cannabisnews.com: The Real Danger of Cannabis The Real Danger of Cannabis Posted by CN Staff on August 18, 2002 at 06:44:58 PT Commentary Source: Observer UK Now that those anxious to look cool can puff cannabis freely in the street without fear of arrest, perhaps those of us who have argued that relaxing the laws on cannabis is irresponsible and dangerous should retreat gracefully behind our chintz curtains. Yet the downgrading of the classification of cannabis perpetuates the same tired old myths and the same serious problems. Take the myth that cannabis is 'just the same as' alcohol. A glib yet logical riposte might be that if the drugs are truly identical why not just stick with the booze? What is the distinct appeal of cannabis that can be ignored in equating the two drugs? Such sophistry is inappropriate because alcohol and cannabis work on the brain and body in very different ways. Alcohol has a range of non-specific actions that affect the tiny electrical signals between one brain cell and another; cannabis has its own specialised chemical targets, so far less has a more potent effect. Moreover, although drinking in excess can lead to terrible consequences, there are guidelines for the amount of alcohol that constitutes a 'safe' intake. Such a calculation is possible because we know alcohol is eliminated relatively quickly from the body. With cannabis, it is a different story. The drug will accumulate in your body for days, if not weeks, so, as you roll your next spliff, you never know how much is already working away inside you. I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe' dose is. Until they do, surely it is irresponsible to send out positive signals, however muted? Another notion is that cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes. I'm not sure how this idea came about, certainly not as the results of any scientific papers. We do know cannabis smoke contains the same constituents as that of tobacco: however, it is now thought that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day are equivalent to 20 or more tobacco cigarettes, regarding damage to the lining of the bronchus, while the concentration of carcinogens in cannabis smoke is actually higher than in cigarettes. And if cannabis were 'just the same' as alcohol and cigarettes, why are people not taking those already legal drugs for the much-lauded pain-relief effects? After all, another case for the relaxation of the laws on cannabis is the 'medical' one that it is an effective analgesic. But there is a world of difference between medication prescribed in a hospital, where the cost-benefit balance tips in favour of pain relief, compared to a healthy person endangering their brain and body needlessly.Even the most loony of liberals has not suggested tolerance for morphine or heroin abuse, because they are prescribed clinically as potent painkillers. And think about it: if cannabis brings effective relief from pain, then how does it do so? Clearly by a large-scale action on the central nervous system. Further wishful thinking is that, because cannabis doesn't actually kill you, it is OK to send out less negative legal signals, even though the Home Secretary admits that the drug is dangerous. Leaving aside the issue that cannabis could indeed be lethal, in that the impaired driving it can trigger could well kill, there is more to life than death. It is widely accepted that there is a link between cannabis and schizophrenia: as many as 50 per cent of young people attending psychiatric clinics may be regular or occasional cannabis users. The drug can also precipitate psychotic attacks, even in those with no previous psychiatric history. Moreover, there appears to be a severe impairment in attention span and cognitive performance in regular cannabis users, even after the habit has been relinquished. All these observations testify to a strong, long-lasting action on the brain. Some attempts have been made in laboratories to work out what cannabis could actually be doing to brain cells. So far, some data have suggested that there can be damage to neurons, and at doses comparable to those taken on the street. None the less, others argue that the experimental scenario of isolated neurons growing in a lab dish are hardly a natural situation, and that such data have to be interpreted with caution. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The effects on the brain in real life are most probably subtle and therefore hard to monitor: it's not so much that cannabis will create great holes in your brain, or deplete you wholesale of all your best neurons. Instead, by acting on its own special little chemical targets (and because it will therefore work as an impostor to a naturally occurring transmitter), the drug is likely to modify the configuration of the networks of brain cell connections. These configurations of connections make you the unique person you are, since they usually reflect your particular experiences. So a change will be hard to register from one person to another, and certainly from one slice of rat brain to another: but still, it will make you see the world in a different way - characteristically one depleted of motivation. It is hard for me, as a neuroscientist, to accept that a drug that has the biochemical actions that it does, that hangs around in the brain and body, and that has dramatic effects on brain function and dysfunction, could not be leaving its mark, literally, on how our neurons are wired up and work together. It is argued that we will never stamp out cannabis use, and therefore we should give up trying. But we will not stamp out murder or house break-ins or mugging, yet I've never heard an argument for freeing up police time by liberalising the law on these acts. Laws, it is said, are only enforceable when the majority wants them enforced, yet the arguments used for easing up on cannabis apply equally to promoting ecstasy or other mind-bending substances. Do we really want a drug-culture lifestyle in the UK? Cynically, one could argue that it is politically expedient to court the youth vote, to open up the inevitable prospect of revenue from a new source of taxes and to help the ailing tobacco industry prosper from a great new product of readymade packets of spliffs. The condoning of chemical consolation also distracts from other problems. We have failed our young people in providing homes and jobs and, by giving them an easy route into a chilled-out oblivion, have turned our backs on the far more challenging prospect of initiating policies to help them realise their potential and live better and more fulfilling lives. They are paying a high price for cool. Note: It is folly to legalise a drug that is known to leave users with permanent damage to their ability to reason, argues Susan Greenfield, the distinguished expert on brain processes.Source: Observer, The (UK)Published: Sunday, August 18, 2002Copyright: 2002 The ObserverContact: letters observer.co.ukWebsite: http://www.observer.co.uk/Related Articles:Cannabis Relaxation Opposed by Majority http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13585.shtmlPot Users Relax with New Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13410.shtmlBritain To Let Pot Smokers Off Lightlyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13384.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by VitaminT on August 18, 2002 at 14:40:05 PT She won't need a pump! she'll be spewing tobbacco the way 'Old Faithful' spews steam. Only much much smellier! [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by karkulus on August 18, 2002 at 14:23:20 PT L.O.F.D.C.S.(lying on floor doing curly shuffle) She said " We do know cannabis smoke contains the same constituents as that of tobacco" WHAT! Like Nicotine?Tell you what, Sue, you eat a pack of cig's and I'll eat the same amount of cannabis; lets see who needs their stomach pumped first!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by aocp on August 18, 2002 at 12:19:03 PT safe dose I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe' dose is.Ok. There is no level of overdose from cannabis that a human can attain, short of asphyxiation (sp?). So, a 'safe' dose is pretty much anything they can smoke. For more clarification, plz see Dr. Russo's #2 comment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by canaman on August 18, 2002 at 10:39:17 PT My appologies to prohibitionists and/or idiots who may only be ignorant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by canaman on August 18, 2002 at 10:10:16 PT What happened to her neurons? This is your brain on prohibition.....the Baroness says,It is argued that we will never stamp out cannabis use, and therefore we should give up trying. But we will not stamp out murder or house break-ins or mugging, yet I've never heard an argument for freeing up police time by liberalising the law on these acts.I'd guess she's never heard a statement like that because it's a completely asinine statement only an idiot would make, or maybe a prohibitionist? [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by observer on August 18, 2002 at 09:42:01 PT Cannabis Use --- Murder! Note: The goodly Baroness "just accidently happened" to forget mentioning that itsy bitsy detail of JAIL. Question: Why do you suppose that little detail slipped her mind?Take the myth that cannabis is 'just the same as' alcohol.This is a straw man: no one asserts that cannabis is "just the same as alcohol". They note that cannabis is far LESS harmful than alcohol. For example: cannabis has no lethal dose, whereas alcohol does. They note the hypocrisy where adults are not jailed for responsibly consuming alcohol, yet any possession (let alone use) of any amount of cannabis is punished more harshly than for murder. How did this Baroness forget all that? Has prohibition permanently damaged her faculties for reason?It is argued that we will never stamp out cannabis use, and therefore we should give up trying. The main argument for not arresting/jailing adults who take cannabis, is that it is wrong for adults to be punished simply for taking cannabis. It is evil to punish people who have hurt no one and have done nothing wrong. That is the argument for not arresting and jailing cannabis users. It is also noted that trying to stamp out cannabis use is indeed a fool's game.But we will not stamp out murder or house break-ins or mugging, yet I've never heard an argument for freeing up police time by liberalising the law on these acts.Taking cannabis (unlike murder) hasn't always been a crime. Murder has always been a crime. Taking cannabis does not leave a victim; murdering someone does. Children can see the difference Baroness, then again, I suppose they haven't been trained in the art of doublethink, as is the good Baroness. The government may try all it likes: but making up new "sin" out of thin air and expecting thinking, intelligent people to agree with such newly minted government-defined political "sin" is a bit much. Sophistry about marijuana leading to murder, or being the same as murder won't convince anyone but those who are grasping for excuses to jail cannabis-takers. For them, any excuse will do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by joegames on August 18, 2002 at 09:16:59 PT: Alchohol and Tobacco Industry Strike Again The above article is simply another piece of rhetoric from someone in the tobacco or alcohol industry trying to, yet again, feed us the ill conceived propaganda we have been fed for the past 70 years regaring the "mighty herb" as being "counterproductive on all accounts". The nonsense about schizophrenia and other psychosis setting in as the result of Cannabis use is the most amusing. WAKE UP JACKASSES!! Cannabis actually works on the brain in a possitive way for those affected with mental illnesses such as Schizoprenia, Bi-Polar Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Tourettes Syndrome, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Clinical Depression, and Generized Anxiety Disorder, to name a few. See www.mikuriya.com, a webiste by Doctor Tod Mikuriya, a world renowned Psychiatrist who is the foremost authority on Cannabis therapy for mental illness.Once decrimanalization of Cannabis happens once and for all, GOODBYE TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL KOOKS!!!!!!!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo MD on August 18, 2002 at 09:16:45 PT: The Baroness Strikes Again Baroness Greenfield is a neuroscientist at Oxford, no less, and had an excellent reputation before she sullied it with these unsupportable diatribes against cannabis. For better or worse, I suspect that her strident voice is increasingly ignored on the issue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on August 18, 2002 at 08:59:18 PT Distinguished expert on cranial-rectal insertions >>Note: It is folly to legalise a drug that is known to leave users with permanent damage to their ability to reason, argues Susan Greenfield, the distinguished expert on brain processes. Alcohol permanently damages the brain when misused. I don't think anyone should use it in that fashion - but if they feel that self-destructive need, I'd rather see them not have to go to a criminal group to satisfy the need.>>They are paying a high price for cool. Not any more! Jail is a pretty high price!! And just what is a "distinguished expert on brain processes", anyways? Where exactly does this woman work, and what is her educational background? Timothy Leary - now there's a "distinguished expert on brain processes". This "lady" is no Tim Leary! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on August 18, 2002 at 08:31:36 PT: Dr. Greenfield Strikes Again This piece is so full of MJ Myths, it is merely easier to refer the reader to my previous comments, and say that virtually nothing she says is accurate."I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe' dose is."I can answer that: it is one inhalation less than the amount that causes a person to feel incapable of adequately performing a desired activity. Practice makes perfect (if one were legally allowed to do so). [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by John Tyler on August 18, 2002 at 07:27:14 PT Just a thought Cannabis is not some new substance cooked up in the back of the chemistry lab. It has been used by people around the world for thousands of years for medicine, fiber, and food. It has withstood the test of time. In any case, should those who choose to possess and use it be subject to criminal or civil penalties that are far more detrimental than the use itself? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment