cannabisnews.com: Addictions: Why They Call It 'Dope'
Addictions: Why They Call It 'Dope'
Posted by FoM on January 06, 2002 at 16:52:30 PT
By Susan Greenfield
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Oxford, England -- Across Europe and America, the legalization of cannabis for personal use generates intense debate. Britain has, to all intents and purposes, practically decriminalized marijuana usage. As a neuroscientist, I am concerned. One common justification for legalization or decriminalization of cannabis centers around the idea that it does not involve a victim.
At least four reports in major medical journals -- Ramstrom (1998), Moskowitz (1985), Chesher (1995) and Ashton (2001) -- show the contrary. Costs to the community include accidents at work or at home, educational under-attainment, impaired work performance and health-budget costs. Another argument is over that cannabis is nonaddictive. Of course, defining "addiction" is hard. But if one regards it as an inability to give up, then there is strong evidence that cannabis incites dependence. Recent scientific papers report many users in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand now seek treatment for dependence. Other papers show that 10 percent of users want to stop or cut down but have difficulty doing so. A paper in 1998 reported that 10 to 15 percent of users become dependent on pot. It was shown recently that withdrawal symptoms were experienced after only three days of light use. Heavy users confront a worse situation. Dr. Bryan Wells, a rehabilitation expert, says that for the first time he's beginning to see in heavy cannabis users "the withdrawal symptoms produced by hard drugs." Another argument is the beneficial effect of marijuana on pain. So far, that evidence is anecdotal; it is hard to exclude placebo effects. The results from clinical trials are awaited. But distinctions should be drawn between recreational drugs and medicines, as they are for opiates. If cannabis is a painkiller, then it must have a huge impact on the physical brain. Indeed, widespread reports exist of the impact of cannabis on the brain, in particular areas concerned with memory (hippocampus), emotion (mesolimbic system) and movement (basal ganglia). Cannabis affects a variety of chemical systems and it works via its own "receptor" -- its own molecular target. The fact that there is a naturally occurring analog of cannabis in the body, as there is for morphine, provides a basic reason to differentiate it from alcohol. For an agent that affects a variety of transmitter systems, it is as though it were a transmitter itself. This is not surprising, for cannabis has a clear effect on psychology. Not only does it produce euphoria, but the effects, often overlooked, may also include anxiety, panic and paranoia. Disorders in psychological performance, attention impairments and memory deficits are well known. More disturbing -- and less frequently acknowledged -- is the fact that these effects can be long-term. In one recent study, the attention spans of ex-users were compared to those of current users, short-term and long-term. The abstainers, who had been users for at least nine years, had quit from three months to six years before the study. Of the current users, one group had at least 10 years of dependence; the other, about three years. Everyone in the study had used cannabis from 10 to 19 days per month. Although the quitters did better than users, all had attention impairments in comparison with nonusers in a control group. The impairment was related to the duration of use. Most disturbing was the fact that no improvement in performance occurred with increasing abstinence. It was no surprise, then, that because these long-term effects seem to be irreversible, there is an effect on brain pathology. Because much of this data comes from work with isolated systems, and therefore on all brains, an obvious criticism is that you can't extrapolate from such data. Yet, the evidence suggests that the long-term effects must have a physical basis. Is there a "safe" dose of cannabis, with no effect on the brain? Even a dose comparable to one joint, and analogous levels of the active THC ingredient to that in plasma, can kill 50 percent of neurons in the hippocampus (an area related to memory) within six days. People are unaware that the THC in cannabis remains in the body for more than five days. For someone using cannabis routinely, the dose carried in the body is higher than they imagine. It is easy to underestimate the dose because of the wide range in the strength of cannabis. Individual variations in body fat and, worryingly, variations in one's disposition to psychosis, mean that you cannot predict how much cannabis will affect any person at any time. Cannabis could well be having a serious effect on the mind, which I define as the personalization of brain circuits that reflect an individual's experiences. A transmitterlike substance, with such powerful effects, must affect those circuits. So "blowing your mind" might be exactly what marijuana users are doing. Susan A. Greenfield, the Fullerian Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, is director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. This article was written for Project Syndicate, based in Prague. Note: Pot really can blow your mind. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Susan GreenfieldPublished: Sunday, January 6, 2002 Copyright: 2002 San Francisco Chronicle Page D - 3 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles:Study Finds No Cannabis Link To Hard Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11595.shtmlCannabis Could Cure - Wall Street Journalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11398.shtmlCannabis Use Does Not Lead To Heroin http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10193.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #61 posted by Jose Melendez on April 20, 2002 at 08:06:03 PT:
no debate
I never heard from Kocanut13 again, either... Either the truth must be too much for her, or she is still researching my points, and coming to the same conclusion:Marijuana is safe, effective, non-toxic and tasty in soup.:)
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by FoM on April 04, 2002 at 14:29:30 PT
Jose
As long as you understand that's cool! I'm just a newsie and not very technical.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by Jose Melendez on April 04, 2002 at 14:16:31 PT
poved mysef?
err, proved myself wrong, that is...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by Jose Melendez on April 04, 2002 at 14:15:08 PT
my error anyway
It does not really matter, I tested my theory and poved mysef wrong, anyway. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, and admit it every time.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by FoM on April 04, 2002 at 14:11:21 PT
Jose
If the subject line was made longer I believe it would throw the front page off balance. If that's what you mean that is why it can't be made longer. I put Complete Title by the Source information so no one misses the full title. If that's not what you meant I'm sorry I don't understand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by Jose Melendez on April 04, 2002 at 14:08:25 PT
truncated texttruncated text truncated text trunca
oops, your page implemented the html tag.
This is the text I meant to show you:
(input type=text name="subject" size=50 maxlength=50)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by Jose Melendez on April 04, 2002 at 14:05:53 PT
not the comment field, the subject field
I hope no one thinks I was suggesting anyone was stupid, except perhaps those that insist stoners are...What I meant about the maxlength was that in the code that makes the form has a tag that reads:
that maxlength could be changed to match the length that actually gets posted, that way what the poster sees is what (s)he gets, not truncated as it stands.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by FoM on April 04, 2002 at 13:37:28 PT
Jose
I hope I'm not stupid but I don't understand what you said. If you mean to allow longer comments I don't think that will happen. People in the past didn't know when it was too long and it bogs down the program for us old slow modem users. The preview screen won't be done for probably a few weeks but we've waited this long so a little longer doesn't seem hard to wait for but it will be a big benefit.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by Jose Melendez on April 04, 2002 at 13:25:39 PT:
preview screen
Sweet! What did you think of changing the maxlength on the subject line so that the script truncates the string at the same length as the posted version of that data?Sigh... and some people think we stoners are stupid. :)
Jose Melendez
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by FoM on April 03, 2002 at 21:45:17 PT
Jose
I have some really good news. In the not to distant future we will more then likely have a preview screen. Not for a while but it looks like it will be made by Ron Bennett who created Cannabis News. Isn't that great! I just had to mention it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by FoM on April 03, 2002 at 11:54:52 PT
Jose
Thanks! Maybe some of Cannabis News people who will be going to the NORML Conference can talk about what they would like as far as improvements to our site. When nothing is going on at the Conference I mean and have time to talk and then tell us. That would be cool because they could brainstorm a little.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by Jose Melendez on April 03, 2002 at 11:31:45 PT
asked and accomplished
...do me a small favor and send this thread to her and as long as she doesn't mind I don't. (snip)...If someone is skilled in this type of page and would want to help I sure would appreciate any I can get. Got it, did it, learning the last thing, but I'm not close enough in that area yet. (skydiving, silver halide and digital phoography and video and networking and troubleshooting pc's which act as if the operating system is broken by default and learning Adobe GoLive and using a trial copy of Photoshop on my iMac because the aforementioned pc's ALWAYS crash 5 or six times daily which did not happen with the Linux system, but I am NOT going to drag myself through another 6 years of tearing my hair out learning yet another boring archaic system... thank God for Apple computer... sigh...takes up a considerable amount of the time that my aforementioned limited technical skills allow me... Iforgot, what were we discussing? Oh yes, programming. I would like to suggest you check the maximum length allowable for the Subject field in the Post Comment form. I'll try to learn more so I can make less vague suggestions... :)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by Jose Melendez on April 03, 2002 at 11:19:22 PT:
already sent to Kocanut13
Hi Paula,
Sorry to bother you, but the question of whether or not you had specifically given permission to post my responses to you with both sides of the conversation on cannabisnews.com came up on that site.
As you know, I suggested at the beginning of this conversation that you could post your responses, or I could. If there is any problem with that, feel free to email me (jose narcosoft.com) or admin cannabiisnews.com, and I am absolutely sure that FoM will remove the offending speech immediately.
Please know that in no way did I mean anything other than the most honorable and peaceful intentions in relaying our coversation, as I truly felt your reply to my suggestion that I post them implied your consent on this matter. Know also for future reference that email and indeed posting on or even surfing the internet is like standing on a street corner with a megaphone, only everyone (whether they admit this or not, this is just as true as the fact that the earth is not flat:) ...everyone has the possibility of seeing copies of that particular data, even years later, often with the added benefit of powerful search engines that put those words in context with the greater truth.*
That's why I am not involved in spam, or porno, or onlie gambling... and why I am peacefully practicing civil disobedience to expose the war on drugs as a fraud, perpetuated by those who stand to financially gain by the incarceration of so many of my people. Specific references to cannabis have been found and proven to have been stripped fom older versions of biblical texts, history books, a federal judge just a few days ago overturned the Barr Amendment, which suppressed the 69 percent vote for medical marijuana in Washington DC by making it against the law to spend even $1.75 to count those votes.
Drug war is treason. Cannabis is safe, effective and non-toxic. Any questions?
Jose Melendez
founder, Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
BTW, File this under Know History, Or Repeat:
Fact: When it was illegal to suggest that the earth was round, the penalty was death.
Peace,
Air Jose*...in this case that marijuana is neither legally nor accurately scheduled in the controlled substances act, and every citizen of this nation should be aware that the re-legaliztaion of this benign herb would answer many current global problems, including but not limited to foreign oil dependence, alcohol and prescription drug abuse, special interest spending in the billions on the prison industry, a reduction in chemical pollutants in our soil, water and air and more money for important but often neglected details like decent, accurate and honest schoolbooks, just for a few concrete examples. In fact hemp is used in Germany and France to make concrete blocks that weigh 1/7th the weight and are several times stronger and longer lating.
Jose Melendez - Arresting Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by FoM on April 03, 2002 at 11:01:55 PT
Jose
Just do me a small favor and send this thread to her and as long as she doesn't mind I don't. As far as editing goes. Editing is very hard for me because it is in html. Everything gets pushed together and sometimes I just can't fix somethings. I would love to have a programmer that would do upgrades on this site but Matt is too busy with Map and I don't have anyone that knows how. If someone is skilled in this type of page and would want to help I sure would appreciate any I can get.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by Jose Melendez on April 03, 2002 at 10:36:42 PT:
intentions announced prior to postings
Comment #39, which I had also emailed to her and to which I received a reply from her, shows that I advised her that she could post them here or I could do it for her. If all you want to know is if she specifically authorized each posting, the answer is no.
We went through this with Tim Gower, which is why I advised "Kocanut13" prior to posting. If this is against cannabisnews.com policy, I wish to note that I have attempted to make sure that I do not flame, intimidate, harass, use much profanity (I must have written some here over time, no?)...of course if you need to delete any of my postings, I understand. It is certainly true that I wish I could delete or at least repair some of my typographical errors...
Peace
Jose Melendez
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by FoM on April 03, 2002 at 09:09:18 PT
Jose
Did the person give you permission to post her emails? That's all I want to know. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Jose Melendez on April 03, 2002 at 06:25:24 PT:
Asked and answered, Part 4
on 4/3/02 5:46 AM, Paula (last name deleted) at kocanut13 yahoo.com wrote:(continued)> Yes I think that a person can drink and not have a problem, but a person who > is drinking to get drunk does. When you smoke a joint, the only reason you > are smoking it is to get high in which case is having a problem. That is simply not true, if anything, drinking is mostly to get "high" and cannabis use demonstrably ameliorates pain, depression and stress, and cannabinoids have been conclusively shown to reduce cancerous tumors in several seperate peer reviewed experiments.Often this information is not reported (blacked out) by the press and funding for such studies is disallowed in favor of programs that purport to attempt to show some harm caused by pot. Again, I will show you documentation; hopefully you will request this information rather than continuing to dismiss it out of hand, based on your personal opinions, which have been shaped by a persistent but false misinformation campaign that has been in place since the 1930's.> I think that it is fine for people to smoke it if it is for a medical purpose
> such as a cancer patient whom hasn't an appetite and they will benifit from it
> that way but not just to sit around and smoke to make things look differently.First of all, who are you to decide that? Secondly, I have chronic back pain, damage that is proven by xrays, and "legal" medications interfere with my capability to safely skydive. I am one of the best freefall camera operators in the world, are you going to deny me my only source of income? Also, in the Bible, God claims that every seed bearing herb is for me to have as food.This is backed up by the fact that cannabis seeds contain the highest palatable concentrations of the essential fatty acids necessary for life, linolenic and linoleic acids. Will you deny me the basic building blocks required to keep my body healthy, just because some crooked politicians got together on the behalf of petrochemical, pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol interests?Did you know that most processed foods contain an incomplete oil, partially hydrogenated oils last longer on the shelves because those oils do not break down in nature as readily as complete foods. This leads to illness, and a windfall for manufacturers of food supplements, over the counter and pharmaceutical medications. One of the most prolific distributors of packaged foods containing partially hydrogenated soybean oils is Nabisco, which has heavy financial ties to the cigarette industry.> I just don't see legalizing another problem.
What problems can you name that are not directly attributable to drug prohibition? Should we restore alcohol prohibition and arrest tobacco smokers, or will they remain exempt, since they die prematurely anyway and do not collect Social Security?> Paula Thanks, Paula. I sincerely appreciate that you did not simply choose to slander (libel?) me, and that you feel strongly enough on this issue to actually debate. I will say that it is evident from our converstaion that you are ignoring and not responding to several key points I made. Why is that? Peace,Air Jose cannabis activist, skydiver, peacemonger.
Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Jose Melendez on April 03, 2002 at 06:24:46 PT:
Asked and answered, Part 3
on 4/3/02 5:46 AM, Paula (last name deleted) at kocanut13 yahoo.com wrote:> Jose> It is clear that you have your own opinions and they will never change, and >vise versa.Thanks for the courteous tone. I'll take each point, please do feel free to rebut with substantial evidence, rather than pretend we can just agree to disagree. I say this because these opinions I have are based on science and history, while yours are based on lies that have been perpetuated by misinformation made possible because manufacturers who pay lawmakers to look the other way on the dangers of their products would otherwise have to compete in the open market with less expensive, exponentially safer cannabis.> I don't think that people who smoke or drink or do drugs for that matter > should be thrown in jail. I just don't think that people should be doing > anything illegal. Again, marijuana was _illegally_ criminalized. I have proof, historical documentation that clearly shows that those who testified against cannabis perjured themselves, and had vested financial interests in suppressing access to the benign herb. This is not my "opinion", it is fact.> I agree that the police should spend their time on things worse then drug > users or growers, and that the jails should be filled with more murderers and > sex offenders, but not go to the extent of legalizing marijana. Well, right now, police are forced to follow the arbitrary and capricious laws that mandate sentences that are generally double and in some cases dozens of times more severe than violent crime. Which would be a safer and easier bust for a cop, a pothead or a drunk?Add to that that even though drug use is about even for every racial group, 40 percent of the 735,000 busted for pot in 2000 are Hispanic. To give you some perspective on this, blacks and Hispanics make up between 12 and 15 percent of the country. So, while people like you shudder at the thought of legalizing, they do not face the same penalties for using the herb while it is artificially illegal.Do you get that? I am saying that those laws you defend are selectively enforced, and almost never on people that fit your profile. Just mine and darker, and/or lower tax bracket.> Whether you will admit it or not, you and I both know the effects that > cannibis has on a person. Like I said I used to smoke it. I know what it > does to >your motor skills, your sex drive, memory, chest, throat. The > twitching that it causes, paranoia, and how spacey and stupid it can make a > person act.> OK, you are not addressing any of the voluminous studies that show that cannabis actually improves driving somewhat. What you "know" about what it does to your motor skills, etc. is completely based on anecdotal information, and has been addressed in the many peer reviewed studies on the subject that show otherwise. You have consistently turned the other way when I present statistical information, preferring to parrot the party line.Your position is completely refuted by the science, and I hope you have the courage to actually request and read the information, rather than dismiss it based on your personal opinions of what your reaction times were. Since, as you claim, you were stoned, how would you really know without objective and unbiased data collection and interpretation?> I see people kill eachother over drugs, but I guess if that is the life they > choose then that is their own problems. That was sarcastic, but I will answer it anyway. "Drug related crime" is caused by drug prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Cocaine costs about the same to manufacture as caffeine (I know, I have about 2 and a half kilos of the stuff I am packaging and labelling as caffeine, but in tiny bags, to demonstrate to the public what it would be like if their drugs were illegal.)$10 worth of coke really only costs pennies, the reason people kill over drugs is that they is artificially more valuable due to their criminal status. By the way, it is safer to snort cocaine than caffeine, which is a class 3 poison, carcinogenic inhalation hazard in pure form. At one time in this country, cocaine was legal, and students studied on it the same way they do caffeine today.> umm, I was never able to drive a car very well when I was stoned either. That's because you were too high, and the fact that you can recognize that fact is also discussed in detail in the four studies with thousands of drivers as test subjects. They found that because the user knows when to say when, that driver is safer than even sober folks, and substantially better than drivers who only had one beer.Cops drive on one to five beers. about ten years ago, (maybe 12 years ago) I photographed the Massachusetts Coalition of Police convention in Marlboro, MA, and well over half consumed at least two drinks... almost all drove home buzzed. No one enforces the law as cops leave their favorite bars, but if those same cops smell pot on a traffic stop, they are trained to treat it as a criminal matter. What if you could go to jail for a cigarette butt?> Statistics also show that 90% of people who have commit suicide, were also > drug users. Again, this has been asked and answered. Correlation is NOT causation. Most drivers that wreck own blue jeans and sneakers, and it is well established that drug abuse is a symptom of depression, not the cause.> Like I said whether I thought of killing myself before I would have never of > tried too unless I was high, it gave me the courage to do something completely > irrational. I wasn't thinking of the consequences because I was high. That would not be a valid excuse if you were drunk, now would it? Especially if you claimed you never would have thought of killing someone else, except you had too much Jack Daniels, or Coors beer. Really, pay attention to the fact that I have already answered these objections. (continued...)
Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by Jose Melendez on April 02, 2002 at 05:59:11 PT
oops!
I wrote: that was artificially increased by reducing the demand for the product.I have mistyped. I meant to say that demand was artificially increased by reducing the supply of the product.Also, For srudies have now proven that experienced marijuana users are slightly safer on the roads,should read: Four studies have now proven that experienced marijuana users are slightly safer on the roads,
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Jose Melendez on April 02, 2002 at 05:54:50 PT:
asked and answered again, Part 2
>Pot is more of a depressant then anything because it is true, when you come down off a high you feel pretty low and have a headacke and everything. The cannabinoid metabolites (I think that is the right term, I'll check for you...) remain in your fatty cells for longer periods of time than other drugs, yielding a smoother transition from high to "not high". This explains how cannabis may be safely used as replacement therapy for harder, more dangerous drugs, like nicotine and alcohol. Most experienced marijuana users eventually quit using pot, according to a 1995 HHS study on the issue.>Yeah alcohol hangovers are worse but you shouldn't be drinking enough in a day to>make that happen anyways.So you admit that some alcohol use is not necessarily abuse! Now, follow that same logical pattern. Considering the fact that cannabis users are more aware of when they have had too much, and are better able to self-titrate, why is any cannabis use at all, even miniscule amounts as those who use it for pain, considered to be abuse?>You want to go and legalize something that will cause more people to abuse>substances, that isn't very clever in my eye's. The gateway theory has been thoroughly discredited. Beer and cigarettes are the gateways to hard drug abuse. Period. And cannabis has been proven to improve eyesight. GW Pharmaceuticals is currently developing a treatment that is based on the observation by Jamaican fishermen that their night vision is improved after smoking ganja. It has been demonstrated to be effective for glaucoma, something to do with intra-ocular pressure. Clever enough, in your eyes?>You know I used to get high everday too and thought that it was great but it caused >me a lot more problems in my life then it did good. I got stoned one night and took 3>bottles of pills and flat lined.
If you took three bottles of pills, it was probably because you were depressed, and you know it. >No, I know it wasn't the pot that made me flatline but it was the pot that made me>think of taking the 3 bottles of pills.No, that is completely false. Don't even try to pretend that cannabis made you think anything you were not already considering. If you claimed it turned you into a bat, that would also be false. In case you think that example is ludicrous, I will gladly send you a copy of the official Congressional testmony after which cannabis use was criminalized. > I never would have done that if I hadn't smoked anything. I guarentee you that >90% of the people who smoke pot do other drugs too, so whats next legalizing>heroin or extasy or coke. Heroin is scheduled by the Controlled Substances act as a class 2 drug, with medical use, available by prescription for pain. Cannabis is scheduled as class 1, with the highest potential for abuse, and not legally available for pain, despite the aforementioned fact that it is the safest drug known to Man. Aspirin kills over 1,000 every year. Not Pot.>Yeah hows about it, lets turn extasy into an antidepressant because you are happy>and giddy when you do that too, Actually, MDMA has been used for psychotherapy. In my opinion, the crash is too hard, and there is some evidence that abuse can increase the temperatures in the brain, this can be ameliorated with cannabis. >then along with no brain cells ours spine will >detererate too. Doesn't that sound like a good idea. It does not sound like the truth, either. Show me proof of your contention that MDMA use removes all brain cells, and continues to detriorate the spine. Please! This is a common, but misleading debating tactic used by anti-marijuana hysterics to suggest that cannabis use leads to other drug use. The truth of the matter is that it is the criminalization of the benign herb that forces it into the black market, along with more dangerous drugs, even weapons.>Then we will have doctors who are stoned doing open heart surgery on us. Say you >had a son or a sister or parent who needed a surgery what would you prefer a pot >head doctor working on them or a doctor who is still in their right state of mind? I >know who I would pick, the more proffesional one. Again, there are already laws that address the equivalent scenario as it applies to alcohol and pharmaceuticals. How do you know you are not picking the one who thinks it's OK to take a few hydrocodone for pain before brain surgery?>What do I know though eh? Only 70% of my family gets high and 90% of them are>alcoholics 30% of them grow it and 50% of them sell it. So I guess I don't know>what I am talking about right.......................................
If it was legal, many of the arguments you present so passionately would be moot. There would be a finacial stability brought on by the ability to market the herbs openly, like tomatoes or garlic. I will not be so callous as to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about, only that you are ignorant as to the truth of the matter.Note: Stoned off my ass on a crippy roach, I answered each and every point of the above diatribe, AS I READ IT! No hesitation, no argumentative or demeaning comments, just clear, concise and accurate refutations of commonly held misperceptions.:)Peace,Jose Melendez founder, Narcosoft.com - technology with substanceArrest Prohibition!
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Jose Melendez on April 02, 2002 at 05:54:02 PT:
asked and answered again!
----------
From: Jose Melendez (airjos yahoo.com)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:11:26 -0400
To: Paula (last name deleted) (kocanut13 yahoo.com)
Subject: Clever enough, in your eyes?on 4/1/02 8:20 PM, Paula ***** at kocanut13 yahoo.com wrote:
>Jose, >I realize that alcohol and cigarettes are just as bad for you as pot, Actually cigarettes and alcohol combined cause 5 million deaths every ten years. "Pot" has never taken a human life in all of recorded history.>but I personally don't think that they should be legal either. OK, so should we start by jailing all Marlboro users, or just the ones with dark skin and low incomes? > I think that instead of pushing to legalize something that isn't good for you, that >people should be pushing to illegalize alcohol and cigarettes. See above. Better yet, answer above! >Sure there aren't as many known accidents that involve drugs because there are >many ways of hiding the substance because I used to do it.
That question is best answered by science. For srudies have now proven that experienced marijuana users are slightly safer on the roads, for instance, because they recognize their levels of impairment and compensate for that. Sober people think they've got everything under control, and are incorrect in that assumption.Are you sure you think alcohol should be illegal?
What about the Holy Sacrament that Jesus refers to as His blood? What about the fact that when alcohol use and manufacture was criminalized in the 20's, the poisonous substance was relegated to the black market, where is enriched violent criminals like Al Capone, and devastated families by incarcerating targeted minority groups and those not politically connected enough to see your kids off to the White House, like Joe Kennedy did? (The father of assasinated President John F. Kennedy ran bootleg booze for profit that was artificially increased by reducing the demand for the product.)Criminalizing drugs exacerbates the issue you address, by encouraging smaller, more potent preparations of heroin, cocaine, etc. Coca leaf is far safer than cocaine. In fact, Coca -Cola still uses extracts of coca leaf, the cocaine is seperated, and sold through pharmaceutical channels.>You don't think that a>person who is breaking the law should go to jail?Objection: asked and answered. The law was illegally enacted based on the perjurous testimony ito Congress by Harry Anslinger and his cronies, who were scrambling to justify their lucrative careers after the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition. Lawmakers today disingenuously look the other way on the genocide of millions of US citizens by the poison manufacturers that pay those politicians their very highest campaign contributions.>Would you let your 12 year old
>son or daughter get high...better than drunk, or on Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil or Xanax.> and if not and you found out that there was some 40 year >old man selling your children drugs wouldn't you want him to get in shit?Again, if marijuana were legal, you would be removing it from the aforementioned black market. If adults sell kids beer or tobacco, there are current laws that address this issue. Poison is legal, why not pot?>>Pot is not an antidepressant and should not be used as one.
That's not what biochemistry shows. Antidepressants like selective seratonin reuptake inhibotors work by blocking receptors, thereby increasin levels of seratonin in the brain. The active ingredient in Cannabis, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, works the same way, but on dopamine receptors. Cannabis users self-titrate the dose of the desired drug that has indeed beeen used safely for over 5,000 years.>Counsilling does help people, not all of them stick you on med's either, and even if>they do they are legal and they don't mess you up, Sigh. Again, this has already been answered. Most legal drugs cause liver damage, vomiting, dizziness, nausea and some sexual dysfunction. They are legal because lawmakers that pretend to be tough on drugs look the other way as 110,000 Americans die from pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile policies enacted by those corrupted lawmakers incarcerated 735,000 marijuana users in the year 2000 alone.>they make you better and you don't have to smoke them you swallow themCannabis is safest consumed via vaporizers and brownies or tea. This completely addresses any legitimate concern over carbon monoxide, benzene, benzopyrene and toluene necessarily created during the combustion phase.
> and you may only take them for a year with the mixture of counsilling once a week>you feel much better about everything. And this explains why prescription anti-depressant and pain relief sales have exploded, rather than the millions spent on cute cartooney commercials that show these psychoactive drugs as somehow normal for every day use? People go from Valium to Prozac to Paxil, then Zoloft... the endless list is a financial windfall for the pharmaceutical industry, which receives artificial price supports in the form of the criminalization of much safer marijuana.(continued...)
Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 09:17:46 PT:
oops
I typed the email address incorrectly here, but have confirmed that Kocanut13 yahoo.com was sent a clear refutation of Paula's comments.
Jose Melendez, activist, peacemonger, skydiver, pothead. :)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 09:15:21 PT:
what's the matter, "Paula"? cat got your tong
sent to: Kocanut yahoo.comHi,
The answers to all of your objections (Come On People, Give Your Heads A Shake!!! ) have been posted on cannabisnews.com
Feel free to post your reply there, or email me directly at jose narcosoft.com, and I can post it for you. Usually people who hold your position ignore that each and every complaint about cannabis has been succinctly and accurately answered. Those people generally post a few more increasingly personal attacks without addressing the science that porves them wrong, and finally give up in disgust, prefering to suggest that cannabis activists are somehow incapable of debate. Or they just remain silent, preferring to make what we call "hit and run" posts but unwilling to recognize their objections are simply not based in reality.To make sure you actually receive the answers to your complaints, I have posted my reply below. See comment #38 on this page:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11698.shtml#38
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Jose Melendez on March 31, 2002 at 21:44:57 PT:
If I answer your objections, will you THINK?
If I answer each of your objections, hopefully you will actually have something intelligent to say.
DOPE, as people call it, is ruining peoples lives!! You mean that the benign herb that assists us in blocking dopamine receptors that works in the same nueral pathways as more dangerous pharmaceuticals is ruining lives more than, say, jail?Sure it is all fun and games while you are high but once you come down how do you feel? Great! certainly much better than alcohol, or even the medicinally acceptably morphine and cocaine...Not too good do you.... I'm not sure how you would know.That is why you like up another one to make everything stop again for awile. Huh? sounds like you are referring to cigarettes, whose nicotine levels are manipulated in such a way as to increase sales, because the user immediately feels the need to self-titrate the desired drug.Counsilling will do the same thing, only better your problems will disappear completely after awile. Sure. Tht's why professional counselors push Prozac and Paxil, and not because those selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors are marketed through television commercials and lavish expenditures to doctors who recommend those drugs?Using drugs will only worsen them.I sense some anecdotal evidence coming... I have two brothers that depend on the crap and it is ruining their lives and also running the rest of my famly down. I knew it! Your personal experience is clouded by the fact that cannabis is illegal. Just be glad they are not drinking too much. That could kill them, or you; not pot. He will come back to the house stoned out of his face then when he finally comes down he shoots off this huge attitude and creates chaos for everyone in the house includng my 2 younger sisters and younger brother. This has more to do with the individual than the drug. Also, if the pot was socially accepted, maybe he would have a joint (like a beer) at home, with family...Your comments sound like they are based in experience, but have a hollow, almost false ring to them.Your grades drop, you don't care about anything but smoking your next joint and wondering where you are going to get the money for your next bag. Some of us get decent grades, My SAT's qualified me for MIT and UMASS without even a high school diploma. (750 math - stoned!)God you people that come on here saying that the stuff is good for you and there are no problems with it disgust me.. So it is OK to incarcerate us for your disgusted opinions?You are selfish people, trying to legalize it so that it will benefit your own personal use, so that you wont have to worry about getting thrown in jail for doing something that is illegal.. Ahh, but it was illegally and immorally criminalized, by people who had vested financial interests in more dangerous alternatives. Plus it creates high paying jobs for white people that require relatively low skills, certainly significantly less than busting REAL criminals.I don't like what this stuff is doing to my brothers and I definatly wont like what it will do to this country if it is legalized.. You would rather see 7 million potheads behind bars every ten years and 6 million deaths in the same time frame? God, you'se really don't care about anyone but youselves do you'se................Actually, I look forward to the day when resources can be channelled into important things like schoolbooks instead of jail cells. While disingenuous lawmakers pretend to be tough on drugs, they accept the very highest campaign contributions from manufacturers of poison, that peddle Ritalin, Marlboros and Budweiser to your kids and others.Arrest Prohibition
Drug war is TREASON!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by Paula on March 31, 2002 at 19:54:41 PT:
Come On People, Give Your Heads A Shake!!!
DOPE, as people call it, is ruining peoples lives!! Sure it is all fun and games while you are high but once you come down how do you feel? Not too good do you.... That is why you like up another one to make everything stop again for awile. Counsilling will do the same thing, only better your problems will disappear completely after awile. Using drugs will only worsen them. I have two brothers that depend on the crap and it is ruining their lives and also running the rest of my famly down. He will come back to the house stoned out of his face then when he finally comes down he shoots off this huge attitude and creates chaos for everyone in the house includng my 2 younger sisters and younger brother. Your attitude and preception of life completely changes once you are a pot head. Your grades drop, you don't care about anything but smoking your next joint and wondering where you are going to get the money for your next bag. God you people that come on here saying that the stuff is good for you and there are no problems with it disgust me.. You are selfish people, trying to legalize it so that it will benefit your own personal use, so that you wont have to worry about getting thrown in jail for doing something that is illegal.. I don't like what this stuff is doing to my brothers and I definatly wont like what it will do to this country if it is legalized..
God, you'se really don't care about anyone but youselves do you'se................
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by Dan B on January 10, 2002 at 08:00:12 PT:
Thanks, Slatts
I appreciate the posting, and I am glad to see that other medical doctors (in addition to Dr. Ethan Russo, whose opinion I also value) are speaking out against the "science" reported by Dr. Susan Greenfield. Thanks for including it here.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by Slatts on January 09, 2002 at 12:32:21 PT:
Baroness Greenfields ridiculous claims
Baroness Greenfields ridiculous claims were thoroughly refuted the next day.
For goodness sake didn't anyone read it first?
Cannabis "...can kill 50 percent of neurons in the hippocampus (an
area related to memory) within six days."
So after two you only have a quarter of your memory and after six less than
one percent?
Please get real!Philip SlatteryPart of the refutation as published in "The Times" 06 Aug 2001
--------------------------------------------------See http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1435/a04.html?1496
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------Leslie Iversen, FRS, is Visiting Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford
University and the author of The Science of Marijuana (Oxford University
Press, 2000). He was a specialist adviser to the House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology for its review of the medical uses of
cannabis. Colin Blakemore, FRS, is Professor of Physiology at Oxford
University, Director of the Oxford Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience and
president of the Physiological Society. He is a former president of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science.CANNABIS, WHY IT IS SAFEClaims by Baroness Greenfield and Dr Thomas Stuttaford that cannabis is
harmful are an idiosyncratic reading of the scientific and medical evidence.Public opinion on cannabis is shifting.The question of whether the law on cannabis ( and other drugs, too ) should
be liberalised is, of course, complex and politically charged.Some of the arguments are legal, some ethical, but the decision should also
be based on accepted scientific opinion.So it was disappointing that Baroness Greenfield of Ot Moor and Dr Thomas
Stuttaford, both influential communicators of science and medicine, have
recently condemned cannabis as a seriously harmful drug. In alarmist
articles in The Times and elsewhere, they argued that scientific evidence
shows that cannabis is addictive, causes personality change and psychosis,
promotes heart disease and cancer, is more harmful than alcohol, and impairs
driving long after intoxication has worn off. Most disturbing of all, Lady
Greenfield claimed that even a single cannabis joint shrinks and kills brain
cells and scrambles nerve connections.Certainly, if this represented the prevailing scientific view, and
especially if cannabis were thought to be more dangerous than alcohol and
tobacco, it would undermine any argument for relaxation of the law. But
theirs is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the scientific and medical
evidence.Of course, all drugs are harmful if taken in excess -- even aspirin kills
many elderly people every year because of its tendency to cause gastric
bleeds. But in judging the risks of cannabis, we need to keep a sense of
proportion and listen to the consensus reached by several recent exhaustive
reviews of this topic from medical and scientific experts on both sides of
the Atlantic. These include the British Medical Association, the Police
Foundation, the US Institute of Medicine, and the House of Lords Science and
Technology Committee.Although it cannot be assumed that cannabis use is entirely harmless, many
of the points stated as established facts do not seem persuasive. In our
opinion, the views of Lady Greenfield and Dr Stuttaford do not reflect the
current balance of scientific and medical opinion, and it is questionable
whether they would have passed the rigorous process of peer review and
editorial control that regulate professional communications between
scientists.It is claimed that cannabis smoke is more harmful to the lungs than tobacco
smoke because it contains much the same mixture of noxious substances, and
because cannabis users inhale more deeply and deposit more tar in their
lungs. On the other hand, cannabis users do not smoke 20 to 40 times a day,
as many cigarette smokers do. There may be a health risk, and it is
compounded by the combination of cannabis with tobacco, but there is
currently no indisputable evidence for a link with cancer.The reports of cancers of the throat, mouth and larynx in cannabis users
were based on small numbers and did not rule out effects of the concomitant
use of tobacco. A much larger study in the United States monitored the
health of a group of 65,000 men and women over a ten-year period.The 27,000 who admitted to having used cannabis showed no association
between cannabis use and cancers, nor were there any other serious adverse
effects on health.It is implied that cannabis is inherently more harmful than alcohol.This contradicts received opinion.Unlike cannabis, alcohol in overdose can kill. Chronic alcohol abuse has
well-documented health risks, including liver disease and severe brain
damage leading to a form of dementia.Use by pregnant women also carries the risk of damage to the foetus, leading
to severe mental impairments. There is no firm evidence that cannabis use
carries any of these serious health risks.Several expert groups that have compared the risks of alcohol and cannabis
have concluded that cannabis is less dangerous.As the Police Foundation's report last year stated: "When cannabis is
systematically compared with other drugs against the main criteria of harm
( mortality, morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relationship with
crime ), it is less harmful to the individual and society than any of the
other major illicit drugs or than alcohol and tobacco".Cannabis produces a variety of well-documented short-term effects on
perception, memory, thought and coordination, which might be expected to
compromise driving skills.Lady Greenfield suggests that it does so for more than 24 hours after
smoking, but the evidence for this is far from clear-cut. There are many
serious studies that show little or no effect on driving even during acute
intoxication. The association of cannabis with traffic accidents and deaths
is hard to interpret, as most of these also involve alcohol.And, just as for alcohol and mobile telephones, evidence for an effect on
driving would not argue for an outright ban.Lady Greenfield asserts that even tiny doses of cannabis cause brain damage.
In correspondence with us she has cited recent research on nerve cells
maintained in test-tube conditions, but the lowest concentration of the drug
that caused any effect was still many times higher than that likely to be
found in blood after cannabis use.It is generally accepted that observations in living animals and people
carry greater weight in risk assessment than experiments on isolated cells.
A wealth of such data has failed to show evidence of organic brain damage
either in chronic human cannabis users or in animals treated with very high
doses of cannabis extract or its active ingredient. In these studies doses
up to 1,000 times higher than those needed to produce intoxication in man
were given to rats or monkeys every day for 90 days, without causing serious
adverse effects on the brain or other organs .
.....
=====================================
See the rest at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1435/a04.html?1496
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 08, 2002 at 09:51:44 PT:
Synthetic vs. Natural
Increasingly, medical consumers (AKA, "patients"), when given the choice between a natural or a synthetic agent, will choose the herb, particularly when there is a full discussion of costs, benefits and potential side effects.Natural medicines can also be toxic, or lack quality control, but those should be known quantities in the best preparations. For better or worse, we have co-evolved on this planet with plants for millennia. Our bodies know how to handle most plants if not overdone. People are like deer; they will eat almost anything. In contrast, let's consider Rezulin, the diabtetic synthetic drug. Hundreds have died from liver failure because of drug toxicity. You will never see that with cannabis. With proper usage and harm reduction approaches, cannabis will be one of our most versatile, useful, and safe medicines.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by Jose Melendez on January 08, 2002 at 09:31:24 PT:
legal is NOT moral
from:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/serotonin_stroke020108.htmlDrug Combinations Spark Stroke Concerns
Pairing Serotonin Enhancers May Boost Risk
By Melinda Willis
[ABCNEWS.com]
Jan. 8 ? People who combine different types of serotonin-enhancing medications, such as certain antidepressants and migraine medications, may be increasing their risk of stroke, a new study says.
Also from:
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/dailynews/cannabinoid011005.htmlProtecting the Brain
Study Suggests Drug Similar to Marijuana Ingredient Helps Head Injuries
By Jeffrey Carpenter
[ABCNEWS.com]
Oct. 5 ? Could a drug similar to the active ingredient in marijuana protect your brain?
">http://more.abcnews.go.com/images/HP_grey_1x1_010529.gif>
Research at the Hebrew University in Israel, reported in the journal Nature , shows that a cannabinoid, similar to the active ingredient found in marijuana and produced in the brains of many animals, protects mice from brain injury.
Mice that sustained brain injuries were discovered to have elevated levels of a compound known as 2-Arachodonoyl glycerol, or 2-AG. Theorizing that this cannabinoid was produced to prevent damage, the researchers administered more of the compound to injured mice and found it protected the brain.
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by aocp on January 08, 2002 at 07:23:08 PT
Welcome to the goats, Schwarzgeist
As 4d astutely put it, there is no justification for the treatment of cannabis when we have booze and smokes legally available for recreational purposes. Prohibition either works better than regulation or it doesn't. I flat-out refuse to take the antis at their word that booze and smokes can be regulated legally and create the best possible situation, yet cannabis is blindly thrown to the prohibition wolf pack for chow time. Hell, booze has been tried in both arenas, so we have an actual economic comparison in our own society, but none of the sheep gives a damn. It's sick.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by dddd on January 08, 2002 at 01:03:18 PT
Welcome Schwarzgeist
..I think it is excellent that you sorted out the facts about Marijuana,,and made up your mind.........I think that ad campaigns,and phony "news"stories from the obscure and questionable sources within the government,have succeeded in demonizing Marijuana to the general public.It has been blown far out of proportion.Marijuana is basically harmless,especially when compared to the legal drugs that come in bottles,or pack of 20.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Schwarzgeist on January 08, 2002 at 00:04:34 PT:
Thank you All
Let me introduce myself, i'm a 20 yr male that just only recently discovered the wonders of cannabis (and i'm kind of ashamed of it; if only i'd been more aware of the facts...), so i've been doing some research and all of it came positive so i felt secure; but as i said, i'm new to the cannabis world....I saw this article when it got posted on the website and let me tell you, even if it's a great shame to me, that i got nervous because of what it said; bear with me, i had never heard of this Greenfield or whats-her-face before, so i kind of got in a conflict: what about all the other articles i had seen, all of them explaining the truth about our plant? what if this Greenface is right?...Then, i came back and saw the posts, read all of them and i felt all the facts fitting nicely into place, my head resting assured that i was really informed. All her words where lies to try to scare unaware people like me, but now i know the facts.All i want to say is, thank you all
Just say KNOW
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Kevin Hebert on January 07, 2002 at 14:06:08 PT:
My response to the SF Chronicle
Dear Editors:Reading Susan Greenfield's "Addictions: Why They Call It 'Dope'", one would think cannabis was a thing of absolute evil.Of course, this is exactly Ms. Greenfield's purpose: to further stigmatize cannabis and those who choose to use cannabis. She presents a grocery list of horrible maladies that threaten the cannabis smoker, none of which have been seen in the real world, despite the fact that nearly 100 million Americans have tried cannabis at least once. The fact is, cannabis is safer than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. And of course, cannabis is much safer than prison. Let's stop putting people in prison for what they do with their own bodies. I have the right to decide if I want to smoke a tobacco cigarette and get cancer. I have the right to decide if I want to drink alcohol and get
drunk. Why don't I have the right to decide if I want to smoke a joint and get high? The drug laws are preposterous, and Ms. Greenfield's article does not show how putting people in jail for smoking flowers and leaves is part of an intelligent public health policy. Sincerely,
Kevin M. Hebert
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by observer on January 07, 2002 at 08:56:12 PT
Why Propagandists Punch the Word 'Dope'
Why They Call It 'Dope' The word "Dope" is used for stigmatizing, propagandistic reasons, of course.Consider this poem: A slinking thing with hellish sting, The reptile known as Dope. Its poison breath is living death Beyond the pale of hope, And in the blight of endless night Its countless victims grope. In stricken homes the reptile roams On hearthstones bare and bleak. Ambition dies in youthful eyes, Slain by the noxious reek. For Dope is strong and prospers long Because the laws are weak.
['The Jaws of Death' by George E. Phair, The Atlanta Georgian, 27 February 1935] Concerning the propagandistic use of the word "DOPE," Steve Jacobson writes in his the book Mind Control in America: Why was hypnosis used in this movie and with such a high level of sophistication? The answers are within the movie."You government men have got to find some way to put an end to it," demands Dr. Carroll. The government man replies: "Of course, I agree with you Dr. Carroll. But do you realize that marihuana is not like other forms of DOPE. You see, it grows wild in almost every state of the union.Therefore, there is practically no inter-state commerce in the drug. As a result, the government's hands are tied. And frankly, the only sure cure is a wide-spread campaign in education." Some words trigger strong emotional responses in people. The word DOPE is one of them. This word is emphasized on the sound track. Though we are told that marijuana is not like other forms of "dope," the association is established.[Hypnosis and "Reefer Madness" From the book: Mind Control in America, Chapter 6. Hypnosis and "Reefer Madness" pp. 11-14. http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=113 ]
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 07, 2002 at 08:38:42 PT:
Couple of Corrections Sent, thanks
January 7, 2002Dear Sirs,
I am writing in reference to your editorial, “Addictions-Why They Call It Dope.” It is important that Chronicle readers be in a position to understand the difference between opinion, propaganda, and considered scientific opinion.
Space constraints allow me to only address two cannabis claims in particular. Dr. Greenfield contends that cannabis kills hippocampal brain cells affecting memory. In fact, her claim rests on the results of a single study in 1998 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9651215&dopt=Abstract) in which toxic effects of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, psychoactive ingredient of cannabis) dissolved in ethanol were demonstrated in rat hippocampal cells grown in culture. Interestingly, when THC was given orally to rats and mice, even in phenomenal doses in a 1996 study, no brain changes were observed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8812248&dopt=Abstract) In fact, rodents treated with THC lived longer, and had fewer tumors than control animals that received none. Cannabis is neuroprotective, not neuro-destructive.
Claims of cannabis’ addiction potential are similarly overblown. In a New York Times article (Aug. 2, 1994, p. C3), Jack Henningfield of NIDA and Neal Benowitz of UCSF rated addictive symptoms of cannabis vs. other commonly used drugs including heroin, alcohol and cocaine. To summarize, these experts observed that cannabis ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependency potential. Cannabis was judged similar to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication. If cannabis were to remain illegal due to addiction potential, than continued legality of nicotine, caffeine and alcohol would be difficult to justify medically.
Finally, in an interview broadcast November 4, 2001, on the BBC Panorama Program titled, “Cannabis from the Chemist” Dr. Greenfield herself had to admit that should cannabis prove effective in clinical trials in the UK, it should be available by prescription. Those studies, including those at her own University of Oxford, have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of cannabis-based medicine extracts sprayed under the tongue. A wheelchair-bound man with spinal damage and long-term impotence is now walking with crutches and has fathered a normal baby girl after cannabis treatment. Similarly, 80% of a cohort of previously intractable pain patients has attained good to excellent pain control with the cannabis extracts.
Dr. Greenfield and cannabis propagandists in the USA will need to adjust to an increasingly clear reality: Cannabis is real medicine, and will be demanded by a discerning public. Ethan Russo, MD
Neurologist/Editor, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics
Montana Neurobehavioral Specialists
900 North Orange
Missoula, MT 59802Voice: 406-327-3350
Fax: 406-327-3355
E-mail: erusso blackfoot.net
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by crank on January 07, 2002 at 08:22:10 PT
Dr. Russo
A couple of nitpicks. Please forgive me, I'm on your side as far as legal issues and need for harm reduction. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1 - The publish dates of the 2 studies (1996 and 1998) appear to be reversed.
2 - In the cell-death experiment, it appears that alcohol was used in the control, therefore can one blame the results on alcohol? From "Materials and Methods":
Absolute ethanol was used as carrier or vehicle for THC. Controls and vehicle-treated controls were obtained from cells treated with comparable concentration of ethanol as THC-treated samples.
Speaking of harm reduction, in the "Discussion":
The identification of a specific signal transduction system responsible for THC toxicity and the discovery that aspirin and vitamin E inhibit this neurotoxicity suggest pharmacological tools to block THC-induced cell death.
The full text of this study (but not the other one) is available free online. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to understand more than a little bit of this, just happened to stumble on it. Also, I'm aware of the danger of generalizing in vitro studies to live human beings. Most respectfully, the crank.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 07, 2002 at 06:33:57 PT:
The Baroness Strikes Back
Dear CannabisNews.com Friends,
Sorry that I am late in on this one. Dr. (Baroness) Greenfield's bad opinion of cannabis may well be colored by her own bad personal experiences. The following is my LTE to the Chronicle: January 7, 2002Dear Sirs,
I am writing in reference to your editorial, “Addictions-Why They Call It Dope.” It is important that Chronicle readers be in a position to understand the difference between opinion, propaganda, and considered scientific opinion.
Space constraints allow me to only address two cannabis claims in particular. Dr. Greenfield contends that cannabis kills hippocampal brain cells affecting memory. In fact, her claim rests on the results of a single study in 1996 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9651215&dopt=Abstract) in which toxic effects of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, psychoactive ingredient of cannabis) dissolved in ethanol were demonstrated in rat hippocampal cells grown in culture. That is right, alcohol, a known toxin when overused, was the true culprit. Interestingly, when THC was given orally to rats and mice, even in phenomenal doses in a 1998 study, no brain changes were observed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8812248&dopt=Abstract) In fact, rodents treated with THC lived longer, and had fewer tumors than control animals that received none. Cannabis is neuroprotective, not neuro-destructive.
Claims of cannabis’ addiction potential are similarly overblown. In a New York Times article (Aug. 2, 1994, p. C3), Jack Henningfield of NIDA and Neal Benowitz of UCSF rated addictive symptoms of cannabis vs. other commonly used drugs including heroin, alcohol and cocaine. To summarize, these experts observed that cannabis ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependency potential. Cannabis was judged similar to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication. If cannabis were to remain illegal due to addiction potential, than continued legality of nicotine, caffeine and alcohol would be difficult to justify medically.
Finally, in an interview broadcast November 4, 2001, on the BBC Panorama Program titled, “Cannabis from the Chemist” Dr. Greenfield herself had to admit that should cannabis prove effective in clinical trials in the UK, it should be available by prescription. Those studies, including those at her own University of Oxford, have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of cannabis-based medicine extracts sprayed under the tongue. A wheelchair-bound man with spinal damage and long-term impotence is now walking with crutches and has fathered a normal baby girl after cannabis treatment. Similarly, 80% of a cohort of previously intractable pain patients has attained good to excellent pain control with the cannabis extracts.
Dr. Greenfield and cannabis propagandists in the USA will need to adjust to an increasingly clear reality: Cannabis is real medicine, and will be demanded by a discerning public. Ethan Russo, MD
Neurologist/Editor, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics
Montana Neurobehavioral Specialists
900 North Orange
Missoula, MT 59802Voice: 406-327-3350
Fax: 406-327-3355
E-mail: erusso blackfoot.net
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by potpal on January 07, 2002 at 05:06:57 PT
Susan 'Greenfield'
Ms. Greenfield may want to do a little investigative work to see just what kind of 'greenfield' inspired her sire name. She may be unpleasantly surprised...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by BGreen on January 07, 2002 at 04:26:29 PT:
A WONDERFUL GIFT
Regardless of how so-called Christians, and other extremists pervert the true God, I know a loving God who provides for us, and gave us one of the most miraculous plants known to the world.I am a Christian, but I totally disagree with evil people like Ashcroft, Falwell, etc., because they pervert what God is all about. God is truth and despises lies. God created all plants for us and said they were good. God said those who reject the truth seek evil.I don't want this to be a religious debate, but it's what I believe. You may believe differently, and I respect your right to believe as you please, but I think it's important you hear a rational Christian voice.The problem is with most of the religious leaders, as we see in politicians, when power creates lies, corruption and megalomania. Most Christians are really good hearted, but because they trust those in "authority" over them, they believe the lies as truth.I don't have kids, but I know most parents would do anything to protect their children. When the people you trust are telling you that "druggies" are trying to kill your kids, you're going to believe it. That's the problem as I've seen it.Even if you don't believe cannabis was lovingly and purposefully created for your use, you've got to admit it was one truly amazing accidental miracle.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on January 07, 2002 at 04:04:11 PT
Monster Raving Loony
First of all, why is this "science" coming from Great Britain, and why is it being published in the California city which just recently declared itself a Medical Marijuana Sanctuary?>>The fact that there is a naturally occurring analog of cannabis in the body, as there is for morphine, provides a basic reason to differentiate it from alcohol. Funny, if you read the first half and substitute "alcohol" for "cannabis" you can see how it's much closer to the truth. Alcohol is addicting, and impairing, and there's no doubt or debate about it - but we don't impose insane prohibition on top of it to make it worse! And the last line says this comes to us from the "Project Syndicate" - sounds like something out of Catch 22, but apparently it's a group of about 50 news organizations who get together to exchange stories. Which could explain why it's in the SF paper - does anyone know if the syndicate is a consistent source of prohibitionist propaganda?
Project Syndicate contact info
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by E_Johnson on January 07, 2002 at 03:05:50 PT
She's a paid liar and she has to be taken down
Nothing but repeated vociferous challenge to come up with published science backing these so-called facts will wash this ugly fat bug off of the public windshield.But hey, this is ironically opposite to the tobacco story, because there the paid liars were telling everyone tobacco was safe, when they had scientific evidence that it was addictive and carcinogenic.Here the respectable journals like the PNAS and Nature Medicine keep coming up with studies showing marijuana doesn't kill anything in the brain except deadly malignant cancer. They still can't find any evidence of lung head or neck cancer and now the respectable academic scientists at UCLA have found that THC blocks the activity of the very enzyme needed to trigger the carcinogenic process in lung cells.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11245634&dopt=AbstractThis is the ironic opposite of the tobacco story. The paid liars are trying to make everyone think it's the world's worst hazard, and the ethical scientific community keeps coming up with more evidence of amazing and previously unanticipated medical benefit.For years people have been trying to explain the lack of lung cancer victims from pot smoking with lame explantions like there being less tar in the smoke (false) and less inhalation of smoke (but not that much less). These were never very convincing explanations.But who in the heck would ever imagine that THC could actually block the activity of a carcinogen-metabolizing enzyme? Who in the heck would ever expect the molecule to know how to do THAT? THAT is a genuine surprise, it was never anticicpated that such action would end up explaining the statistical evidence of a lack of dead potheads from lung cancer.And who in the world would ever have imagined that injecting THC into a malignant glioma would cause the cancerous cells to self-destruct while the non-cancerous cells weren't harmed? As the physicists said when the neutrino was discovered,WHO ORDERED THAT?This is like the mirror image of the story with tobacco. Pot stops arthritis, pot stops MS, pot stops cancer, pot stops heart attacks, pot stops oxidative damage in the brain, what is this damned stuff anyways?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by skipin on January 07, 2002 at 02:05:39 PT
this lady has her head so far up hear a$$!
She says
"Is there a "safe" dose of cannabis, with no effect on the brain? Even a dose comparable to one joint, and analogous levels of the active THC ingredient to that in plasma, can kill 50 percent of neurons in the hippocampus (an area related to memory) within six days. "ok this must mean that I have no hippocampus, becaus I have smoked the herb 3 times a day for months on endthis must allso mean that millions of other stoners are walking around with no neurons in there hippocampus!I THINK THE ONLY ONE WITH MISSING NEURONS IN THERE BRAIN IS THE HIRED-PEN LOW LIFE THAT WROTE THEIS LIESthnk you thats all I have to say about that =o)p.s. God smokes, "Burning Bush" get it =o)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by BGreen on January 07, 2002 at 00:22:09 PT:
CONTROL BY FEAR
FoM, in a post from another thread, said, "It's like if they keep us in fear we don't think and rock the boat." That's exactly the point E_Johnson, myself, and most if not all of the other posters are making.A comment by film-maker Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed & Confused) in the latest issue of High Times brought FoM's remark to mind."Fear has always been used as a way to keep you in place. A lot of this control is pretty much the way things have been going for a while now, and what has happened can further that. Give our government a bully pulpit, without opposition, and they will certainly take it. The fact is, we've imposed this on other countries for a very long time, pretty randomly and consistently it would seem. If you don't like it, well, it happens every day. Now we know what it feels like, and it's pretty unfathomable and so bizarre."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by DdC on January 06, 2002 at 23:55:25 PT
Why do you think they call it dope?
Why call it dope?.
http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/29/29540.gifMon$anto'$ WoD on Ditchweed
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionffffhyperlinked.showMessage?topicID=23.topic
Damn Birds
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/39/39244.gif
Why they call it dope
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on January 06, 2002 at 23:19:27 PT
Deja vu all over again comrades
BGreen wroteThe government has fostered a climate of fear and distrust so that friends turn on friends, or turn in friends, to avoid prosecution, and most of us were forced to withdraw into our shells. C News lets us know we're not alone in this battle.Oh bozhe moi! (My God in Russian)I just had a Soviet flashback. Well, this is precisely the way my friends in the Soviet dissident movement used to live.Oh but um -- back then the Republicans were on the side of freedom. Those were back in the days when no Texas Republican on Earth would have been photographed shaking the hand of someone trained in the Soviet KGB Academy.What actually happened when the Cold War ended? The Republicans seem to have forgotten what they were fighting for, after patting themselves on the back for having won.Well the cure for this nonsense in the Soviet Union was called samizdat. Self-publishing by constant reproduction between a circle of friends and family. That was the Soviet version of the Internet. But it was low tech, mostly on carbon paper, since the KGB regulated access to copy machines.That was how people knew they weren't alone in the battle.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Jose Melendez on January 06, 2002 at 22:16:58 PT:
Does marijuana have cardiac benefits of apsirin?
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11558437&dopt=Abstract[Antiarrhythmic properties of a cannabinoid (CB) receptor agonist][Article in Russian]Maslov LN, Lishmanov IuB, Maismekulova LA, Mechoulam P.Department of Experimental Cardiology, Institute of Cardiology, Tomsk Scientific Center, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, ul. Shevchenko 24, Tomsk, 634050 Russia.The cannabinoid (CB1) receptor agonist HU-210 (0.5 mg/kg, i.v.) exhibited a pronounced antiarrhythmic effect in rats with the adrenaline (epinephrine) and aconitine induced arrhythmia models. At the same time, the intracerebrovascular introduction of HU-210 (500 or 5000 ng) did not affect the adrenaline-induced arrhythmia. The CB1 receptor pretreatment (blocking) with the SR 141716 antagonist (3 mg/kg) and the introduction of a ganglion blocker (hexamethonium, 10 mg/kg) did not inhibit the antiarrhythmic effect of HU-210. It is concluded that the antiarrhythmic effect of intravenously injected HU-210 is neither related to the CB 1 receptor activation nor mediated by the autonomous (vegetative) nervous system.PMID: 11558437 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]more at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11558437&dopt=Abstractand:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10785543&dopt=AbstractCardiovascular effects of endocannabinoids--the plot thickens.Kunos G, Jarai Z, Varga K, Liu J, Wang L, Wagner JA.Department of Pharmacology, Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. gkunos hsc.vcu.eduCannabinoids, the bioactive ingredients of the marijuana plant, are best known for their psychoactive properties, but they also influence other physiological processes, such as cardiovascular variables. Endocannabinoids are recently identified lipid mediators that act as natural ligands at cannabinoid receptors and mimic most of the biological effects, including the cardiovascular actions, of plant-derived cannabinoids. In experimental animals, the most prominent component of the cardiovascular effects of cannabinoids is prolonged hypotension and bradycardia. This review focuses on the possible mechanisms underlying these effects. The emerging evidence suggesting that endocannabinoids may be involved in the peripheral regulation of vascular tone under certain conditions is also discussed.Publication Types:
ReviewReview, Tutorial
PMID: 10785543 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Please translate...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by BGreen on January 06, 2002 at 21:21:58 PT:
WE MUST SPEAK OUT
We must keep the intelligent dialog going as a constant thorn in the prohibitionists' side. I know that some people have more trouble than others expressing their thoughts in print, but that doesn't diminish the fact that we ALL have talents to offer in this battle.I try to be careful with my words as to not give ammunition to the enemies' argument that cannabis users are burnt out, brain dead shells of a person.I enjoy reading the comments of all the posters here on C News. People are speaking from their hearts, and that outweighs any spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors we might make.The government has fostered a climate of fear and distrust so that friends turn on friends, or turn in friends, to avoid prosecution, and most of us were forced to withdraw into our shells. C News lets us know we're not alone in this battle.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by E_Johnson on January 06, 2002 at 21:05:04 PT
Does marijuana have cardiac benefits of apsirin?
QcStrt, that's an incredible story. I'm glad your pain was treatable and you are improving. I'm glad that there was a doctor willing to try pot instead of morphine.Do you know where the doctor got the pot? Or should we better not ask that, or what hospital and so on. Well, it's good enough that you were helped. God bless.I noticed there is some new research out there showing that despite the fact that cannabis can make the heart beat faster, cannabinoids seems to act to suppress cardiac arrhythmia, which was believd to be the chief danger that could be caused by a more rapid heartbeat from smoking pot.The research seemed to suggest that in making the heart beat a bit faster, pot also makes it beat more steadily.I'm too busy doing other things now to look up the cite but it's on PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed for anyone who wants to do the digging.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by lookinside on January 06, 2002 at 20:58:52 PT:
whoa!
awesome...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by QcStrt on January 06, 2002 at 20:53:39 PT
Cardiac arrest
Professor:
As of December 23, 2001 I had a Cardiac arrest they brought me back at 11:30 PM
and at 4:30 AM. I still could not move my left arm or leg, The pain was so bad the
Doctors could not do anything for me, The head Dr. took me to the smoking area
and give a Cannabis cigarette to smoke and I though the Dr's lost there mind, with in
minutes the pain started to resided, They (Dr ) took me to smoke every 3 hours and 30
minutes till I left the hospital and told me to smoke every 4 hour at home or when I need it
for pain. I go back the 10th of January 2002, as of know I fell real good but tired. And this
is one of the top 50 Hospital in the USA. So much for your sh*t lady. I'm a believer know
and passing the Word.
Thank you.
Art. 62
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by lookinside on January 06, 2002 at 20:31:52 PT:
jose...
thanks, pal!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 06, 2002 at 20:03:48 PT
Jose
Very nice!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on January 06, 2002 at 19:55:14 PT:
The rest of the story...
There was nothing in PubMed by Ramstrom about cannabis, although there is some interesting abstract info from 1998 on molecularly imprinted polymers, peptide phage cones and chewing tobacco as a potential nicotine replacement therapy.
DR THOMAS STUTTAFORD wrote one of those "See? Cannabis DOES cause lung cancer" articles about George Harrison.
See:
http://shu.smolensk.su/~oea/millennium/news/01_jul/12_thetimes_0,,72-2001240048,00.htm
The article, written before the ex-Beatle's untimely death mentions Adverse Health Consequences of Cannabis Use
by Jan Ramstrom.
A well footnoted critique on Ramstrom's "work" is here:
http://www.dutch-passion.nl/news/2001/July/UK-%20Sweden%20leads%20the%20world%20in%20its%20knowledge%20of%20cannabis.txt
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:46:06 +0100 (BST)
From: John Yates
Subject: [UKCIA] Mats Hiltes criitique of Ramstroms ReportThe Times seems to have discovered Swedens answer to
Gabriel Nahas, Jan Ramstrom. Ramstrom has done no
original research.
Here is some background.Jan Ramstrom was commissioned by the Swedish Health
Ministry to carry out a search of the international
research results into cannabis in order to prove its
dangers. The document he produced was a partisan
hatchet job and was shot down by the Swedish
researcher Mats Hilte of the respected Social High
school, Lund, Sweden, in a critique published in the
journal Alkohol och Narkotika, 1997, and Ramstroms
report can no longer be regarded as a serious report
on the effects of cannabis.
The article goes on to effectively dispute claims of:
Higher THC Content
Cannabis and Psychosis
The Gateway Theory
Amotivational syndrome
and ends with
I conclude that Ramstroms report is not a
comprehensive and nuanced research summary. It should
rather be regarded as a document created to re-enforce
certain "truths" by ignoring perspectives and results
that go contrary to it. It is by this means that the
author can emphasise the worst aspects of cannabis
smoking and create scare propaganda rather than a
nuanced and objective presentation of adverse effects.
What value is there in this type of scare propaganda
when what we are concerned with is reducing drug use
amongst young people? Or is it thanks to scare
propaganda that young people find drugs interesting.
from:
http://www.health.gov.au/pubs/drug/cannab2/ch5.htm
you can see that Moskowitz' 1985 work,
Moskowitz, H. (1985) Marijuana and driving. Accident Analysis and
Prevention,
17, 323-345. does not get much credence in this quote:
While there has been some speculation as to
whether the effects of cannabis in concurrent tasks might be
concentrated on the central or peripheral tasks (Moskowitz, 1985), no
observed pattern has emerged to clearly support these conjectures. from:
http://www.ukcia.org/lib/driving2.htm
"The statistical significance of the effect required a statistical procedure (one tail 't' test) which is of questionable validity when there was no previous statistical proof that the effect was expected. This means that the effect was at best, only marginally significant. The study by Moskowitz et al, as described in Moskowitz's 1985 review (Moskowitz, 1985) was of a: .... compensatory tracking task performed while simultaneously executing a visual search task as well as a critical tracking task. Performance was significantly impaired on the compensatory tracking task for more than 2 hours and upon the critical tracking task for up to 10 hours, albeit, intermittently during the period from 4 hours on. [emphasis added] At present I think it is fair to conclude that the evidence for the long duration of cannabis induced impairment requires more study to confirm its validity. Furthermore, both tasks in which it was described are very difficult tasks. It has been argued that the use of cannabis by pilots in the 24 hours preceding flying may be more an indicator of poor judgement rather than a cause for concern about the residual psychomotor effects of cannabis. "http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/cannabis/
seems to have deleted several sections of "Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary" , including a chart called Time course of THC and THC-COOH concentration in plasma after smoking Marijuana with 15mg THC in a 70kg person (adapted from Berghaus et al. 1998 and Chesher 1995).however, from:
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11698.shtml
10. Epidemiological evidence for the role of cannabis in
road accidents is equivocal. UK studies have found traces of illicit
drugs in 18% of those killed in fatal accidents, with cannabis constituting
around two thirds of the drugs found (Sexton et al 2001). However,
because traces of cannabis can remain in the body system for up
to 28 days the presence of cannabinoids in the blood of accident
victims cannot be taken to indicate that the driver was intoxicated
at the time of the accident. Many drivers in accidents also have
a high blood alcohol level at the time of their accident. Two studies
with drivers who had only used cannabis found that there was no
increased culpability of accidents amongst this group (Chesher 1995).
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on January 06, 2002 at 19:53:34 PT:
Drug War is FRAUD
On:
http://www.mdadvice.com/news/2001/02/01/medic/2492-0203-pat_nytimes.html
One can find a review of a "hard-hitting" report by Professor Heather Ashton of Newcastle University. The study "says cannabis can provoke severe anxiety and mental illness, seriously impairs driving skills, is five times more damaging to the lungs than cigarettes, weakens the immune system and may lead to rare throat cancers or fatal heart attacks."This is claimed despite the good professor's admittance to Reuter's that
"Whether there is permanent cognitive impairment in heavy long-term users is not clear,"
and despite the fact that Ashton's work was based on "reviewed studies on the recreational use of cannabis, its potency and impact on the body and brain." Ashton herself says
Over the years, the strength of the average cannabis joint has increased because of careful plant-breeding and hydroponic farming to produce more potent varieties, such as Silver Pearl and Skunkweed. The old reefer of the Sixties offered a relatively mild dose. A modern joint can be as much as 30 times stronger. And of course the very fact of that increase in strength adds to the chemical deposits in the body and stimulates the desire for another strong buzz.
but makes no mention of self-titration, which many here have pointed out proves that stronger cannabis is safer, because there is less smoke created to reach the desired dosage.
Ashton takes liberties with the truth and physics when she claims, "In fact, in some respects a joint can be more dangerous than a cigarette because it has no filter and a higher igniting temperature."
Of course, there is proof to the contrary...
from:
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html"Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar."and from:
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/smokestudy.html
It is tempting to try to compare marijuana and cigarette smoking. An exact comparison is hard to make, given that pot and tobacco affect different parts of the respiratory system differently. Anti-pot propagandists like to say that one joint per day is equivalent to one pack a day of cigarettes. This myth misrepresents a study by Dr. Tashkin, which found that one-joint-per-day pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes today. However, the same study found that marijuana smokers did much better in other measures of respiratory health. A more accurate comparison based on studies by Dr. Tashkin's group is that pot smokers absorb four times as much tar in their lungs than cigarette smokers per weight smoked. Given that a typical joint weighs about .4 - .5 grams, one-half as much as a tobacco cigarette, a rough equivalence is 2 cigarettes = 1 joint.There is so much more, but I need to take a break. I figured I would refute the sources first, though
Narcosoft.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Lehder on January 06, 2002 at 19:47:11 PT
new book
will you tell us the title & author?
i'm always so pleased to find a new book that is extra thick like this one. that way i can escape into reality for a good long time.
thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by p4me on January 06, 2002 at 19:03:23 PT
E Johnson
I have often wondered about taking the time to respond to the links provide under the article. We are in the trenches now winning convert after convert and who knows how long it will be before reason prevails.I still think of how horrible it was for the DEA to raid the compassion clubs in California and what a dipshi* we have as president and the pain that was caused directly and indirectly by such an inhumane and stupid act. I think the American people should be provided an MRI of the President's brain because he has a hard time just talking in complete sentences and something has to be wrong. I was wondering about the next poll on the legalization issue. The honorable Governor Gary Johnson used the statistics that said it went up 3% to 35% last year. I hope the DEA gets some more helicopters. A few more tomatoe plant raids like the one in Virginia last year might really anger the senior citizen that is going without food to buy half of the medicine he really needs. Senior citizens have had a lifetime to understand the importance of priorities and they vote with a vengence. The MJ war is lost yet people that call each other national leaders are not actively seeking the next step. We have great leaderlessship in this country and if the media were really about journalism everyone would realize it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by lookinside on January 06, 2002 at 18:49:14 PT:
more BS...
EJ...agreed...she's being paid to grind the anti's ax...concerning the studies she did cite: were they all government funded?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on January 06, 2002 at 18:11:41 PT
There's a new book out on corruption in science
There's a new book that's just been released about the current crisisof financial and political corruption in science, I'll have to check it out and see whether they mention the effect of the Drug War in this area.People like Greenfield are just as bad as the paid hacks for the tobacco companies.She doesn't provide a single published citation because she can't.She expects the average readers to be so scientifically illiterate that they won't be able to check her assertions against original research, and she expects her own colleagues in science to be so amoral and passive and self-interested that they won't go do the lookups and writing necessary to expose her for what she is.These unfortunately are both expectations that she can rely on seeing fulfilled in America, for sure.One big reason why Europeans are so resistant to this prohibitionist caterwauling is that they have decent science education in their schools, and they have a much more science-literate public than in America or in the UK.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on January 06, 2002 at 18:06:43 PT
Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!!
I wonder, what does it feel like to be flooded with hatred for a plant?Maybe she's the nerdy, unattractive type that envied all the cool, partying people. Susan felt more comfortable in the library than with others, now after all that hard work studying, she thinks she's smarter than us and can tell us what to do.I hope if I'm ever stubborn and foolish enough to embarrass myself professionally like this over some issue that my friends would intervene and talk some sense into me.It just goes to show that science in the hands of mankind should never be taken as absolute. Science is driven by scientists who let their own attitudes and egos affect their work as much as any empirical data.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on January 06, 2002 at 18:04:06 PT
I wrote a good letter, here's hoping they publish
I backed up my refutations to her claims with citations to actual published research and challenged her to provide the same --- and a list of all of her sources of funding.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Toker00 on January 06, 2002 at 17:26:26 PT
Excuse me.
*VOMIT*Thank you. Peace. Realize, then Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment