Cannabis IS dangerous: The Independent

[ComradeDavo]

You write as if the only people who try the stuff are sensible, occasional smokers who understand everything that is going on with the cannabis they are smoking.

What you must appreciate is that there are kids out there (many kids) who smoke it to get as high as possible, as quickly as possible and the higher the THC the better.

And it is the kids that are the most at risk of brain damage from the stronger ‘skunk’.

And it should be illegal for kids to smoke it. Make it 18,with the whole under 21 applied to it. Make it so that it's illegal to sell without ID being shown. Control the THC levels, keep the weed as chemical free as possiable (i.e. import it from places like Morroco where it can grow in the open).

 

[LucyDuke]

Ok, so it wouldn't matter to double the alcohol percentage in beer because you'd drink half the amount, right?

You's funny

That's not what I said. I'm not talking about changing the beer - I'm talking about not outlawing the tequila.

You write as if the only people who try the stuff are sensible, occasional smokers who understand everything that is going on with the cannabis they are smoking.

What you must appreciate is that there are kids out there (many kids) who smoke it to get as high as possible, as quickly as possible and the higher the THC the better.

And it is the kids that are the most at risk of brain damage from the stronger ‘skunk’.

Of course people aren't sensible! And even most of the sensible occasional smokers don't understand everything that's going on with their drug.

I absolutely appreciate that there are kids who want to push the limits - I know many of them personally. The kids who want to smoke too much are the same kids who want to drink too much. They also drive too fast. Some of them inhale paint fumes. If there is a legal limit to the percent THC, there will be a black market. That'll make it easier, not harder, for the "bad kids" to get their hands on the stronger material. Regulating the THC content in the legal product will do nothing to reduce any risk to the risk-takers. In fact, potent cannabis is among the safest things they could "rebel" with.

I seriously doubt that any significant brain damage can be caused directly by any cannabis product, anyway. If a reputable study can demonstrate otherwise, I'll reconsider, but the chemistry just doesn't make sense.

 

[warpus]

I absolutely appreciate that there are kids who want to push the limits - I know many of them personally. The kids who want to smoke too much are the same kids who want to drink too much. They also drive too fast. Some of them inhale paint fumes. If there is a legal limit to the percent THC, there will be a black market. That'll make it easier, not harder, for the "bad kids" to get their hands on the stronger material. Regulating the THC content in the legal product will do nothing to reduce any risk to the risk-takers. In fact, potent cannabis is among the safest things they could "rebel" with.

Is there a black market for 20% alc. beer?

 

[AnarchyRulz]

Yeah, skunk in Chicago means it's flame as hell and smells strong...like a skunk

 

[Mise]

Is there a black market for 20% alc. beer?

Can you even make beer that strong?

 

[LucyDuke]

Is there a black market for 20% alc. beer?

No, but there are numberless kids who get liquors illegally.

 

[marioh]

Originally Posted by Independent
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
<snip>
Yet Lucy was not smoking the traditional cannabis beloved and introduced en masse by Britain's Sixties youth. It was skunk - a form of cannabis so powerful that experts are warning it can be 25 times more powerful than the cannabis used by previous generations. Growing new strains of cannabis under ultra-violet lights, dealers have been able to intensify the quantity of the chemical tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC) - a psycho-active compound that disrupts brain activity and distorts sensory perceptions




Apparently not &#8211; have a read of this taken from my links. Read it all but I have emboldened a section to show you how it is more concentrated now.

To enlighten you on the subject, the reference made here is for hydroponically grown marijuana. There's a huge difference between that type and the normal, grown in the ground type. And the difference is also noted in the price, which in most cases is 2-3 times the amount of the regular weed.

For the newspaper that you quoted to compare hydroponically grown marijuana to marijuana that was grown naturally is disingenuous and deceptive. A better comparison would be to compare a specific strain of marijuana from the 60's to the same type of marijuana now in 2007. And the differences in THC content between the two would be non-existant or marginal, at best. And is probably the reason why that type of fair comparison wasn't done.

 

[onejayhawk]

Am I missing something here, or is all canabis treated the same by the law?

I have advocated legal hemp for years. The value as a medication is vast, and the potential abuse problems are light compared even to alcohol. When, for example, is the last time you heard of a canabis related traffic fatality?

I admit to a vested interest, since I personally know people who have lost large amounts of weight due to cancer therapy, and the related nausia. Now my wife has glaucoma. The potential use as a pain medication and in psychotherapy have never been well studied, but the glimpses are intriguing. For example, this same high THC product discussed here, could perhaps be used as a dental analgesic, or for minor surgery, without the risks of normal anesthesia, especially in the case of allergic reactions. Use on violent inmates and mental patients is also possible.

In spite of the article at the head of the thread, THC is NOT addictive. There is a psychological or emotional dependance, but not physiological. This alone puts it in a different category than many recreational drugs. Another point is the very low toxicity, especially compared to inhalents.

I do not advocate a blanket legalization, but treating it as we do alcohol makes a lot of sense.

J

 

[CaptainF]

Doesn't change my opinion, and frankly, I don't really believe some of the stuff in there.

Just legalize the damn stuff already. No THC level controlling or anything.

 

[El_Machinae]

Use on violent inmates and mental patients is also possible.

You'd have to be really careful here. This cohort is quite likely to be damaged by the drug. In general, MJ seems to not really hurt people; however, there's a cohort of people (~10&#37; of the population, higher among inmates) who can be made more psychotic through the use of MJ (and some of that psychosis can become more imprinted, even while the patient is no longer high).

 

[classical_hero]

It doesn't take a dope to realise this.

It seems like that so many people are taking a defeatist mood. According to those peole we should legalise everything just because people are doing those activities and it is better that we put our resources to better use. According to such a philosophy, then we might as well make murder, child pornography and beastiality legal, since some people do those things.

who cares? it only effects willing participants so it doesn't matter to me nor should it matter to the government.

That is rubbish, because I know that my brother and a friend of his got passively high from all the pot smoke around them. There really is no activity that does not affect someone else.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It doesn't take a dope to realise this.

It seems like that so many people are taking a defeatist mood. According to those peole we should legalise everything just because people are doing those activities and it is better that we put our resources to better use. According to such a philosophy, then we might as well make murder, child pornography and beastiality legal, since some people do those things.

That is an incrediably stupid and naive comparison.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It doesn't take a dope to realise this.

It seems like that so many people are taking a defeatist mood. According to those peole we should legalise everything just because people are doing those activities and it is better that we put our resources to better use. According to such a philosophy, then we might as well make murder, child pornography and beastiality legal, since some people do those things.

When you kill and rape people, and uh, beasts (huh?) youre depriving them of their most basic 'rights'. If I smoke a doobie while watching the FBI hearing on CSPAN, who am I harming? Besides myself I mean (we all know how mind numbing CSPAN is)

 

[IglooDame]

It doesn't take a dope to realise this.

It seems like that so many people are taking a defeatist mood. According to those peole we should legalise everything just because people are doing those activities and it is better that we put our resources to better use. According to such a philosophy, then we might as well make murder, child pornography and beastiality legal, since some people do those things.

That is rubbish, because I know that my brother and a friend of his got passively high from all the pot smoke around them. There really is no activity that does not affect someone else.

It isn't that we should legalize it because people are doing it anyway, it's that we should legalize it because people are doing it anyway and fighting it is doing at least as much harm as good, which certainly cannot be said for murder and child porn.

And this statement "There really is no activity that does not affect someone else" is a generalized absolute and absolutely wrong. There are lots of activities that affect no one besides the consent-giving participants.