this. It so so damaging on our bodies. I havn't smoked soap bar in nearly 2 years now( I only smoke pollem or weed).

That is another reason i feel that it should be legalised - quality control. Make sure that users aren't being peddled garbage that consists of numerous toxic ingredients and instead are being provided with high grade products. The other pros of this have been debated into the ground - taxes etc etc.

Well said. I agree 100%, particularly on the quality control. But before they can legaise it they must understand what exactly are the negative effects. I know what they are from personal experience, I also know what the positives are. But before they can legalise it they must have scientfic evidence. It's just the way it works.

Catsmokinpot

Wicknight wrote:

What are you basing that on? I can link about 774,000 webpages detail the effects of cannabis. How do you define "not quite bad"?

yes and the people who made those webpages are the same people who told us that it would go around killing and robbing, they told us that it was more cancerous, which and i repeat, was proved to be *false* i cant believe you dont see that

to be honest i dont think ill get through to someone like yourself who would like others to do as you wish so that you dont have to pay taxes. i myself dont want to live till im 900 years old, i want to enjoy my life and if i live till im 70 lucky me! if not so be it

Wicknight wrote:

From wikipedia (grain of salt, etc etc ..)
A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those who admitted taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

"those who admitted" are you assuming that in a country where cannabis smoking is completely legal that they are all lying? doesnt give any sort of percentage....

bounty_hunter wrote:

Could you please clarify what you were getting at here? I'm not quite sure.

maybe you been smoking too much? :rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

LOL .. only if you define "safe" as "It won't kill you"

your sounding very hitler'esque throughout your posts if you were in charge we'd all be sober priests, not alowed to do anything, would you ban music too? that is mood altering, you can hurt yourself, but it wont kill you!

Zombrex

Catsmokinpot wrote:

yes and the people who made those webpages are the same people who told us that it would go around killing and robbing

Who are these "people" ... feeling a bit paranoid are we?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

They told us that it was more cancerous, which and i repeat, was proved to be *false* i cant believe you dont see that

What was proved to be false? Cannabis being more carigenic than cigarets?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

to be honest i dont think ill get through to someone like yourself who would like others to do as you wish so that you dont have to pay taxes. i myself dont want to live till im 900 years old, i want to enjoy my life and if i live till im 70 lucky me! if not so be it

Good for you

Catsmokinpot wrote:

"those who admitted" are you assuming that in a country where cannabis smoking is completely legal that they are all lying? doesnt give any sort of percentage....

All lying? No, i assume most wouldn't be lying hence the validity of the report.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

your sounding very hitler'esque throughout your posts if you were in charge we'd all be sober priests, not alowed to do anything, would you ban music too? that is mood altering, you can hurt yourself, but it wont kill you!

Sigh .. yes cannabis is the same as listening to loud music ... :rolleyes:

Who says we need more money spend on drug education, cause everyone here seems to be very clued into the effects of cannabis on the human brain and lungs ... its the same as music .. :rolleyes:

rubadub

Wicknight wrote:

What are you basing that one on?

Her friends said it in interviews after her death. They said she was drinking huge amounts of water after reading in papers that the dehydration from e can lead to death.

Wicknight wrote:

I have no idea what made her think "I need some water", but it was the MDMA in her brain that made her drink too much.

Her friends say it was the media the made her think it.

Wicknight wrote:

LOL .. only if you define "safe" as "It won't kill you" :rolleyes:

I would not define safe as "it won't kill you".
I would consider water a safe substance even though it killed that girl.
I do not know if there is any substance that doesnt have a LD50, do you? What substance would you call safe?

Wicknight wrote:

No it wouldn't, E damages the human brain, and has no risk/benefit factors. MDMA would fail every food and drug safety requirements in every major country in the world.

It does have medicinal use, it was used for years by doctors. Many want it relegalised. Many OTC drugs damage the brain, many have a lower LD50 proportional to recreational dose. It already did pass requirements! doctors used it for years, FFS heroin passed and is still used medicinally.

Catsmokinpot

Wicknight wrote:

Who are these "people" ... feeling a bit paranoid are we?

lol, lol, and lol! :rolleyes: yes im a paranoid stoner!!!! take me to a hospital!!! :rolleyes: it is documented FACT that the governments of the world went round telling the public that it would turn you in to a psycho who goes around killing people just for their own gains just because they wanted to control people. type reefer madness into google. and watch a film called grass, but you probably wont because you dont want to listen to the other side of the story, i have listened to the con side of the story, it stinks and its full of lies.

Wicknight wrote:

What was proved to be false? Cannabis being more carigenic than cigarets?

yes, governments were proved wrong by an independant study which showed reefer madness to be a load of bull****, once that excuse was gone they said "oh no your going to get cancer", and yet again a recent study cannabis to be less carcinogenic than cigarettes and yet again governments were proved wrong......
i posted this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm at the start of the thread, but you probably didnt bother reading it, after all it was only the very start of this thread

Wicknight wrote:

All lying? No, i assume most wouldn't be lying hence the validity of the report.

what percentage?

Wicknight wrote:

Who says we need more money spend on drug education, cause everyone here seems to be very clued into the effects of cannabis on the human brain and lungs ... its the same as music .. :rolleyes:

again i posted this at the start of the thread read this book cannabis its a complete factual journey through the history of cannabis and the actual effects, it has a couple of chapters dedicated to exactly what goes on in the brain, its actually not pro or anti its completely borderline, honestly, give it a read, its the most unbiased book on any topic ive ever read, it gives facts and only facts he has a couple of chapters at the end about his own experiences but none of his experiences are used to justify anything.

rubadub

bounty_hunter wrote:

Could you please clarify what you were getting at here? I'm not quite sure.
Edit: I'm not being sarcastic, by the way.

you were commenting on "absurd claims", yet you were saying yourself about "their brains have deteriorated right in front of your eyes".

Cannabis, just like lettuce will never be prove to be non-addictive or non-harmful. You cannot prove a negative, end of story.

rubadub

Plankmonkey wrote:

But before they can legaise it they must understand what exactly are the negative effects.

Why???

Plankmonkey wrote:

I also know what the positives are.

Ask a cancer patient. there are a huge amounts of medicinal uses. And non-medicinal uses, like alcohol, though I would consider its stress releif properties to be medicinal

Plankmonkey wrote:

But before they can legalise it they must have scientfic evidence. It's just the way it works.

It is certainly not the way it works. How did alcohol and cigarettes slip through this system you seem to think is in place.

rubadub

Plankmonkey wrote:

If you can smoke any amount of cannabis and you can say you don't have a paranoia complex of some sort then I take my hat off to you.

Thats like me saying "if you can drink ANY amount of alcohol and don't have a aggressive inkling, or are always able to walk in a straight line then I take my hat off to you."
I have no wish to smoke such a large amount of cannabis that I am mongoed or have a "whitie", so I never will. Many people just drink a few pints, and have no wish to get abusive or be in a blackout so they just dont drink that much.

Zombrex

Catsmokinpot wrote:

lol, lol, and lol! :rolleyes: yes im a paranoid stoner!!!! take me to a hospital!!! :rolleyes: it is documented FACT that the governments of the world went round telling the public that it would turn you in to a psycho who goes around killing people just for their own gains just because they wanted to control people.

Quite true, in the past governments have come up with a lot of ridiculous campaigns .. Reds under the beds springs to mind

But dismissing every modern medical report on cannabis you don't like based on this fact seems a bit naive in my view.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

what percentage?

Are lying? Why would you lie in a study like this. You only seem to assume they are lying because you don't want the results to be true.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

again i posted this at the start of the thread read this book cannabis its a complete factual journey through the history of cannabis and the actual effects, it has a couple of chapters dedicated to exactly what goes on in the brain, its actually not pro or anti its completely borderline, honestly, give it a read, its the most unbiased book on any topic ive ever read, it gives facts and only facts he has a couple of chapters at the end about his own experiences but none of his experiences are used to justify anything.

Never read the book (I noticed it did get some mixed reviews on Amazon .. love the part about "Chill out" coming from the word "Chillum", what nonsense), but I would imagine if you have then you would know exactly what the physical effects on the human body are. So why are you comparing cannabis use to listening to loud music (which by the way is damaging to your ears which is reflected in laws for speaker makers, head phone makers and live performaces which are designed to protect you)

Plankmonkey

rubadub wrote:

Why???

So they can put it on the packet, like all drugs that are sold legally.

rubadub wrote:

Ask a cancer patient. there are a huge amounts of medicinal uses. And non-medicinal uses, like alcohol, though I would consider its stress releif properties to be medicinal

I said I know what the positives are from my own experience. I don't have cancer but I'm sure it helps ease the pain and suffering.

rubadub wrote:

It is certainly not the way it works. How did alcohol and cigarettes slip through this system you seem to think is in place.

The system wasn't in place when alcohol and cigarettes were first out. They've learnt their lesson with those two and they'll be sure they don't make another mistake again.

dalk

Wicknight wrote:

So why are you comparing cannabis use to listening to loud music (which by the way is damaging to your ears which is reflected in laws for speaker makers, head phone makers and live performaces which are designed to protect you)

Like a lot of laws, its designed to reduce the risk to an "acceptable" level, not eliminate the risk altogether. There is a difference. If the object was to protect your ears from being damaged, all the things you mentioned would be banned (or throttled to not play above about 85dB SPL, which is enough to potentially permanently damage your ears. And that isnt very loud btw).

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

How do you define "not quite bad"?

Personally speaking I would note that it was a refutation of someone else (that being yourself, Wick, I believe) claiming it was "quite bad".

So it seems you're asking someone to define a negation of your own unqualified term....which would suggest you don't know what your own "quite bad" meant in the first place.

Never read the book (I noticed it did get some mixed reviews on Amazon

it got mixed reviews? There's a surprise. You mean people might have based their review of the book on their own preformed opinions? Goodness. Thats shocking. Just as well we don't know what their background or qualifications are, or then we'd have something to base the value of their reviews on.

This is a serious issue which a lot of people feel very strongly about. Its important to consider the quality of a source. Straight up, which is more credible:

1) An author printing a book, supplying references which can be cross-checked, which can and will be peer-reviewed....
2) An anonymous review of this book posted on the internet calling the author a crank.

Note I'm not asking who is right....just who is more credible. It should "clearly" be the latter, right? Cause if not, I'm not entirely sure why its relevant that the book got mixed reviews. Thats as meaningful as saying "only some posters in this thread will agree with its findings".....which I doubt anyone here will disagree with.

(BTW, yes I am making that value up, but unless someone else has a proper definition of "moderate" my definition is as valid as anyone elses)

This is exactly the type of thing I was alluding to. While technically correct, you forgot to mention that your definition os utterly invalid. saying "its as valid as" may be accurate, but its misleading, in that it suggests there is some validity there.

I can link about 774,000 webpages detail the effects of cannabis.

I very much doubt that claim. I'm sure you can run a google (or other) search which will produce 774,000 hits, suggesting that they mention the effects, but I seriously doubt that you have personally verified (or have access to third party verification) that there are this number of sites to your knowledge that detail the effects of cannabis.

And regarding the effectiveness of searching....I can do a google for "cigarettes do not cause cancer" and get over 3,000,000 hits back. Should I claim therefore that the cancer-causing aspects of cigarette-smoking are not proven, contested, and that I can link over 1,000,000 sites detailing how the claims that they are cancerous have never been proven? Does the mere existence of these sites mean the issue is still open? Does it mean that I can honestly believe that there is a conspiracy? Or should I be looking at who has claimed what, what tehir background is, who funded the research, what pressure was brought to bear politically regarding the findings, and so on and so forth.

The more you try and look at the canabis situation objectively, the more you'll find one thing. While neither side is above reproach, there would appear to be far more non-science-based influence coming from one one side. It ain't the side of (re-)legalisation. Its almost as if those who want to keep it illegal aren't confident to let the science do the talking. Now why would that be?

On a utterly tangential note, though, can I say that cannabis is a gorgeous plant, and really I like that you can buy seeds for low-THC variants in the supermarkets here and grow them as houseplants. The biggest shame of the whole issue has been that the demonisation of the plant has led to its myriad of other uses being utterly stunted. B

jc