catholics and cannibis, genesis 1'12

JoeB-

Do Catholics feel that the government is doing them a disservice by proscribing cannibis an illegal drug even though Genesis 1'12 says something like...

'And God gave man all the seed bearing plants and urges their use'

Obviously I have paraphrased it but after all any English phrase is a translation anyway... the point is that cannibis is a seed bearing plant and if it's good enough for god surely it should be ok for us?

So are catholics torn between what the government says and what god says in this respect?
I am aware that Genesis 1'12 isn't forcing or requiring people to use plants for all their purposes but if a catholic wishes to do so, do they then follow gods advice or the governments wishes?

Asiaprod

JoeBallantine wrote:

So are catholics torn between what the government says and what god says in this respect?
I am aware that Genesis 1'12 isn't forcing or requiring people to use plants for all their purposes but if a catholic wishes to do so, do they then follow gods advice or the governments wishes?

I think every religion states that one is to observe the Laws of the Land.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Asiaprod wrote:

I think every religion states that one is to observe the Laws of the Land.

as proven time and time again in the recent past, not in cases involving child molestation.
papal law supersedes any law of man......or so the story goes.

stevejazzx

JoeBallantine wrote:

Do Catholics feel that the government is doing them a disservice by proscribing cannibis an illegal drug even though Genesis 1'12 says something like...

'And God gave man all the seed bearing plants and urges their use'

Obviously I have paraphrased it but after all any English phrase is a translation anyway... the point is that cannibis is a seed bearing plant and if it's good enough for god surely it should be ok for us?

So are catholics torn between what the government says and what god says in this respect?
I am aware that Genesis 1'12 isn't forcing or requiring people to use plants for all their purposes but if a catholic wishes to do so, do they then follow gods advice or the governments wishes?

One can make much greater use of bible litrealism for critical purposes than the above example demonstrates. I don't think anyone is going to question their belief due some mild contradiction.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to question their belief due some mild contradiction.

i have to agree with you on this one, because if one did question ones belief over mild contradiction in the bible, nobody would believe at all.

Asiaprod

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

as proven time and time again in the recent past, not in cases involving child molestation.
papal law supersedes any law of man......or so the story goes.

Please note my comment stated that "I think every religion states that one is to observe the Laws of the Land." Stating something and doing something are two different things imo.
On your other point, Papal Law will always be biased towards protecting the establishment as, I imagine, would Laws made by any other establishment.
The only comment I would make, and I am not being disrespectfully in anyway here, is that I presume you have a vote! Use it wisely when the next opportunity presents itself.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Asiaprod wrote:

I presume you have a vote! Use it wisely when the next opportunity presents itself.

laws of the land i have no issue with, laws "protecting the establishment" at the expense of a child or any other innocent bystanders i do have issue with.
unfortunate, not being a cardinal I don't have a vote and I'm not allowed to express an opinion on this issue.

Asiaprod

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

laws of the land i have no issue with, laws "protecting the establishment" at the expense of a child or any other innocent bystanders i do have issue with.

As I also have an issue with.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

unfortunate, not being a cardinal I don't have a vote and I'm not allowed to express an opinion on this issue.

You know that this is not what I meant. if you really need it in B&W, no populous support, no establishment.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Asiaprod wrote:

You know that this is not what I meant.

i do apologize,
i can only reply to what you wrote not what you intended to write.


but i do see what you meant now, and i totally agree

Asiaprod

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i do apologize,
i can only reply to what you wrote not what you intended to write.


but i do see what you meant now, and i totally agree

Sorry, there are times when my mind and my fingers get out of sync. Glad we could sort it out.

BrianCalgary

Going back to the OP.

When using the Bible to support a cause, in this cannabis use, the verse you quote is quite valid, all plants are here for our use.

But you can't stop there, you have to see what else the Bible says. The Bible speaks about your body being a temple of the Holy Spirit and that you must take care of.

Therefore would smoking cannabis harm or help your body? From what I understand it harms your body and therefore smoking it goes against the Holy Spirit and is wrong. To use the plant medicinally would be right.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Therefore would smoking cannabis harm or help your body? From what I understand it harms your body and therefore smoking it goes against the Holy Spirit and is wrong. To use the plant medicinally would be right.

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to confuse "use" with "ingest" or "consume" in the first place.

I have clothes made from hemp. Hemp rope is also well known. Indeed, the uses of the canabis-plant family are many and varied.

I see no reason that these uses would not be considered legitimate "use" of the plant, even if medicinal usage were a point of contention regarding the philosophy of "my body is my temple".

If the OP wished to ask about any government doing a disservice, I would argue it would be from banning the use of hemp for any purpose whatsoever. Banning it for consumption may not be popular, but wouldn't necessarily contradict the passage referenced.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to confuse "use" with "ingest" or "consume" in the first place.

I have clothes made from hemp. Hemp rope is also well known. Indeed, the uses of the canabis-plant family are many and varied.

I see no reason that these uses would not be considered legitimate "use" of the plant, even if medicinal usage were a point of contention regarding the philosophy of "my body is my temple".

If the OP wished to ask about any government doing a disservice, I would argue it would be from banning the use of hemp for any purpose whatsoever. Banning it for consumption may not be popular, but wouldn't necessarily contradict the passage referenced.

I agree with the use of cannabis for making material for clothing, rope, paper etc. I agree with it for the use of medicine, but to use it to get high is a contradiction of God's principle of not harming our own body.

Alcohol is wonderful, I love a nice pint, but drunkeness is a no, no.

Basically God speaks out against anything excessive, eating , drinking, etc.

JoeB-

BrianCalgary wrote:

Therefore would smoking cannabis harm or help your body? From what I understand it harms your body and therefore smoking it goes against the Holy Spirit and is wrong. To use the plant medicinally would be right.

Unfortunately I believe you have been misled by propragandist governments... in particular the US and the North American continent in general.

Basically every major study undertaken by well respected medical organisations have concluded that there is no evidence of harm caused even by chronic use of cannibis.. chronic means heavy everyday use. I will back this up with citations in a day or two if required. Occasionaly use definitely has no harmful effects.

It is banned for political reasons primarily.

There are several pro cannibis organisations that provide un biased information, like NORML. If a US citizen posted a message like this it would likely cause him or her to be victimised by the US authorities who have among the most stringent anti drug laws in the world... it would definitely be ill advised... I don't believe anything will happen to me here in Ireland.

So Catholics shouldn't really be drinking alcohol then as it is proven to be harmful???? and smoking cigerettes must be a major no-no... God's laws sure are hard to follow...
(Not that I believe that, after all, virtually any view or activity can be supported by scripture of one sort or another...)

Cheers
Joe

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote:

There are several pro cannibis organisations that provide un biased information, like NORML.

If an organisation is 'pro-cannabis' then their information is no more 'unbiased' than that of those who are anti-cannabis.

Unbiased information would come from those who have no axe to grind one way or another.

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote:

So Catholics shouldn't really be drinking alcohol then as it is proven to be harmful???? and smoking cigerettes must be a major no-no... God's laws sure are hard to follow...

I'm not a Catholic, so I can't really answer as to what Catholics should or shouldn't do.

Certainly alcohol & cigarettes are proven to be harmful and that is why I don't partake of either, for health reasons that is enough for me, irrespective of my religious view. As a former smoker & heavy drinker, let me assure you that living without cigarettes or alcohol is certainly not 'hard', it's very easy and enjoyable.

JoeB-

PDN wrote:

If an organisation is 'pro-cannabis' then their information is no more 'unbiased' than that of those who are anti-cannabis.

Unbiased information would come from those who have no axe to grind one way or another.

Yes, after writing the message I realized that that very point could be used against me... what I meant was that there are organisations that provide evidence and refer to accepted scenitific studies to support their views. The anti drug lobby has never used scentific evidence, simply because the evidence doesn't exist...

In the 1950's posters were put up blaming violent crimes on cannabis users, the governments who put these posters up had no evidence to support their claims, in fact the evidence supported the opposite view.

The Dutch government (and several others) has legalised cannabis, not because they desire their country to be destroyed but simply because they take intelligent views on most things. As I say many niave governments have commissioned scentific studies in order to support their anti-drug polocies, however when the results come back recommending legalisation or at least de criminalisation the reports quitely get buried...

Alcohol should be banned and cannabis legalised... but there is little chance of that, especially in Ireland where many many people have alcohol problems and many families have been destroyed by it.

Cheers

Zombrex

JoeBallantine wrote:

Basically every major study undertaken by well respected medical organisations have concluded that there is no evidence of harm caused even by chronic use of cannibis.. chronic means heavy everyday use. I will back this up with citations in a day or two if required. Occasionaly use definitely has no harmful effects.

That isn't true. In fact I've never actually heard that from any pro-cannabis lobby.

Pretty much everyone accepts that cannabis will harm you. The point that most pro-cannabis people make is that it doesn't harm you any more than things like cigarettes and alcohol consumption or eating a tub of butter a day, so why are they legal and cannabis isn't?

Now of course that is up for debate, because it is very hard to quantify "harm", even when you are talking about the same thing. One person can drink a glass of wine a day and live to 95, another person will drink a bottle of whiskey a day and be dead before they are 45. So who do you compare cannabis use to, the moderate wine drinker or the alcoholic.

Recently the anti-cannabis lobby have latched on to the mental health problems of cannabis use as more and more research is finding mental health problems triggered by or linked to cannabis consumption.

But again it is hard to tell if cannabis consumption causes any more mental health problems than alcohol, which is still legal despite the risk to the population's physical and mental health. And the pro-cannabis lobby say that just because something might cause mental health problems in some people it isn't a reason to ban it.

interestinguser

The arguments for cannibis being illegial are quiete weak, especially when alcohol is such a big part of our society. Many Irish tend to have a very hypocritical view of things like Cannibas. This really struck me when I was traveling in Central America.

PDN

I've noticed that in this thread, every single person who advocates the use of cannabis is unable to spell it correctly. All those who warn of its dangers, without exception, spell it perfectly.

Is this a massive coincidence? Or empirical proof that cannabis really does rot your brains?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I've noticed that in this thread, every single person who advocates the use of cannabis is unable to spell it correctly. All those who warn of its dangers, without exception, spell it perfectly.

Is this a massive coincidence? Or empirical proof that cannabis really does rot your brains?

LOL

Interesting point

JoeB-

he he he.. yes it is funny about the spelling....

Seriously though, here are some conclusions about cannabis use. Most of the problems associated with cannabis use stem from the fact that is it often smoked... this leads to similar problems associated with tobacco smoke. Ingesting cannabis avoids these problems. Vaporisation is the safest method of consumption where the wanted compounds are 'boiled' off at about 190 deg C without burning.

The UK Wootton Report of 1968 agreed with the Indian Hemp commission and said:
"Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1893-94) and the New York Mayor's Committee (1944 - LaGuardia) that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects. "


Not much to go on there but there is info all over the web, I'm happy in the belief that cannabis is essentially harmless, this is a considered position having read much documentation and other 'activities'... he he.

I do agree it tends to demotivate people and so has an impact on a persons social life.. also there is some evidence that very strong grass can trigger some mental problems in people who are already susceptible to these illnesses, not much evidence that cannabis use has a causal effect on mental illness.

I definitely think that both alcohol and tobacco use are far more serious and cause far more problems. Cannabis may be on a par to tea/coffee or fried food.

Cheers

Zombrex

JoeBallantine wrote:

The UK Wootton Report of 1968 agreed with the Indian Hemp commission and said:

Well in fairness research from nearly 40 years ago probably isn't the best to go on though.

The link between cannabis and the triggering of mental illness seems pretty solid as of 2007.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Wicknight wrote:

The link between cannabis and the triggering of mental illness seems pretty solid as of 2007.

No, the studies that have been done have never been without bias really.

From the results I have seen, I think it is far more realistic to infer that people with a mental illness (even a dormant one) are more likely to smoke cannabis as a result of their illness rather than the cannabis actually causing the illness. The studies possibly manipulate figures.

philologos

sean_keevey wrote:

No, the studies that have been done have never been without bias really.

From the results I have seen, I think it is far more realistic to infer that people with a mental illness (even a dormant one) are more likely to smoke cannabis as a result of their illness rather than the cannabis actually causing the illness. The studies possibly manipulate figures.

And yet you put your trust in reports from 1967, 1944 and from the late 19th Century to back up that cannabis is harmless? Seems a bit fishy to me.
In addition to this, it is going way off topic.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote:

And yet you put your trust in reports from 1967, 1944 and from the late 19th Century to back up that cannabis is harmless? Seems a bit fishy to me.
In addition to this, it is going way off topic.

I don't think I have read or even heard of these reports that you speak of. What I'm saying is that the figures on which the reports are based are ambiguous and could be interpreted indifferent ways, in fact the ways in which the surveys are carried out are highly questionable. As is typical in the world of propaganda, different groups draw different conclusions and I would not rush to accept these claims about mental illness.

And I'm not even pro-legalisation

But as you said, that's going off topic

Zombrex

sean_keevey wrote:

No, the studies that have been done have never been without bias really.

Define "biased"

As far as I'm aware there are proper studies, to a scientific standard, that link cannabis use with an unusually high level of mental illness.

I don't mean to suggest anything, but you sure you don't think they are biased because they simply say something you don't agree with?

JC 2K3

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I'm aware there are proper studies, to a scientific standard, that link cannabis use with an unusually high level of mental illness.

There are also proper studies, to a scientific standard, that find no link between cannabis use and mental illness.

A lot of the time it's possible to determine the result of a study by looking at where the funding is coming from.

Interestingly enough, aspartame, an artificial sweetener, is legal despite numerous studies linking it to many conditions including brain cancer. It was approved by the FDA in 1981 and there is much controversy surrounding it and many rumours of bribes etc. Also, afer leaving the FDA in 1991, several people got high ranking jobs in Nutrasweet, the company that makes aspartame.

Similarly, mobile phones were never tested properly for radiation harm, yet they were approved for the market despite the fact they would have failed radiation tests back when they were released. They are now a multi billion dollar market.

Point being, you can't really trust scientific studies like these as those with money/in postitions of power will always get the results they want.

philologos

sean_keevey wrote:

I don't think I have read or even heard of these reports that you speak of. What I'm saying is that the figures on which the reports are based are ambiguous and could be interpreted indifferent ways, in fact the ways in which the surveys are carried out are highly questionable. As is typical in the world of propaganda, different groups draw different conclusions and I would not rush to accept these claims about mental illness.

And I'm not even pro-legalisation

But as you said, that's going off topic

sorry wrong poster, got mixed up as you had a similar avatar to JoeBallentine

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote:

sorry wrong poster, got mixed up as you had a similar avatar to JoeBallentine

No worries

neuro-praxis

I actually cannot believe that these kinds of inane threads are tolerated. This place is worse than After Hours for sheer crap.

JoeBallantine, if you want to smoke cannabis you go right ahead and do that. There is nothing in your lapsed Catholic faith, either inside or out of the bible, that will help you find justification for getting stoned (or drunk for that matter) off your face.

And just for reference, the verse you misquoted, in the NIV reads:

"The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." (gen 1:12)

DrFunkenstein

JC2k3 Raises a very fair point see http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/davis.htm for a very good article on Asparatame. As for the radiation associated with mobile phones, We all know that they emmit potentially harmfull energy yet how many phones are bought each year for children,(higher risk, thinner skulls, brain not fully developed) although most text more than talk..

Now, don't jump down my throat, but, 'Cannabis' in Ireland is doing far more harm than people think, and more harm than the government would ever have you believe.. :eek:

A shocking statement I hear you say, what proof?

Well, like most teens who start using cannabis, I started by smoking what is know in this country as 'Hash', this product is as far from cannabis as you could possibly get, it contains nearly zilch cannabis and 100% of the time is mixed with bulking agents and nasty things to simulate some sort of 'high'

Ok we all know illegal drugs can be and are tampered with, yes, but what is in this stuff is far more damaging to the physical health and would go nearly as far to blindly state a serious negitive impact on the development of the young brains (not a Dr. but I doubt anyone could debate that) of the youth than actual cannabis could ever be.

I am talking about plastic, beeswax, boot polish, animal excrement, turpentine, henna, ground coffee, milk powder, pine resin, barbiturates, ketamine, aspirin, glues & dyes.

That list can be found http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm

Now that list contains most of the adulterants found in the only hash available to people in Ireland. unless you had some amazing contact like chief of the DS or somthing ridiculous.

It also might appear alarmist or exaggerated, but I can assure you that smoking joints of hash does alot of damage to young people, who are unknowing victims of prohibition.
I have out of desparation, put it through a process to try and remove the contaminates, and believe me what comes out of it is not cannabis, its very, very nasty stuff, and you could never get it 'clean'

I mean pause one second and imagine smoking all that nasty ass **** on top of unfiltered ciggies.

The truth is the information is not out there, the kiddies think 'Hash' is hash,
when I say that I mean that, convinced of it.

Hash when properly made, consists of resious crystals, 'Trichomes' pressed into a solid/semi solid form. pic 1.

http://www.hiptravelguide.com/australia/images/bubblesm.jpg

'Hash' in this country is a set of melted down wellies with a brown varnish vineer. pic 2.

http://www.onlinepot.org/images1/soap2.gif and by standards in ireland that looks good.

can you see the difference!

As a direct result of prohibition that is what young people in ireland are getting. And after years of smoking that kind of material they are more likely to be a burden on the social health care system in the country than if they experimented with normal grass. The education on the subject would be open to discussion and there would not be those kind of risks associated with the consumption of cannabis.
Hell the health care system could cope if it were legal, it would have hundreds of millions extra each year, as well as some kind of control on the situation!

I really could go on forever on the subject.

Catholics shouldn't smoke hash.. no one should, not in this country regardless of laws on the subject.

JC 2K3

To steer this back on topic, here's an interesting article on Jesus and cannabis: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,869273,00.html

JoeB-

neuro-praxis wrote:

I actually cannot believe that these kinds of inane threads are tolerated. This place is worse than After Hours for sheer crap.

JoeBallantine, if you want to smoke cannabis you go right ahead and do that. There is nothing in your lapsed Catholic faith, either inside or out of the bible, that will help you find justification for getting stoned (or drunk for that matter) off your face.

And just for reference, the verse you misquoted, in the NIV reads:

"The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." (gen 1:12)

Well thanks for that opinion...

but I must say that I acknowledged that my 'quote' was paraphrased... the original was not written in English surely and so is a translation, hence it can vary when translated from ancient, 1800 year old, hebrew or arabic or whatever... also what is the 'NIV'? is it one of the four bibles? (Matthew, Mark etc etc)

Nor am I seeking justification for what I do... I don't need it... I do what I think is right and if god is worthwhile then he will understand me regardless of what the current teaching of the catholics is, they have a vested interest in remaining mankinds only link to God.

I feel fully justified in doing what I want (as long as it doesn't affect other people), selfish maybe but otherwise what is the point of being an independent sentient being?...

Cheers

anto1208

Again if it’s good enough for Jesus its good enough for me it was widely used as anointing oil. I think not using it is a massive insult to god who has made this wonderful plant ( im not talking misusing it ) . Here are some points you might find interesting .

Cannabis has over 25,000 uses from rope to clothes to medicine .
Its seeds contain massive amounts of essential fatty oils such as omega 3 etc ( more than any other plant ) that help the body rebuild .
It cleans the air , soil and water – It takes in more contaminants and gives out more O2 than any other plant . its deep reaching roots break up the soil and it’s quick growing so can be grown after the natural harvest of say wheat it will in turn break up and aerate the soil .Its large leafs add minerals to the soil .

It was the cotton industry that originally got the plant banned in the US (the cotton industry is to blame for 50% of the pesticides used in the world today) Cannabis requires no pesticides.

The misinformation today is outstanding.

Does it cause mental problems –Yes it does in a official government study the results show that it will cause some kind of mental problems in 1 person in every 10,000 based on smoking around 300 joints of pure cannabis a months !!! that’s 10 a day !!! I don’t know where anyone would find the time.

It is not carcinogenic in fact new studies have shown it to reduce the blood flow to tumors in mice actually reducing there size.

No one has every died from smoking it, eating it, putting it on there skin. It is not addictive .

Due to its illegality millions of people have been shot, arrested, tortured, blackmailed etc etc …

It has led to criminal gangs making millions , being able to afford guns and big hot shot lawyers to protect there investment .

But lastly do you think god made a mistake putting it here ??

God made cannabis man made beer who do you trust ?

Zombrex

JC 2K3 wrote:

There are also proper studies, to a scientific standard, that find no link between cannabis use and mental illness.

True. It certainly doesn't seem that cannabis use is going to give everyone mental health problems. The risks seem quite small, and appear to be far less than that of abuse of alcohol which is, as is often pointed out, perfectly legal.

On the other hand it seems that the damage done rather serious. And I would imagine that anyone who has had mental illness triggered or effected by cannabis regrets smoking cannabis, just like anyone who gets HIV from unprotected sex regrets not using a condom, despite the fact that the odds of them getting it at the time seemed quite small.

Its really up to people themselves to educate themselves and consider the risks properly and neutrally.

JC 2K3 wrote:

A lot of the time it's possible to determine the result of a study by looking at where the funding is coming from.

Again true.

Unfortunately though often the claim that a study is biased is leveled by groups that are also biased. I tend to take the claim that all reports anywhere that show any negative or harmful effects of cannabis use are products of government fudging with a pinch of salt.

As it is always a good idea to view who produced the science, and how reviewed it and will stand over it, it is also a good idea to see who is calling it into question.

If someone wants to believe that cannabis is safe (I would imagine because they like taking it) they will accept the reports that find no link as being good science and dismiss the reports that find a link as being fudged science. But its not a very "scientific" way of approaching the issue.

TBH I would trust the standards of scientific reports more than I would trust the claim that these reports are biased. That is not to say that governments don't fudge science for political means. Its just that they tend not to get alway with it for long. Normally scientists take great offense at government altering scientific reports, and it tends to come out, as has happened with the Bush administration attempting to fudge reports on abortion and womens health.

I think if governments were manufacturing these reports or influencing their data we would probably be hearing about it.

Of course that is just an assumption. They could be just very good at doing it. So I've learned to keep an open mind.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Interestingly enough, aspartame, an artificial sweetener, is legal despite numerous studies linking it to many conditions including brain cancer. It was approved by the FDA in 1981 and there is much controversy surrounding it and many rumours of bribes etc. Also, afer leaving the FDA in 1991, several people got high ranking jobs in Nutrasweet, the company that makes aspartame.

That is interesting (makes me glad I don't use artificial sweetener), but I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread?

JC 2K3 wrote:

Point being, you can't really trust scientific studies like these as those with money/in postitions of power will always get the results they want.

Sorry I'm not following. You think big business is making it look like cannabis is linked to mental health problems so they can make money off of that?

Isn't it normally the other way around, that business get something unsafe passed so that they can sell it and make lot of money.

anto1208

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry I'm not following. You think big business is making it look like cannabis is linked to mental health problems so they can make money off of that?

Isn't it normally the other way around, that business get something unsafe passed so that they can sell it and make lot of money.

Companies making prescription drugs want to keep it illegal , There was a woman on the last word she is 70 and was bed ridden on loads of prescription drugs covered in rashes loosing her hair couldnt get out of bed , now since giving up all the prescription drugs and eating small amounts of cannabis she can walk upstairs unaidded !!! is perfectly healty , but still got taken to court for growing a cannabis plant for herself .

Did you know 10,000 people a year die from prescription drugs in the uk , Yet they tell us cannabis is harmfull and allow these drugs flood the market

Zombrex

anto1208 wrote:

Does it cause mental problems –Yes it does in a official government study the results show that it will cause some kind of mental problems in 1 person in every 10,000 based on smoking around 300 joints of pure cannabis a months !!! that’s 10 a day !!! I don’t know where anyone would find the time.

I don't know where you got that from, but its nonsense.

In 1996 a New Zealand study found that 14% of the sample suffered from "major depression" and 22% suffered from anxiety and panic attacks.

A 1998 British study that sampled cannabis users who had used the drug for 10 years smoking on average two joints a day, found that 21% suffered from depression or anxiety (this study excluded those with identified mental and emotional health problems before cannabis use started).

An Australian study in 2002 found that teenagers who reported depression and ADHD are more likely to be heavy cannabis users, suggesting that depression causes people to seek out cannabis. It found that usage increases as the person gets older, as to the mental and emotional health problems.

The conclusions from these studies seem to suggest that not only does cannabis use increase risk of depression or anxiety in about 1/5 of users but teenagers who already suffer from these problems seem more draw to cannabis, which is bad news because usage of the drug worses these problems.

Of course it is debatable if any of this is a reason to keep cannabis illegal. Similar links have been found between alcohol, often with much worse out comes.

My issue with the current state of the debate is that the pro-cannabis side seems to have fallen into the same method of PR that they constantly give out about the anti-cannabis side doing, that being ridiculous extremes.

We all know the posters from the 50s that proclaimed that cannabis would make you rape your sister and murder your mother. The anti-cannabis side has certainly been responsible for a lot of nonsense in an effort to justify cannabis being kept illegal. And the pro-cannabis side quite rightly pointed out that all of this was just that, nonsense. Cannabis won't make you rape your sister and murder your mother, people become far more violent using perfectly legal drugs like alcohol.

But strangely enough the pro-cannabis side have started their own extreme PR with the proclaiming that cannabis is completely harmless. Using cannabis will not effect you negatively in any shape or form. Its like drinking water or eating lettuce.

Now ironically I actually mostly blame the anti-cannabis side for this, because they introduced the idea that if cannabis is in anyway harmful it must be kept illegal. So naturally the pro-cannabis side, who want cannabis made legal, latched on to the idea that they must show cannabis is completely harmless. If it is completely harmless then there is no justification for keeping it illegal. Unfortunately this has lead to the kind of nonsense PR that the anti-cannabis side were guilty of in the past.

The pro-cannabis side need to realise that they don't have to demonstrate that it is completely harmless to have it legalised. It is far better to be truthful about the subject, something they rightly complain that the anti-cannabis side don't do.

People on the whole don't like bullsh*t. They don't like it from the anti-cannabis side (cannabis will make you take heroin and die of AIDS) and they don't like it from the pro-cannabis side (cannabis is completely safe, no link has every been found between cannabis and anything bad and if anyone says that there is a link they are pawns of oppressive governments).

If either side want to come across as credible they need to stop with the bullsh*t and start being honest. But, I'm not holding my breath

JoeB-

Wicknight

I think JC 2K3's point about the Aspartame was that it was approved by the FDA even though it was apparently dangerous... his point about big buisness getting the results they want seems to illustrate that we cannot believe organisations that we should be able to believe.... i.e individuals should educate themselves, the government will lie to us if they want.

Comparing cannabis and alcohol is a red herring... alcohol is definitely dangerous and causes immense social and health problems, cannabis on the other hand is essentially safe for 99% of the population, some small percentage may have problems, if it was legal research could be done on these issues, in the meantime 1,000s of users wouldn't be criminalised, cannabis could be prescribed as the most effective treatment for certain debilitating illnesses, i.e MS.

Some small percentage of people have nut allergies which can be very serious and can kill the people affected.,. however nobody is suggesting that nuts be made illegal. This also applies to many substances so cannabis should be legalised, regulated, taxed, made of a consistent quality, not be adulterated and carry a health warning indicating the potential risks.

There is a good report by the Telegraph carried out by UK scientists on the following URL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/23/nalcohol123.xml

it lists various drugs and ranks them by risk... here is the graph from the above URL... note alcohol and tobacco are higher than cannabis, also E is very low, 10 deaths a year from 500,000 UK users every week...

As an individual I am unhappy that our government is arbitrarily banning substances in a way that is non preportional to the risks.


Pro legalisation people should go on the march in Dublin on 6th May, 2007, a similtaneous march is being held in 200 cities worldwide, i'm not an organiser, more info at
http://www.ccpr.ie/issues/

Cheers
Joe

Zombrex

anto1208 wrote:

Companies making prescription drugs want to keep it illegal , There was a woman on the last word she is 70 and was bed ridden on loads of prescription drugs covered in rashes loosing her hair couldnt get out of bed , now since giving up all the prescription drugs and eating small amounts of cannabis she can walk upstairs unaidded !!! is perfectly healty , but still got taken to court for growing a cannabis plant for herself .

Ok, haven't heard that one before.

Its a bit of a stretch though. Surely if cannabis was legal the drug companies would just start selling cannabis? It doesn't matter to them what drug they sell so long as they sell it.

anto1208 wrote:

Did you know 10,000 people a year die from prescription drugs in the uk , Yet they tell us cannabis is harmfull and allow these drugs flood the market

I did know that, far far more people are negatively effected by legal drugs than illegal drugs.

But that doesn't mean cannabis isn't harmful.

A lot of prescription drugs are harmful, and that is recognised. The recreational use of presecription drugs is recongised as very harmful.

The first step to legalising cannabis as a treatment would be to recognise that it is harmful, to study how it is harmful, and to educate people that it is harmful.

As I said it is the bullsh*t on both sides that is making it impossible for people to trust either side.

Zombrex

JoeBallantine wrote:

individuals should educate themselves, the government will lie to us if they want.

Indeed they should, but if everyone scientific study that finds a link between cannabis and mental health problems is dismissed by the pro-cannabis lobby as being government fudged nonsense then it makes it kinda hard for ordinary people to know who to trust at all.

The pro-cannabis lobby does themselves no favors by the extreme position that cannabis must be completely safe. You don't know it is completely safe. You want it to be, but that isn't the same thing. When ever I hear an extreme position, on either side, I am rightly skeptical, as should most people.

JoeBallantine wrote:

cannabis on the other hand is essentially safe for 99% of the population

This is what I'm talking about. Where are you getting "essentially safe for 99% of the population" from?

Anyone that uses "99%" for anything instantly sets my BS detector off

JC 2K3

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, haven't heard that one before.

Its a bit of a stretch though. Surely if cannabis was legal the drug companies would just start selling cannabis? It doesn't matter to them what drug they sell so long as they sell it.

lol, I'd like to see someone get a patent on THC

Also, the alcohol industry could very well suffer a blow was cannabis legalised.

You can also very easily grow cannabis on your own, meaning companies wouldn't be able to charge high prices for it.

Cannabis, were it legalised, would have little profit potential.

Zombrex

JC 2K3 wrote:

lol, I'd like to see someone get a patent on THC

You have a point. And I wouldn't put anything past Big Drug (how they have handled things like AIDS in Africa is terrible)

At the same time I would be skeptical about the idea that all medical research showing negative effects of cannabis are influenced by Big Drug.

beans

I hope this point is on-topic; just coming back to BC's earlier point

...but to use [cannabis] to get high is a contradiction of God's principle of not harming our own body.

Alcohol is wonderful, I love a nice pint

I really don't see the difference, in terms of God's principles, between having a few pints and smoking some cannabis. Same net effect, you're injesting a substance because you like the effects.

You say that drunkenness is a no-no, but a few pints is ok. Is there a sliding scale? Is it that once your faculties are only slightly impaired, it's ok? Surely any quantity of alcohol would contradict God's principle as outlined above, and you're fooling yourself to think otherwise?

I'm genuinely interested in what others think about this btw, not just bashing you BC.

JC 2K3

Well the US government hardly wants to admit that a 70 year essential ban(fully banned for 30 years) and 40 years of blatantly exaggerated propoganda was for nothing.

The history of why cannabis was banned in the first place in the US is very interesting. There were many lies as well as commercial and racial motivations behind it.

robindch

...it's a bit like Prohibition, if you think about it, only that the drug market is worth far more than the booze market.

At some point, the US government may suspect that it should legislate to minimize misery and crime, rather than prescribe behavior that nobody sticks to. But I can't imagine that happening any time soon

BrianCalgary

beans wrote:

I hope this point is on-topic; just coming back to BC's earlier point



I really don't see the difference, in terms of God's principles, between having a few pints and smoking some cannabis. Same net effect, you're injesting a substance because you like the effects.

You say that drunkenness is a no-no, but a few pints is ok. Is there a sliding scale? Is it that once your faculties are only slightly impaired, it's ok? Surely any quantity of alcohol would contradict God's principle as outlined above, and you're fooling yourself to think otherwise?

I'm genuinely interested in what others think about this btw, not just bashing you BC.

Thanks fo rgetting back on topic Beans.

The difference being the purpose for the activity. I commented that I enjoy A pint (1) not a couple. If I where to have a couple I'd be drunk thereby breaking the command against drunkeness.

I enjoy a Guinness, I like the taste as I do a glass of milk or cuppa tea. Drunkeness or impairment doesn't enter the picture.

What is the purpose of smoking a joint? To get high, to be impaired. Which breaks God's command.

beans

Good stuff. Different ways of looking at it.

I enjoy coffee for the caffeine, I enjoy Guinness for the alcohol, etc. I have quite a utilitarian outlook on these things.

Enjoy your pint tonight!

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Drunkeness or impairment doesn't enter the picture.

What is the purpose of smoking a joint? To get high, to be impaired. Which breaks God's command.

You're making assumptions.

I know several people who smoke small quantities, and who are no more impaired from it then they would be from a cup of coffee, a cigarette, a pint of guinness a cup of tea, or (lest anyone be suspicious that I've only mentioned addictive-drug-containing substances in that list) a glass of orange juice.

Are such people comitting a sin?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Thanks fo rgetting back on topic Beans.

The difference being the purpose for the activity. I commented that I enjoy A pint (1) not a couple. If I where to have a couple I'd be drunk thereby breaking the command against drunkeness.

I enjoy a Guinness, I like the taste as I do a glass of milk or cuppa tea. Drunkeness or impairment doesn't enter the picture.

What is the purpose of smoking a joint? To get high, to be impaired. Which breaks God's command.

Biblical reference, Brian?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Biblical reference, Brian?

cordially,
Scofflaw

to which?

You won't see a response until Monday.