Cannabis IS dangerous: The Independent

Mega Tsunami

Emperor
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
1,911
Location
England
Now this is no rightwing paper saying this.
Indeed, this is no ordinary liberal newspaper saying this.
This is The Independent liberal newspaper saying this.

Just maybe the (too liberal) liberals amongst us will sit up and take notice.

The_Independent said:
Cannabis: An apology

In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today...


Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago.
More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.
A decade after this newspaper's stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London's Hyde Park - and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C - an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.
The decision comes as statistics from the NHS National Treatment Agency show that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006, and that 13,000 adults also needed treatment.
The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue.
The findings last night reignited the debate about cannabis use, with a growing number of specialists saying that the drug bears no relation to the substance most law-makers would recognise. Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalised, has also changed his mind.
He said: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."
Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."
"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."
Politicians have also hardened their stance. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has changed his mind over the classification of cannabis, after backing successful calls to downgrade the drug from B to C in 2002. He abandoned that position last year, before the IoS revealed that he had smoked cannabis as a teenager, and now wants the drug's original classification

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2368994.ece


Also:
Skunk: How the 'safe' drug of choice for the hippy generation became a serious health hazard
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2369014.ece
 
Doesn't really change my opionion. Just because its dangerous. Doesn't mean it should be illegal. In fact making it legal is likely to reduce the danger because the drug can be more regulated
 
And so is alcohol and cigarettes which are legal.
 
The author has got at least two facts very wrong.

1. Skunk is the term used for VERY low quality marijuana. Skunk has very low THC content & is next to worthless. I've seen people giving it away for free. It is commonly found growing wild & only smoked by those who don't know better. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth leading to the name, skunk weed.

The author claims that skunk weed is 25 times more powerful than hashish used a decade ago. This is totally false. It is true that marijuana used today has a higher THC content than in previous decades, but not skunk weed.

2. "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin." Cannabis resin is most commonly known as hashish or hash. It is far less common than the bud form of marijuana in the West. Hashish is only "traditional" in the Middle East.

The author would need to get his basic facts correct before his work could resemble journalism. The author seems to know next to nothing about marijuana or it's use.
 
Doesn't really change my opionion. Just because its dangerous. Doesn't mean it should be illegal. In fact making it legal is likely to reduce the danger because the drug can be more regulated

You mean like alcohol and tobacco are regulated and are therefore not so dangerous…

And so is alcohol and cigarettes which are legal.
Two (or three) wrongs don’t make a right.
 
And so is alcohol and cigarettes which are legal.

Yeah but alcohol and cigarettes don't radically change brain chemistry, resulting in an "interesting" person.

... or do they? I don't know.
 
The author has got at least two facts very wrong.

1. Skunk is the term used for VERY low quality marijuana. Skunk has very low THC content & is next to worthless. I've seen people giving it away for free. It is commonly found growing wild & only smoked by those who don't know better. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth leading to the name, skunk weed.

The author claims that skunk weed is 25 times more powerful than hashish used a decade ago. This is totally false. It is true that marijuana used today has a higher THC content than in previous decades, but not skunk weed.

2. "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin." Cannabis resin is most commonly known as hashish or hash. It is far less common than the bud form of marijuana in the West. Hashish is only "traditional" in the Middle East.

The author would need to get his basic facts correct before his work could resemble journalism. The author seems to know next to nothing about marijuana or it's use.

Pretty much. The article is dubious.
 
who cares? it only effects willing participants so it doesn't matter to me nor should it matter to the government.
 
The author has got at least two facts very wrong.

1. Skunk is the term used for VERY low quality marijuana. Skunk has very low THC content & is next to worthless. I've seen people giving it away for free. It is commonly found growing wild & only smoked by those who don't know better. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth leading to the name, skunk weed.

The author claims that skunk weed is 25 times more powerful than hashish used a decade ago. This is totally false. It is true that marijuana used today has a higher THC content than in previous decades, but not skunk weed.

2. "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin." Cannabis resin is most commonly known as hashish or hash. It is far less common than the bud form of marijuana in the West. Hashish is only "traditional" in the Middle East.

The author would need to get his basic facts correct before his work could resemble journalism. The author seems to know next to nothing about marijuana or it's use.

I think a bit of nit-picking about terminology is not enough to ignore the other 99% of the reports.
Besides, it would appear the terminology might well be different on either side of the pond.
Did you read my second link? It matters not what the terminology is, it matters what people are smoking in this country.

Independent said:
Skunk: How the 'safe' drug of choice for the hippy generation became a serious health hazard
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2369014.ece

A cannabis joint today may contain 10 to 20 times more THC than the equivalent joint in the 1970s. A decade ago only 11 per cent of cannabis sold in the UK was grown here but now the figure has passed 60 per cent. And while the strength has increased, the price has dropped. Cannabis now sells for £43 per ounce on average, a big drop from the 1994 average price of £120 per ounce
 
You mean like alcohol and tobacco are regulated and are therefore not so dangerous…

Indeed. Have you seen the effects of bad moonshine? Do you know how much more harmful filterless cigarettes are?

The claim that it is "25 times more powerful" is absurd.

Indeed. THC is THC is THC. There could be another chemical that is 25 times more powerful than THC, but it would not be... well THC. Now if the THC content were 25 times greater... yeah, that is absurd.
 
As others have said...legalize cannabis, you can regulate things like THC content, and better control it. Ban it, and you lose what control legalization affords you.
 
The author has got at least two facts very wrong.

1. Skunk is the term used for VERY low quality marijuana. Skunk has very low THC content & is next to worthless. I've seen people giving it away for free. It is commonly found growing wild & only smoked by those who don't know better. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth leading to the name, skunk weed.

The author claims that skunk weed is 25 times more powerful than hashish used a decade ago. This is totally false. It is true that marijuana used today has a higher THC content than in previous decades, but not skunk weed.

2. "The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin." Cannabis resin is most commonly known as hashish or hash. It is far less common than the bud form of marijuana in the West. Hashish is only "traditional" in the Middle East.

The author would need to get his basic facts correct before his work could resemble journalism. The author seems to know next to nothing about marijuana or it's use.

I guess thats the problem with slang...

Out here (west coast) "skunk" refers to high quality green buds. The term is in reference to the pungent smell of good marijuana.

The other end of the spectrum would be the browner, leafier buds which we call "bammer"

edit: as for the article, it refers to teenagers with drug problems. Teenagers who drink and do drugs often have problematic lives, this his hardly news.
 
Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago.
First of all, marijuana is NO more potent than it was a decade ago. If anything, they're comparing the THC content of RESIN to a highly potent cannabis plant. Resin is TAR, and it will have low THC. This is very inaccurate information, and they're trying to mislead you.

More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers.

First of all, the addiction theory has already been debunked. Marijuana is mentally addictive, and so is EVERYTHING else in life. Also, i'm willing to bet 9/10 of those teenagers under 18 were put in rehab, not because they were addicted, because they're ignorant parents caught them smoking and thought they were addicted - so they threw them in there. It has been proven marijuana does not cause mental health problems and/or psychosis. I will provide links at a later time, it is 5 in the morning and I haven't slept.





The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s.
Resin IS NOT MARIJUANA. It is tar and has very low traces of THC. Excuse my french, but no **** it will be 25 stronger in an actual plant.



Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.
Schizophrenic ..... Heard of this theory and I forgot it if has been proven true or not... to tired to care.


"The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."
Wrong for the 3rd time in this story, marijuana is marijuana, and it isn't more potent now than it was 25 million years ago.


"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."
You mean overestimated? And no, we won't see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people with serious difficulties as a result of using marijuana.
 
That Cannabis is a dangerous drug in terms of possible addiction and dangerous long term effects, especially on psychological disorders, is old news really (I'll list some examples below). The only people who argue that it is less dangerous than say tobacco are those that want to have it legalized since they think that by admitting that it is a dangerous drug they will never get it legalized.
Having said that: making any substance illegal just allows the dealers to make tons of money and serves in no way to actually reduce consumption or addiction - controlled sale to addicts would be much cheaper and reduce the ill effects of impure drugs sold on the street, drug-related crimes and diseases transmitted through contaminated instruments (note: the latter is NOT cannabis related).

Now for the ill-effects of cannabis:

Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006 May;19(3):233-8 - Pubmed result (sorry its no free paper)
Spoiler text excerpt :

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The demand for treatment for cannabis dependence has grown dramatically. The majority of the people who enter the treatment have difficulty in achieving and maintaining abstinence from cannabis. Understanding the impact of cannabis withdrawal syndrome on quit attempts is of obvious importance. Cannabis, however, has long been considered a 'soft' drug, and many continue to question whether one can truly become dependent on cannabis. Skepticism is typically focused on whether cannabis use can result in 'physiological' dependence or withdrawal, and whether withdrawal is of clinical importance. RECENT FINDINGS: The neurobiological basis for cannabis withdrawal has been established via discovery of an endogenous cannabinoid system, identification of cannabinoid receptors, and demonstrations of precipitated withdrawal with cannabinoid receptor antagonists. Laboratory studies have established the reliability, validity, and time course of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome and have begun to explore the effect of various medications on such withdrawal. Reports from clinical samples indicate that the syndrome is common among treatment seekers. SUMMARY: A clinically important withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis dependence has been established. Additional research must determine how cannabis withdrawal affects cessation attempts and the best way to treat its symptoms.


Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Nov;161(11):1967-77 - Review of the validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome
Spoiler text excerpt :

Review of the validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome said:
The authors review the literature examining the validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome. Findings from animal laboratory research are briefly reviewed, and human laboratory and clinical studies are surveyed in more detail. Converging evidence from basic laboratory and clinical studies indicates that a withdrawal syndrome reliably follows discontinuation of chronic heavy use of cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinol. Common symptoms are primarily emotional and behavioral, although appetite change, weight loss, and physical discomfort are also frequently reported. The onset and time course of these symptoms appear similar to those of other substance withdrawal syndromes. The magnitude and severity of these symptoms appear substantial, and these findings suggest that the syndrome has clinical importance. Diagnostic criteria for cannabis withdrawal syndrome are proposed.


Swiss Med Wkly. 2004 Nov 13;134(45-46):659-63 - Cannabis and risk of psychosis
Spoiler text excerpt :

Cannabis and risk of psychosis said:
Summary

Legalisation of cannabis use in Switzerland has recently been debated by the Swiss Parliament. Although legalisation has not yet been decided upon, it is still the subject of impassioned public discussion. If cannabis use is legalised, an increase in consumption is to be expected. One of the manifold negative consequences for mental health will probably be an increase in the prevalence of psychoses – not only acute, toxic psychosis but also chronic psychoses. Schizophrenic psychoses are expected to be triggered at an earlier age and to be negatively influenced in their course. This eventuality could have deleterious consequences not only for many currently healthy individuals predisposed to psychosis, but also for the disability pension..

BMJ 2006;332(7534):172 (21 January) - Cannabis and psychosis
Spoiler text excerpt :

The UK government is considering reclassifying cannabis because of concerns about links with mental health problems. What does the evidence show?

The link between cannabis and psychosis has been extensively investigated in both epidemiological and neuroscientific studies. Epidemiological studies focus on the association between use of cannabis and development of psychosis (box), whereas neuroscientific studies have looked at how cannabis affects neurochemical functioning. However, these two lines of research have been poorly integrated, with little disciplinary cross fertilisation. We have brought together both strands of evidence to give a broader picture.

Epidemiological evidence

Contemporary interest in this topic began with a longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts reported by Andreasson and his colleagues.1 Their findings have been replicated and extended in a series of longitudinal studies2-6 all of which have found increased rates of psychosis or psychotic symptoms in people using cannabis (table). Furthermore, these findings of longitudinal, case-control studies have been augmented by a series of cross-sectional studies of large populations7 and high risk populations.8-11 These studies produce the following suggestive evidence that supports the conclusion that the link between the use of cannabis and increased risks of psychosis is likely to be causal.
 
Indeed. THC is THC is THC. There could be another chemical that is 25 times more powerful than THC, but it would not be... well THC. Now if the THC content were 25 times greater... yeah, that is absurd.

That is what they are saying - there is more THC in the average joint nowadays than back in the 70s.

Whether the figure is 10, 20 or 30 times stronger all depends upon what goes into the joint. What appears to be undoubtedly true is that joints being smoked in Britain today are much, much stronger than they used to be.

First of all, marijuana is NO more potent than it was a decade ago. If anything, they're comparing the THC content of RESIN to a highly potent cannabis plant. Resin is TAR, and it will have low THC. This is very inaccurate information, and they're trying to mislead you.

Resin IS NOT MARIJUANA. It is tar and has very low traces of THC. Excuse my french, but no **** it will be 25 stronger in an actual plant.

Wrong for the 3rd time in this story, marijuana is marijuana, and it isn't more potent now than it was 25 million years ago.

I repeat what I said above - Cannabis joints being smoked on the streets of Britain today are 10, 20 or more times stronger than they used to be and that is mostly down to the higher THC content.
And it is damaging our kids...
 
That is what they are saying - there is more THC in the average joint nowadays than back in the 70s.

Whether the figure is 10, 20 or 30 times stronger all depends upon what goes into the joint. What appears to be undoubtedly true is that joints being smoked in Britain today are much, much stronger than they used to be.



I repeat what I said above - Cannabis joints being smoked on the streets of Britain today are 10, 20 or more times stronger than they used to be and that is mostly down to the higher THC content.
And it is damaging our kids...

That to me is a good reason to legalise cannabis... with legality comes regulation.
 
As others have said...legalize cannabis, you can regulate things like THC content, and better control it. Ban it, and you lose what control legalization affords you.


And how would you do that?



That is what they are saying - there is more THC in the average joint nowadays than back in the 70s.

Only if they put 25x more weed in a joint.
 
I think the best way to observe the end product of legalising marijuana is to observe countries that have done so. Are they developong the social problems and blah de blah that Britain seems to be doing? I don't know, but it should be quite easy for the experts to do a case study and comparison. If resin means hashish, it should contain huge amount of THC, its the refined essence of marijuana and more expensive, can't really think that any normal marijuana should have more content than hashish.
 
Back
Top Bottom