The New Nutty Professor: Cannabis is what now?

Pat Sheen

Professor David Nutt has a new replacement and he seems confused:

A retired academic who once called for cannabis to be legalised was appointed yesterday as the UK Government’s new adviser on the harm caused by drugs.

Les Iversen, a former pharmacology professor at the University of Oxford, was made interim chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He replaces Professor David Nutt, who was sacked for criticising the Government’s decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B substance.

After the Home Office announced his appointment it emerged that in a 2003 lecture Professor Iversen said: “There have been no deaths to date caused by use of cannabis. Cannabis should be legalised, not just decriminalised, because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.”

In an article in 2003 he wrote that cannabis had been incorrectly classified for nearly 50 years as a dangerous drug and that it was one of the “safer” recreational drugs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6987115.ece

In 2003 he published this in an academic journal:

Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drug-induced neuropathology.

A proportion of regular users of cannabis develop tolerance and dependence on the drug. Some studies have linked chronic use of cannabis with an increased risk of psychiatric illness, but there is little evidence for any causal link.

Medicines based on drugs that enhance the function of endocannabinoids may offer novel therapeutic approaches in the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764049

Questioned about his remarks yesterday, Professor Iversen said that he no longer held the same views. He said during an interview on BBC Radio 5: “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6987115.ece

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I cannot stand prícks like that... they are on a nice wage and are told what to say. They have a position of power now and the government needs a professional to stand up for it's decisions, to back up their mistakes. What a wanker...

The_Kew_Tour

Hes right

Cannabis is not harmful drug compared to some the ****e and harmful drugs you can get out in the streets clubs these days

stepbar

He must have done a **** hot interview... or assumed a fake name.......

Pat Sheen

Some more of what he said previously: http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/seminar_roleofdrugs.pdf

jif

Professor Iversen said that he no longer held the same views. He said during an interview on BBC Radio 5: “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now."

and then he rolled on the floor laughing his ass off, and asking someone to get him some munchies in the shops.

mink_man

did he get fat like nutty?

Prof.Badass

He made these statements before the "legalise cannabis" movement was destroyed.
Tbh, It was always an idiotic campaign championed by selfish stoners who only cared about their chosen drug. They played by the government's rules and pandered to public idiocy by trying to argue that cannabis cannot cause any significant harm and is thus safe for all the population to use alongside alcohol (allowing people to assume that making it legal would mean everyone would do it), instead of directly attacking the war on drugs itself and using the very compelling arguments based on harm reduction.

Anyone convinced by this movement (which would have included this guy) have changed positions since a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia has been found.
The only way this could be reversed is if the link between cannabis and schizophrenia is understood, and that can only happen when the causes of schiozphrenia itself are understood (which we could be decades away from).

In the meantime the anti-prohibition movement has gained a lot of ground thanks to the availability of information on the internet. Government/ moral anti-drug propaganda no longer holds the same power as it used to and accurate unbiased information has allowed people to come to rational conclusions about drugs. Proffessor Nutt may have been sacked but I don't think that will halt the spread of reason.

Pat Sheen

NEW DRUGS CZAR CLAIMS CANNABIS CAN HELP WHITE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND DUB REGGAE

14-01-10

BRITAIN'S new drugs czar has claimed that cannabis can make dub reggae enjoyable for white people.

Professor Les Iversen said the drug should be legalised if only to help middle-class caucasians get the most out of Lee 'Scratch' Perry, King Tubby and I-Roy.

He added: "I'm just saying that, objectively speaking, most white people findit difficult to elevate their understanding of reggae beyond One Love and maybe a spot of Aswad.

"Yes, they may be aware of Burning Spear, but they won't have actually heard him. They're not naturally receptive to dub in the same way a labrador has no natural affinity with grapefruit.

"But the consumption of cannabis, even poor quality 'soap bar' with bits of clear plastic in, turns those initially mystifying layers of reverb and delay into a goose-down musical mattress on which white people will luxuriate for hours and hours as they drift ever deeper into a warm, profound meditation which will leave them feeling genuinely touched by the hand of Jah.

"I would imagine."

But Conservative backbencher Julian Cook said: "I like a bit of UB40 in the car on a nice day, and I also quite liked that one by Chaka Demus and Pliers, but that's absolutely as far as I, or anyone else, needs to go in terms of bass-heavy music.

"I certainly wouldn't want my son or daughter listening to hours of similar-sounding instrumentals with names like 'Version 4' while they nod their head like a well-toasted Churchill insurance dog."

He added: "Would someone please tell me what's wrong with a nice glass of sherry?"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/new-drugs-czar-claims-cannabis-can-help-white-people-understand-dub-reggae-201001142378/

This is supposed to be satire but I'm not sure...

TheRealist

adrian280582 wrote: »

Hes right

Cannabis is not harmful drug compared to some the ****e and harmful drugs you can get out in the streets clubs these days

As in alcohol?

AnonoBoy

Eddie Murphy hasn't been funny since the 80's

Pat Sheen

“We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

This is Iversens justification for his u-turn which includes your point vinylmesh.

The myth of super potent pot, like most war on drugs lies, began in the States. The fact is that ever since Howard Marks was at work, the majority of cannabis coming into the UK and Ireland was in the form of resin. Resin is a far more concentrated form of cannabis and there are documented seizures from the 70's & 80's ranging from a lowly 7% right up to 26% THC. There are also many herbal cannabis seizures from the same period with THC levels greater than 10%. The average THC levels of UK & Ireland seized resin fell dramatically during the 1990's after the introduction of soapbar (resin diluted with potentially harmful bulking agents somewhere in the supply chain after export) so it would be wrong to use soapbar as the benchmark. The average THC of seized herbal cannabis in the UK between 2004-2008 fell from about 12.5% to 9.5%. That's only half as strong as some of the hash that was around 30+ years ago. The average THC content of all hash seized in the UK in '81 and '84 was the same for both years at 11%. So the so-called super potent pot from 2004-2008 hovered in and around the average potency of hash from the early '80s.

It's perfectly reasonable that in the fledgling days of the US pot growing scene quality was lower due to lack of knowledge not to mention the fact that the US had a lot of wild industrial hemp stands that may have found their way into the supply chain as a result of ignorance and profiteering by unscrupulous producers. That will have pushed the average THC levels downwards. The US domestic pot scene was almost completely detached from the old world traditions and it started from scratch so it's not unusual that there will be evidence of an upward progression. Cannabis is an old world drug and for a significant period of it's history of human use, people have grown high THC cannabis and have been using even higher THC forms like hash and kif.

As for the causal effect in schizophrenia, as far as I understand it the only statistically significant effect is seen in those predisposed to schizophrenia. So cannabis can act as a trigger to those with an underlying predisposition for the condition. It does not cause it to any significant degree out of the blue in the general population. Anyway cannabis use in countries like the netherlands is no higher than in countries where legal penalties apply so there is no logic in pretending continued prohibition changes anything.

Evolute

TheRealist wrote: »

As in alcohol?

Well he means that all of the legal headshop stuff too none of that is guaranteed to be safe because it doesnt have to have a toxicology report nevermind the illegal stuff that most likely has been cut down with any number of chemicals.

TPD

vinylmesh wrote: »

They played by the government's rules and pandered to public idiocy by trying to argue that cannabis cannot cause any significant harm and is thus safe for all the population to use alongside alcohol (assuming that making it legal would mean everyone would do it), instead of directly attacking the war on drugs itself and using the very compelling arguments based on harm reduction.

That's a fairly retarded assumption.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm

TheRealist

Evolute wrote: »

Well he means that all of the legal headshop stuff too none of that is guaranteed to be safe because it doesnt have to have a toxicology report nevermind the illegal stuff that most likely has been cut down with any number of chemicals.

I know.

fizzynicenice

Cannabis legalisation is long overdue IMO, Its far less dangerous and addictive than tobacco and alcohol, and does not provoke the anti-social behavior often associated with the latter.
Yes, it is also less harmful than the 'legal' headstore drugs, but thoses thing are bleedin lethal, god only knows whats in half of them.
I say free the weed.

Prof.Badass

Pat Sheen wrote: »

The average THC of seized herbal cannabis in the UK between 2004-2008 fell from about 12.5% to 9.5%. That's only half as strong as some of the hash that was around 30+ years ago. The average strenth of all hash seized in the UK in '81 and '84 was the same for both years at 11%. So the so-called super potent pot from 2004-2008 hovered in and around the average potency of hash from the early '80s.

It's not the increasing strenght I'd be worried about (people will just smoke less to get the same effect), actually stronger weed would mean less smoke for the lungs. What I'd be worried about is the alleged decrease in CBD levels in weed. Because CBD cancels the effect of THC I think it's possible that lingering amounts of CBD could stop the lingering amounts of THC from having an effect. If you get rid of the CBD then maybe you could have much more significant after-effects from smoking a joint (which could worsen the symptoms in those who are predisposed to schizophrenia). I'm wondering now how much truth there is to the whole "crash" in CBD levels thing...

As for the causal effect in schizophrenia, as far as I understand it the only statistically significant effect is seen in those predisposed to schizophrenia. So cannabis can act as a trigger to those with an underlying predisposition for the condition. It does not cause it to any significant degree out of the blue in the general population. Anyway cannabis use in countries like the netherlands is no higher than in countries where legal penalties apply so there is no logic in pretending continued prohibition changes anything.

Did you know there is also a significant link between tobacco and schizophrenia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking. The funny thing is that almost no consideration is put into the possibility that nicotine's effects on dopamine could help worsen pychotic symptoms. Instead, 80% of schizophrenics are smokers because of "self-medication" :rolleyes:.

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

That's a fairly retarded assumption.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm

I know.

Borneo Fnctn

Nout like a few bifters.

TPD

vinylmesh wrote: »

I know.

Sorry, took the wrong message from your post.

Prof.Badass

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

Sorry, took the wrong message from your post.

. I've gone back and changed it. Hopefully it'll clear up any confusion.

Ciaran500

vinylmesh wrote: »

What I'd be worried about is the alleged decrease in CBD levels in weed. Because CBD cancels the effect of THC I think it's possible that lingering amounts of CBD could stop the lingering amounts of THC from having an effect. If you get rid of the CBD then maybe you could have much more significant after-effects from smoking a joint (which could worsen the symptoms in those who are predisposed to schizophrenia). I'm wondering now how much truth there is to the whole "crash" in CBD levels thing...

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj028.htm
According to that CBD just changes the high you get, low CBD gives you a "a strong, clear headed, more energetic high." Doesn't really sound like something worth worrying about.

Prof.Badass

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj028.htm
According to that CBD just changes the high you get, low CBD gives you a "a strong, clear headed, more energetic high." Doesn't really sound like something worth worrying about.

It's not all it does. CBD is an antagonist at the CB1 receptor (the main receptor involved in the high cannabis gives you), this is the opposite effect of THC. As it says in the article;

CBD (Cannabidiol) increases some of the effects of THC and decreases other effects of THC

The two basically compete with each other, but because there is so much of both of them going around after smoking weed the THC still manages to hit enough neurons to give a decent high. However, in the period after getting high when you only have low levels of THC in your body (which can last a few weeks), the low levels of CBD could be enough to stop the THC from affecting those vunreable to schizophrenia (it is in this period that i think the link between cannabis and schizophrenia is best explained, not from the occasional high)

CBD is already known to have anti-psychotic properties;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol#Medicinal_use, in fact it is now being considered as a new medicine for schizophrenia as it has less significant side effects than current anti-psychotics.

CBD is also thought to have sedative properties which could be the cause of the "body high" in some strains of weed. I guess this could explain what they meant by "increases some of the effects".

Pat Sheen

And the hot and sunny US herbal cannabis market tends to prefer the low CBD sativa strains whereas the dark and damp north western European market tends towards the high CBD indica dominanted strains, which is probably a result of pragmatism more than anything else. Pure sativa will happily grow in the hills of northern California whereas the Dutch rely on those squat, low light/high yield genetics for their greenhouse production. And that goes for the Dutch strains from the seedbanks too I would assume. Dutch weed is safer weed

Pat Sheen

vinylmesh wrote: »

Did you know there is also a significant link between tobacco and schizophrenia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking. The funny thing is that almost no consideration is put into the possibility that nicotine's effects on dopamine could help worsen pychotic symptoms. Instead, 80% of schizophrenics are smokers because of "self-medication" :rolleyes:.

I didn't know that although thinking about it it makes sense, the most widely used antipsychotics work on the dopamine system. Do you happen to know if Iversens appointment means the ACMD is fully active again? If so it's probably a steep slippery slope for mephedrone and friends.