cannabisnews.com: Cannabis - The Patient's Painkiller

Cannabis - The Patient's Painkiller

Posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 07:31:41 PT
By Tom Gordon
Source: Herald U.K.

For Elizabeth Ivol, the prospect of downgrading cannabis from a class B to a class C drug is a small, but ultimately inadequate step in the right direction. A multiple sclerosis sufferer from South Ronaldsay, Orkney, Mrs Ivol, 54, regularly smokes cannabis to relieve her pain.Four years ago, she was admonished by Kirkwall Sheriff Court after police found her growing 27 cannabis plants in her home. Her last crop was confiscated in August, but she has already sown fresh seeds.

Even after reclassification, she would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law - a status she bitterly resents.She said: "When I don't use cannabis I can't control my legs or hands, I go into muscle spasm, the pain is excruciating, and I lose my eyesight."I have done all the things you are supposed to do, and been through all the prescription drugs, but nothing else works. I want to see cannabis decriminalised, full stop. It's not a drug, it's a medicinal herb."Richard Kinsey, 53, a former criminologist at Edinburgh University, who suffers from MS, echoed Mrs Ivol's complaint.He said: "I smoke cannabis, and it puts me in contact with all sorts of people who are pushing heroin and God knows what. Reclassifying it would still leave it illegal, and would do nothing to resolve my problems."Alistair Ramsay, director of Scotland Against Drugs, welcomed the likely change on the medical use of cannabis derivatives, but remained opposed to reclassifying the drug.He said: "We would argue that for many people cannabis is the gateway to other, harder substances, and we think it should remain a Class B drug."I understand the political pressures involved, but you have to remember the cannabis today is 10 to 20 times stronger than that put in Class B when the misuse of drugs legislation came about in the early 1970s. Any decriminalisation would be quite wrong."Political reaction to Mr Blunkett's announcement was equally mixed. Jon Owen Jones, the Labour MP for Cardiff, whose bill to legalise cannabis comes before the Commons on Friday, said the home secretary's announcement did not go far enough."Cannabis use is clearly very prevalent in this country and does no noticeable harm. We should legalise it to prevent gangsters from making huge profits and prevent them from coming into contact with young people, 45% of whom have tried cannabis."Peter Lilley, the former Tory cabinet minister who advocated decriminalising the drug and allowing it to be sold in licensed outlets, said the government had "missed the main point".He said: "People will still have to get their softer drugs from people who deal hard drugs. If there was a limited number of outlets that can supply it legally, it would break that link."Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, welcomed the reclassification, but called for a wider review of all current drug laws."As the law is manifestly not working, we have needed a rethink for some time. It is vital that drugs policy regains credibility with the population at large."Mike Goodman, the director of the national drug and alcohol advice charity, Release, said the announcement was "hugely significant".He said: "The government has recognised and acknowledged that cannabis is different to the other drugs it is classed with."I think this is the first step towards decriminalisation and effectively it ends the notion of people being arrested for possessing small amounts."Proposals to make cannabis a Class C drug were raised in last year's Runciman inquiry, an independent look at the relevance of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971."It is a very sensible and welcome move by the home secretary," Lady Runciman said last night. "It will make the law much more credible with a much more accurate hierarchy of drugs."Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said that reclassifying, rather than decriminalising cannabis, reflected the need to concentrate on the "scourge of hard drugs".His force recognised that, if it was to focus on the most harmful drugs, it had to balance the resources spent dealing with people found with small amounts of cannabis for their own use.Source: Herald, The (UK)Author: Tom GordonPublished: October 24, 2001Copyright: 2001 The HeraldContact: letters theherald.co.ukWebsite: http://www.theherald.co.uk/Related Article & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmMedicinal Cannabis Set To Be Legalisedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11150.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml

END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #23 posted by Elfman_420 on October 24, 2001 at 17:48:22 PT:

THANKS EVERYBODY
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences with herb through the decades! I wish I could've been there! My brothers did thai sticks.. they had good times.. no more thai sticks around makes me sad.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by freedom fighter on October 24, 2001 at 17:31:35 PT

Aint that much difference from old days
Just think about it.. If you have two different species that has 15% potency each, and you crossed it, it does not mean you got 30% potency. It is just not possible. Dutch breeders are the only growers that I know of that did a study on potency of buds. They said that average species cannot go over 25-30% because the plant has to have a body and water to form buds. In fact, many of the species that were grown in 1970's have disappeared due to prohibiton. Today's breeders work to get species that can be grown indoor and harvest sizeable amount of buds out of a plant in shorter flowering period. Some species can flowered the buds in 7-8 wks while others done in 14 wks. Some can only be grown indoor or outdoor. I have fond memories of many different stuff back in 70's and today. Thailand weed was my favorite back then. Today I love the Ak47 and the grapefruit indica. These jokers who loudly proclaimed that stuff are so potent, well I often wondered how the heck they know. Have they smoked some? For 20 years, reading their crap, they would proclaim its 1000%, 100%, 80%, and now its 10% increase in potency. I say so what! Not one person ever died from it. Only time when human beings get killed is when the Law comes breaking the door down.Remember Tom and Rollie? Rollie is the creator of a species call Fruity. I pray that species live forever!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by lookinside on October 24, 2001 at 17:23:42 PT:

i love war (pot) stories...
started smoking in 1967...ran into higher quality stuff starting around 1969...acapulco gold, panama red...killer weed...the red caused me to take 6 hours to drive from berkeley home(90 miles) in 69...in 1971 got my first jamaican ganja...awesome weed...very narcotic(downer) high...nepalese finger hash arrived on the scene the same year...that was just as potent then as now...1973 saw the advent of sinsimilla where i was...that was a major improvement in quality as all the previous herb had been seeded...1974 saw a rush of thai stick and hawaiian on the west coast...i'd say at this point the modern era of high potency herb had arrived...(at least in the U.S....obviously other places in the world had had the good stuff for millenia)i was fortunate to get "durban poison" seeds around 1981...for personal use, that was by far our preference...a very pure sativa...high yields, early maturity and very high quality...this strain has probably had it's potential potency forever...to answer elfman_420's original question: the AVERAGE pot today is probably 3-4 times as strong as the average weed in 1968...the best today is probably twice as strong as the best then...as others have mentioned, we know alot more about how to grow the herb than we did then...thanks all, for these posts...i enjoyed them very much...

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by E_Johnson on October 24, 2001 at 15:43:16 PT

If we're really so damned demotivated...
If potheads are such a bunch of slothful slackjawed demotivated do-nothings, then why is marijuana culture so incredibly steeped in the language of self-determination, self-reliance and self-empowerment?Maggot Brain was a huge pothead song back in the day, and the only lyrics are about self-determination.Bob Marley was hardly a champion of sitting back and letting life lead you.Louis Armstrong was one hard working man.They both produced tons of hits that uplifted people and motivated them in a positive direction.Maybe this is really the revisionist explanation for racism and Vietnam. Those demotivated black men like Louis Armstrong were held back by reefer, not by white racists. Those long haired hippies who didn't want to go to Vietnam, they were demotivated by pot, not by the brutality of war and the complicity of social institutions in preparing young men for war.Looking at Louis Armstrong and Bob Marley -- they were two of the hardest working men in the music business, two of the most positive artists in the music business, and two of the biggest potheads.Not to mention George Clinton, can anyone call that man lazy or demotivated?We're swimming in such a giant crock of sh*t here.We're really tasting those maggots in the mind of the universe. It's taking a lot to rise above that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by E_Johnson on October 24, 2001 at 15:25:45 PT

Maggot Brain and black Afghani hash
That was the I first time I ever heard of a country called Afghanistan.Listening to Maggot Brain by Funkadelic.I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe. But I was not offended, for I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own shit!And the struggle continues.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by New Mexican on October 24, 2001 at 12:31:39 PT

I guess I was one of those people!
who had thai stick, Kona, maui wowie, acapulco gold, killer columbian, cambodian (when I lived in Hawaii) panama red and so on. More effort to acquire perhaps, but readily available in the mid seventies. So for me, quality bud has always followed me around. Nothing has yet to compare to Elephant. One hit and you just stare at the joint, wondering what to do next, and certainly taking another hit wouldn't even occur to me. But that's been my experience. It was potent then, just harder to get for some. Nowadays, people know their weed.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by New Mexican on October 24, 2001 at 12:31:39 PT

Comment #16 posted by Duzt on October 24, 2001 at 11:57:25 PT

about THC
Another thing people don't seem to understand is that it isn't only THC that gets you high, it's the synergistic effects of the 64 cannibinoids acting together. THC is one of the more important cannibinoids and it's level is imortant, but the others are just as imortant and this is why Marinol doesn't work (it is synthetic THC ONLY) The different levels of these cannibinoids is what gives you different highs. Light and air convert some of these cannibinoids to other forms (when THC is exposed to light it degrades to CBN which isn't psychoactiveand isn't deireable). This is why harvesting, curing and storing properly is so important. CBD can make up 0% to 95% of a plants cannibinoids but is only psychoactive when THC is present. Higher levels of CBD's cause the effects to be delayed but to last much longer (known as "creeper bud"). THCV is even stronger than THC, but is only found in some Southeastern and Central Asian and some African strains (Afghani, Durban are two examples). It is associated with a very quick, powerful high that lasts for a shorter amount of time. So anyway, THC is only a part of an imortant chain of cannibinoids and manipulating these is what gives the desired effects and why it would be so easy to breed strains very specific to certain illnesses and chronic problems. We just need the freedom to study it openly now.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 11:42:40 PT

Imagine!
The day when everyone can compete in their local county and state fairs like they do with all agriculture products! I hope we will see that day. I'm dreaming I know.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Duzt on October 24, 2001 at 11:39:03 PT

continued...
the other thing I forgot to mention is that in the 60's and 70's, growing techniques were very different. They hadn't figured out flowering cycles yet (12 hours of dark starts flowering on most strains and they must receive 12 hours or more to flower right), they didn't have easy access to quality genetics like we do now on the net and most growers just simply didn't know how to grow. This is why you find a few people who found the occasional killer bud back then. You can give me 10 seeds of the exact same strain and with grow conditions, lighting conditions, CO2 changes, vegetation time, flowering time, when harvested, curing process and the storing process, I can put out 1 amazingingly potent resinous monster and one swaggy, weak, bad tasting bud. Just like some tomatoes taste good and some don't, it's all in the way it's done. We know a lot more about the plant than we did back then, but the plant is still the same.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 11:37:33 PT

Doug
No it shouldn't matter because no matter how they try to slice it Cannabis is a mild substance. I remember hearing a comedian say one time that the way to sober up after smoking marijuana is to eat a McDonald's cheeseburger. Food can straighten a person up real quick. Try that with Alcohol!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Doug on October 24, 2001 at 11:30:27 PT

Stronger Now?
Authorities say that as you get older drugs effect you more, so that marijuana appears to be stronger, and so people say that today's dope is not like what that had when they were "kids". From my own experience I can't say that is true, but I have smoked dope in the Seventies, and in Amsterdam. There was very good weed in the Seventies, and also crap, and I suspect there is also crap available today -- I've heard from a friend who causght the teenagers in his house smoking crap -- but I choose not to buy it. But a more important question is: does high THC cannabis get you that much more stoned than the low THC stuff. The link below argues that in fact you can get more stoned from low quality pot than high quality (you just have to smoke way more). Then there is the titration effect, which has been know about for many decades, where smokers only use enough to get to the level they want. Also, there is not a linear relationship between the THC content and the level of stone -- see chapter 19 of Marijuan Myths Marijuan Facts. So the question shouldn't be 'Is today's weed stronger?' but rather 'Does it matter if today's weed is stronger?'.

http://mir.drugtext.org/portland/brain2.html
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Duzt on October 24, 2001 at 11:26:01 PT

Cannabis strength
I've been a grower for a lot of years and have traveled and live quite a bit around the world and had the chance to try a lot of different types of cannabis. The theory that cannabis is 10-20 times stronger is completely false. They based that on one old sample the found that had sat around for a lot of years and had obviously lost potency. I lived in Brazil for three years and there was a village there (small town, they had gas stations and grocery stores, they just called it a village) where a family I knew had been growing the same strains of Sativa for generations. It was extremely potent and they said it had always been like that. I made sure to ask because I 've always wondered if it was weaker back then. Afhgani was always potent, it's been around since Washington's day, African and Colombian Sativas have always been as potent as they are today, they aren't crossed with anything. Some of the strongest strains out there are the pure strains, not the hybrids, so it doesn't fly that we've made stronger cannabis by crossbreeding. A plant that is hundreds of thousands of years old (if not millions, it's probably been around since the beginning) is not going to change that much genetically in 20-30 years.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 10:09:58 PT

Memory Lane
Back in the 70s if you were lucky and had $35 for an ounce once in a blue moon you could find pot with names as Acapulco Gold or Panama Red. The rest of the time was hoping you would be able to duplicate those bags but it seldom ever happened.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by TroutMask on October 24, 2001 at 09:58:16 PT

my perception
In all honesty, I don't believe there has ever been MJ as potent as there is today. If there WAS MJ that good back then, only a very few people had it. And that is only logical: All of today's fruits and vegetables are larger and "better" than they have ever been. The ability to breed different strains for desired characteristics will drive any farmed product in the same direction. Why would MJ be any different? If we can make a stronger (= less smoke), tastier and more enjoyable MJ, why not? Demand drives product improvements.In my opinion, factors that contributed to the increased potency are/were:
1. More MJ users.
2. Stronger = smaller = easier to smuggle. The stronger the bud, the more it's worth and the easier it is to get across the border. This is how the DEA helped us get awesome pot. Thanks DEA!!!
3. Demand for a superior product. Who wants to smoke $30/ounce schwag when $30/quarter ounce skunk is available? People are coming up with new and better strains all the time for a public that demands the tastiest, strongest stuff.So I don't believe that the potency is the same as it ever was. I believe it's gotten a lot better and that is good for everyone. I can't think of a single negative effect of increased potency.-TM

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 09:47:05 PT:

Ask, and ye shall receive...
Elfman, this might help:Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study from the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies MAPS - Volume 6 Number 3 Summer 1996
http://www.ukcia.org/lib/pipes.htmAmerican Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom (Unpublished speech) by John P. Morgan, M.D. Department of Pharmacology City University of New York Medical School
http://home.gci.net/~sncwarmgun/morgan1.htmlCannabis 1988 Old Drug, New Dangers The Potency Question
TOD H. MIKURIYA, M.D.* & MICHAEL R. ALDRICH, PH.D.**
http://mir.drugtext.org/druglibrary/schaffer/hemp/general/potency.htmThe last two articles detail how the myth of super potent pot got started. This is not to say that there are not successful breeding programs that have achieved high resin yields. I've been to Holland, the last time when White Widow was making it's debut, and it was the strongest stuff I'd ever experienced. But the fact of the matter is, there never were any real base line studies with verifiable controls to create a yardstick in the first place. So any claims made by antis have all the compelling believability of the Warren Commission.I hope this helps...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 09:33:22 PT

TroutMask
Large Roaches! That was good. Isn't that's the truth!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Elfman_420 on October 24, 2001 at 09:16:48 PT:

Thanks
Thanks TroutMask, anybody else feel free to comment as well.. I know I have heard my brothers talk about nice sticky green from the mid 70s.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by elfman_420 on October 24, 2001 at 09:13:14 PT:

Yup
I forgot to mention that, but I know it is much healthier for the lungs if it is stronger, but I'd still like to hear from somebody agreeing with me on my previous point that they still had relatively strong stuff back 'round 1970.I have a question about the vaporizer, though. I haven't really heard much about it, but I would assume that would be better for my asthma, which is part of the reason I smoke (for the relief of asthma). Where can you buy them?Do you think that a vaporizer is noticeably more efficient in delivering the maximum amount of THC from the bud? How much more efficient than smoking?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on October 24, 2001 at 09:07:03 PT

...
Yes, back in the day when an ounce full of brown stemmy seedy harsh Colombian went for $30/ounce, it was common in my area that each person in a group would smoke an entire joint at one time. Today, not only can the weed be green, smooth and delicious tasting, but a much smaller amount must be used for the same buzz of yesteryear. Where an entire joint may have been smoked in the past, today one, two or a few inhalations may be enough. A joint rolled of today's MJ ends up as a very very large roach in my neighborhood.-TM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 08:29:14 PT

My 2 cents
The higher the quality of Cannabis the less that must be smoked to achieve the desired medicinal effect. So the better the quality the healthier for the patient in my book.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by null on October 24, 2001 at 08:17:34 PT

strong = good
anyone who smokes marijuana in a pipe or as a joint should be extra thrilled that there are stronger types of marijuana today. It means that you don't have to smoke as much for the same effects. Thus your chances of respitory infection are decreased. Of course the best way to use marijuana if you are concerned about health is to ingest it or use a vaporizer.For anyone that doesn't know (and there probably isn't anyone here) a vaporizer heats the marijuana rather than burns it. THC turns from liquid to gas at a temperature which is lower than the temperature at which the leaf burns. Thus you are inhaling a lovely dew-flavored mist of THC without any of the extra junk that comes as a result of burning and you have eliminated the health risk of respitory infection.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by elfman_420 on October 24, 2001 at 07:54:01 PT:

SOMEBODY HELP ME!
"I understand the political pressures involved, but you have to remember the cannabis today is 10 to 20 times stronger than that put in Class B when the misuse of drugs legislation came about in the early 1970s. Any decriminalisation would be quite wrong."I have been trying to get an answer on this one for quite a while. I am a mere 19 years old. I have several MUCH older brothers who unfortunately no longer smoke, mainly because of the stigma. Now, I know a lot of you have been smoking for a number of years. From talking to my brothers, I know that they had some pretty good "chrony" as us young kids now like to call it, back in the day. Now, I'm sure the strongest of the strongest found in Amsterdam, BC, Humboldt and the like has gotten somewhat stronger over the years through breeding. But can somebody tell me that the weed back then wasn't THAT much different? You could still get as high back then as now, and the government is using this B.S. statistic to scare x-hippies into making sure their kids stay off it because it isn't the same mellow drug that it used to be.. Am I right? Anyone?
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment