Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression
Options
Comments
-
Badgermonkey, your post doesn't help and back seat modding is frowned upon.
Your friendly neighbourhood mod,
Papa
Certainly not back seat modding Papa.
The innumerable and scattergun multiquote approach of certain posters renders the thread virtually unreadable and hard to follow (at least for me).
Interesting topic, as I said above.0 -
And it has been dealt with. Please use the report button (
) if you have a problem with a post 0 -
the day/night cycle is terribly important for a cannabis plant, with it needing to start off with an 18/6 day/night to simulate summer, then 12/12 simulating autumn, to induce to plant to start flowering,
It's worth noting that autoflowering strains are making a lot of progress in terms of quality and they would literally grow like weeds outdoors in Ireland all year 'round and could possibly be adopted by grain farmers.
Getting the IFA onside would really bring the issue to the next level.0 -
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in answer to information pertaining to ADD/ADHD/AUTISM...this is one of many articles i have already posted about contained on Granny Storms list...its actually on the first page...
(MOLALLA, Ore.) - It has been known for at least 2,000 years that Marijuana/Cannabis is a psychotropic that affects the brain and central nervous system. The first western references seem to be that it was a euphoric, in other words a central nervous system stimulant not like cocaine or amphetamines but a gentler pleasant stimulant.
Dr. W.B. O'Shaunessy found it to be an anti-convulsant against Tetanus, which may seem to cloud the issue. It is also a good anti-epileptic and centrally acting analgesic even effective for migraines as well as an anti-depressant and anxiolytic.
Dr. Tod Mikuriya has written that it promotes homeostasis or normalization of function in many various systems of the body and also modulates or moderates emotional hyperactivity such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, often known simply as PTSD.
I had heard or read about California marijuana doctors reporting that it was effective for the treatment of ADD and autism. These were single or isolated reports because physicians seemed to be reluctant to even talk about what the U.S. government constantly bleats about a "dangerous addicting drug", marijuana.
Dr. Mikuriya reported in 2006 in O'Shaunessy marijuana magazine that a 15-year old child was brought to him by his mother. He had been diagnosed with ADD and psychoses and had been given over 30 different kinds of drugs including pulverized kitchen sink, most of which made him combative and worse. He had used marijuana at age 11 with older friends.
It had a calming effect but his use brought police action and three court ordered rehabs which really drove him crazy. His mother found Dr. Mikuriya who prescribed Marinol which worked. A judge would not let him use it, but a second judge did allow it and he got a marijuana permit and smoked it with dramatic improved results.
I decided a search of the Internet was advisable and I typed up marijuana autism with the surprising finding that the Autism Research Institute posted an article by Bernard Rinland Ph.D. Medical Marijuana: a valuable treatment for autism in 2003. The site discussed a letter from a mother of a violently autistic child. A friend suggested a marijuana brownie cookie which in the words of the mother "saved my child's life and my family's life."
The article continues to state that many parents in the same situation have reported marked success.
A second article from the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis (AAMC) in 2002 written by Jay R. Cavanaugh Ph.D. titled Medical Cannabis and Brain Disorders reported effective use as follows: Bipolar disease (81 patients or 20%)ADHD/ADD (53 patients or 13%)Multiple Sclerosis (32 patients or 8%)and neuropathy (35 patients or 9%).
Other interesting findings were PTSD (30 patients at 7%) and obsessive compulsive disorder (2.4 or 6%). They also reported successful treatment of Tourettes, Parkinson's, and Autism (10 patients or 2%)
It is time we got our medical dinosaurs M.D.S. out of the closet and educated to the marvelous benefits of this safe effective NEW-OLD medicine.
Phillip Leveque has spent his life as a Combat Infantryman, Physician, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist. He is an expert in medical marijuana treatment.[/FONT][/I]0 -
It's worth noting that autoflowering strains are making a lot of progress in terms of quality and they would literally grow like weeds outdoors in Ireland all year 'round and could possibly be adopted by grain farmers.
Getting the IFA onside would really bring the issue to the next level.
Are you confusing California with Ireland? I can't see any growth on plants grow outdoors in this weather even our native plants.
If you could grow strains outdoors all year round in our climate where is the capital investment coming from to purchase harvest machinery and provide security to the fields?0 -
Advertisement
-
exactly 30,000 views, course now it'll be 30,001. lot of interest in economics on the boards.
0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »Are you confusing California with Ireland? I can't see any growth on plants grow outdoors in this weather even our native plants.
If you could grow strains outdoors all year round in our climate where is the capital investment coming from to purchase harvest machinery and provide security to the fields?
The plants being bred as "autoflowering" are derived from ruderalis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_ruderalis
It is traditionally much less potent but in recent years they've managed to improve it substantially through breeding. It's quite hardy and grows in most climates though you're right about the current weather, I doubt anything would grow in it.
As for the capital investment and security, that's the business of the private farmers who choose to grow it. It would be very lucrative I'd imagine and any initial investment would be recouped due to the prices that could be charged for the product.0 -
As for the capital investment and security, that's the business of the private farmers who choose to grow it. It would be very lucrative I'd imagine and any initial investment would be recouped due to the prices that could be charged for the product.
Greenhouse production still works in this weather. One of the largest production units if a little old is based in Russia and still produces salad crops.
It doesn't really make sense if you have to maintain constant security and moveable security resources at that (farmers rotate fields and rent land), your talking about seriously major costs to impact on the final production costs and if the current providers can provide as good as product at a cheaper rate than what you can produce it in Ireland at well whats the point? I seriously think field production isn't a viable option. Just sounds like another semi state hair brain scheme like burning peat to produce energy.0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »Greenhouse production still works in this weather. One of the largest production units if a little old is based in Russia and still produces salad crops.
It doesn't really make sense if you have to maintain constant security and moveable security resources at that (farmers rotate fields and rent land), your talking about seriously major costs to impact on the final production costs and if the current providers can provide as good as product at a cheaper rate than what you can produce it in Ireland at well whats the point? I seriously think field production isn't a viable option. Just sounds like another semi state hair brain scheme like burning peat to produce energy.
Absolutely, I'm just throwing ideas out. I've no experience in large scale farming whatsoever. It would be interesting to see how commercial production would be done in a country with our climate
. Surely it wouldn't be too different to Holland as they have a similar climate to us and produce it commercially.0 -
ordinarywoman wrote: »[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in answer to information pertaining to ADD/ADHD/AUTISM...this is one of many articles i have already posted about contained on Granny Storms list...its actually on the first page...
Saying you posted a reference before isnt actually posting one or proving yu did so.
This isnt your work! Are you Phil Leveque ? You just cut and pasted this didnt you?
http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=319&z=1
WHERE and WHEN did you post that reference? the Granny Story reference seems to only be cited on pro marajuana sites and does nt appear to be medical research.(MOLALLA, Ore.) - It has been known for at least 2,000 years that Marijuana/Cannabis is a psychotropic that affects the brain and central nervous system.
so 2,000 years ago they had theories on brain chemistry and the central nervous system?The first western references seem to be that it was a euphoric, in other words a central nervous system stimulant not like cocaine or amphetamines but a gentler pleasant stimulant.
that is a linguistic anachronismDr. W.B. O'Shaunessy found it to be an anti-convulsant against Tetanus, which may seem to cloud the issue. It is also a good anti-epileptic and centrally acting analgesic even effective for migraines as well as an anti-depressant and anxiolytic.
Where is this doctors research published?Dr. Tod Mikuriya
Ditto. Here is a list of his publications:
http://www.mikuriya.com/can_write.html
Where does it have anything about ADD or ADHD?I had heard or read about California marijuana doctors reporting that it was effective for the treatment of ADD and autism.
What doctor where?These were single or isolated reports because physicians seemed to be reluctant to even talk about what the U.S. government constantly bleats about a "dangerous addicting drug", marijuana.
i.e. anecdotal and not proper research.Dr. Mikuriya reported in 2006 in O'Shaunessy marijuana magazine that a 15-year old child was brought to him by his mother. He had been diagnosed with ADD and psychoses and had been given over 30 different kinds of drugs including pulverized kitchen sink, most of which made him combative and worse. He had used marijuana at age 11 with older friends.
I suppose you refer to this?
http://www.mikuriya.com/cw_firstline.html
According to his mother, “They didn’t say he was dyslexic, they said he ‘had trouble processing things.’ He wasn’t acting wild in school. He was always well behaved. But they said he had ADD because he couldn’t concentrate and process things.”
No subsequent diagnoses of ADD is apparent.
This isn't evidence that cannabis is a proven treatment for ADD.I decided a search of the Internet was advisable and I typed up marijuana autism with the surprising finding that the Autism Research Institute posted an article by Bernard Rinland Ph.D. Medical Marijuana: a valuable treatment for autism in 2003.
Can't find it. Rinland was indeed a world authority on autism. Here is the checklist influenced by him:
http://www.autism.com/pdf/providers/adams_biomed_summary.pdf
This summary is dedicated to the memory of Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., for his pioneering work on autism research and advocacy, and for inspiring many others to follow in his footsteps.
Go to page 3
Fourteen treatments are suggested
Cannabis isn't one of them!The site discussed a letter from a mother of a violently autistic child. A friend suggested a marijuana brownie cookie which in the words of the mother "saved my child's life and my family's life."
Anecdotal. Not medical evidence.The article continues to state that many parents in the same situation have reported marked success.
AnecdotalA second article from the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis (AAMC) in 2002 written by Jay R. Cavanaugh Ph.D. titled Medical Cannabis and Brain Disorders reported effective use as follows: Bipolar disease (81 patients or 20%)ADHD/ADD (53 patients or 13%)Multiple Sclerosis (32 patients or 8%)and neuropathy (35 patients or 9%).
Yes i have heard of similar peer reviewed research. But none of it is on ADHD as you claim!Other interesting findings were PTSD (30 patients at 7%) and obsessive compulsive disorder (2.4 or 6%). They also reported successful treatment of Tourettes, Parkinson's, and Autism (10 patients or 2%)
Where is the publication? American Alliance for Medical Cannabis (AAMC) ???
i just cant seem to find it in Medline or any standard medical journal citation Database
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
nope
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/
nopePhillip Leveque has spent his life as a Combat Infantryman, Physician, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist. He is an expert in medical marijuana treatment.
Oh so it is Leveque? Try looking up "argument from authority" would you?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Absolutely, I'm just throwing ideas out. I've no experience in large scale farming whatsoever. It would be interesting to see how commercial production would be done in a country with our climate
. Surely it wouldn't be too different to Holland as they have a similar climate to us and produce it commercially.
Stoners would come and rob your crops. It can be grown indoors under lights. Again more recent criminal and recreationally driven varieties such as super-skunk or medijuana can have up to 25% THC. In fact it would be quite simple for people to grow it in their house in 8 to 9 weeks. If all the so called pro cannabis lobby did this then they could make it free and give it away. But what would probably happen is that they just can't resist selling some of it. Or maybe like home brew they just are to lazy or disinterested to grow it. It isn't rocket science.0 -
https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/23575-new-420-page-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010/
was previously posted on page 45 of this thread, and as was previously stated it is a 420 page long reference list documentating articles writen by specialists, doctors pharmacologists,psyciatrists, and ordinary people.
it is also done from a-z by medical condition for ease of reference so the information pertaining epilipsy and migraines..is under epilipsy and migraines...so as you so nicely said to someone else...you can do your own reserch....0 -
If all the so called pro cannabis lobby did this then they could make it free and give it away. But what would probably happen is that they just can't resist selling some of it. Or maybe like home brew they just are to lazy or disinterested to grow it. It isn't rocket science.
So you have never heard of Rick Simpson then no?
i'll make it easy for you...he's on you tube..Run From The Cure...you'll just love refuting all the anacdotal evidence in it...
http://www.phoenixtears.ca or here is his website0 -
Of the many factitious arguments against the legalisation of Cannabis, the one that stands out the most is the gateway drug one.
Fact is, if I had to buy my pints of some little scumbag on the corner, chances are he will also sell more lucrative substances, ergo, making alcohol also a gateway drug.
but let's not kid ourselves, Cannabis isn't all rainbows and candy drops, it is a mind altering substance, and with that comes obvious health risks, both physical and mental. Some people, I include myself, do not get the nice effects from cannabis that are generally reported, I get anxious and twitchy, I get panic attacks. ironically if I have consumed alcohol I do tend to get a nice effects.
Others like people with latent mental health issues are also at greater risk when consuming mind altering substances, though, Alcohol is also in this category so it is a slightly flakey argument against legalisation.
The economic angle is the best option in arguing for its legalisation. Industrial hemp is truly a wonder and it is a crime that it is not utilised to its full potential.
What I believe we should do is take the same approach as Holland and Canada have, and that's a policy of tolerance. we need to free up our Gardai to go after real criminals. Yes, some pot dealers are real criminals, but if we are allowed to grow 4 to 10 plants "legally" in our own homes the price would drop off and it would remove most of the profit motive of selling it. it would also increase quality removing the crud people sell to youths these days that is sprayed with all sorts of crap like glass dust or wall paper paste to weigh it down, surely a bigger health risk than the weed itself.
Thanks for reading
Rich.0 -
On the subject of drugs being addictive ....So is cannabis.
I have perused the four links you posted on this part of the topic and cannot access the results of any study which addresses it.
Three of the links were useless and the fourth I looked at would not allow me access .... unless I purchased something or other. At least one was a promotion page for some book which I have no intention of buying.
So if you have any links that have studies and their results, available for reading, it would be helpful if you post them.
I am no more interested in unsubstantiated opinion on this matter than you have expressed yourself to be on other matters in this thread.
Let's see the studies on which you base the above quoted statement please.
A sample of the links you posted:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYT-48CFM80-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F15%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_origin=search&_cdi=4843&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1585828870&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9a4a48154086a11244ce81b472efd324&searchtype=a#toc3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9544851.x/abstract
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S01406736980502110 -
i found some links the work for you...that dont ask for registration on every page..
ADDICTION RISK - PHYSICAL
Women's Guide to the UofC (no date)
http://wguide.uchica...9substance.html
Cannabis Basics (no date)
http://www.erowid.or...is_basics.shtml
10 Things Every Parent, Teenager & Teacher Should Know About Marijuana (4th Question) (no date)
http://www.erowid.or...is_flyer1.shtml
Marijuana Myths, Claim No. 9 (no date)
http://www.erowid.or...bis_myth9.shtml
Excerpt from the Merck Manual (excerpt - 1987)
http://www.ukcia.org...earch/merck.htm
Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances (full - 1990)
http://www.ukcia.org...ch/addictiv.htm
Anandamide, an Endogenous Cannabinoid, Has a Very Low Physical Dependence Potential (full - 1998)
http://jpet.aspetjou...ourcetype=HWCIT
Dependency and Cannabis (full - 1999)
http://www.mikuriya.com/cw_depend.html
Chronic Morphine Modulates the Contents of the Endocannabinoid, 2-Arachidonoyl Glycerol, in Rat Brain (full - 2003)
http://www.nature.co...l/1300117a.html
Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001�2007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants (full - 2007)
http://www.harmreduc.../content/4/1/16
Lack of behavioral sensitization after repeated exposure to THC in mice and comparison to methamphetamine (full - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....62/?tool=pubmed
Merck Manual - Marijuana (Cannabis) (excerpt - 2008)
http://www.merck.com...onabinol&alt=sh
Study of 4000 indicates marijuana discourages use of hard drugs. (news - 2008)
http://www.csdp.org/...medicalmj08.htm
Adolescent Exposure to Chronic Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Blocks Opiate Dependence in Maternally Deprived Rats (abst - 2009)
http://www.nature.co...npp200970a.html
The Surprising Effect Of Marijuana On Morphine Dependence (news - 2009)
http://www.redorbit....ine_dependence/
Active Ingredient In Cannabis Eliminates Morphine Dependence In Rats
(news- 2009)
http://www.scienceda...90706090440.htm0 -
ordinarywoman wrote: »https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/23575-new-420-page-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010/
was previously posted on page 45 of this thread, and as was previously stated it is a 420 page long reference list documentating articles writen by specialists, doctors pharmacologists,psyciatrists, and ordinary people.
Fair enough
Care to quote from ANY page in this reference showing how it supports your claim.
I could just as easily claim "it is in the 1000 page long Bible I have". the person who claims it has to show WHERE it is.it is also done from a-z by medical condition for ease of reference so the information pertaining epilipsy and migraines..is under epilipsy and migraines...so as you so nicely said to someone else...you can do your own reserch....
I never said that if I made the claim! The point is that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence. You cant just shift the burden onto someone else to prove your claim!ordinarywoman wrote: »If all the so called pro cannabis lobby did this then they could make it free and give it away. But what would probably happen is that they just can't resist selling some of it. Or maybe like home brew they just are to lazy or disinterested to grow it. It isn't rocket science.
So you have never heard of Rick Simpson then no?
No. Noticed the name in this thread but never heard of him. One example does not prove that it is true for all stoners by the way. a counter example is sufficient to falsify a claim but an example is not sufficient to verify it.i'll make it easy for you...he's on you tube..Run From The Cure...you'll just love refuting all the anacdotal evidence in it...
http://www.phoenixtears.ca or here is his website
does not work that way either!
If you make the claim yo9u support it. it isnt good enough to say "mr x says it is true . go and ask him"I have perused the four links you posted on this part of the topic and cannot access the results of any study which addresses it.
Three of the links were useless and the fourth I looked at would not allow me access .... unless I purchased something or other. At least one was a promotion page for some book which I have no intention of buying.
So if you have any links that have studies and their results, available for reading, it would be helpful if you post them.
I am no more interested in unsubstantiated opinion on this matter than you have expressed yourself to be on other matters in this thread.
Try pressing the button marker "abstract". It should tell you enough.
If not
Try looking up "inter library loans " or using a proper research library which does have full access to medical journals.
Let's see the studies on which you base the above quoted statement please.
A sample of the links you posted:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYT-48CFM80-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F15%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_origin=search&_cdi=4843&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1585828870&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9a4a48154086a11244ce81b472efd324&searchtype=a#toc3
Click on "abstract" yields bold added by me
Abstract
The expression of central cannabinoid (CB1) receptors in tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) containing neurones was demonstrated. Co-localisation was present in different brain areas responsible for reward-related mechanisms. The immunohistochemical investigations have shown that co-localisation is present in parts of mesolimbic-mesocortical dopaminergic system like nucleus accumbens (Nacb), ventral tegmental area (VTA), in the striatum, pyriform cortex, respectively. The results suggest a functional role of CB1 receptors in cannabis addiction by acting directly on reward-related structures.
Hint : The journal title is "addiction". It is an article in a journal about addiction studies with the title "Cannabis use and public health: assessing the burden"
If you want to I will reproduce the conclusions but do you really think they will be " Cannabis is not addictive"?
Abstract: Suggests that more attention should be paid to the public health impact of cannabis use, especially by young adults in many contemporary developed societies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, the European Union and the United States. On the available epidemiological evidence there are a number of probable adverse health effects related to both acute intoxication and chronic ingestion that could potentially produce a substantial public health burden if the prevalence of cannabis use increased. (Quotes from original text)
[/quote]
Hint: the title:Adverse effects of cannabis
The Lancet, Volume 352, Issue 9140, Pages 1611-1616
W.Hall, N.Solowi
By the way there are other papers showing positive results on pain relief etc. but Im specifically here addressing the claim of it helping ADD or autism and the possible harmfull effects of making it freely available as a recreational drug.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/pubmed/20715479?dopt=AbstractPlus
[Cannabis use disorder and treatment of dependence].
[Article in Japanese]
Abstract
Cannabis, known as marijuana, has been used illicit drug by young people in the world. In our country, the number of user for cannabis is recently increased gradually. It has been suggested that regular use of cannabis might induce several adverse effects such as dependence syndrome, because delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol(THC), a primary psychoactive component of cannabis, stimulates brain-reward areas through the activation of cannabinoid(CB1) receptor and induce drug-seeking behavior. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate and establish the medications for cannabis dependence. In fact, controlled laboratory studies and small open-label clinical studies have shown that several candidates of medications for cannabinoid dependence are identified. Further investigation in controlled clinical trials may produce the therapeutic benefit for treatment about cannabis-related problems.
PMID: 20715479 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]0 -
ADD/ ADHD
ADHD by Ryan P (anecdotal - no date)
http://www.rxmarijua...ments/ADHD4.htm
Marijuana and ADD Therapeutic uses of Medical Marijuana in the treatment of ADD (no date)
http://www.onlinepot...cal/add&mmj.htm
Recipe For Trouble (anecdotal/ news - 2002 )
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain503022.shtml
Association between cannabinoid receptor gene (CNR1) and childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spanish male alcoholic patients (full - 2003)
http://www.nature.co...l/4001278a.html
Cannabinoids effective in animal model of hyperactivity disorder (abst - 2003)
http://www.cannabis-...el.php?id=162#4
Cannabis 'Scrips to Calm Kids? (news - 2004)
http://www.foxnews.c...,117541,00.html
Fitness to drive in spite (because) of THC (abst - 2007)
http://www.unboundme...ause__of_THC%5D
Science: THC normalized impaired psychomotor performance and mood in a patient with hyperactivity disorder (news - 2007)
http://www.cannabis-...ikel.php?id=254
Association of the Cannabinoid Receptor Gene (CNR1) With ADHD and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (full - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....76/?tool=pubmed
Cannabis Improves Symptoms of ADHD (full - 2008)
http://www.cannabis-...n_2008_01_1.pdf
Cannabis use and adult ADHD symptoms. (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18242878
Autism, ADD, ADHD and Marijuana Therapy (news - 2008)
http://www.entheolog...iewer.asp?a=319
Why I Give My 9-year-old Pot (anecdotal/news - 2009)
http://www.doublex.c...-9-year-old-pot
Why I Give My 9-Year-Old Pot, Part II (news/anecdotal - 2009)
http://www.doublex.c...old-pot-part-ii
now i can go on quoting these all day...but am very sure i'd annoy the heck outa people and i have no intention of doing that.you(isaw) have yet to make one solid valid arguement not to consider canabis for monitary reasons...which is what this thread is about.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Completely agree. Was a fun thread when it was actual discussion rather than page after page of childish spam.
Why don't those who are pro cannabis set up a chapter of NORML in Ireland? All you need are five people with a real belief to collaborate to do so. Are there five such people or is it all just talk?0 -
i already am a member of norml,and the BMCR,and other pro-medicinal majuana organisations.I have read every article i have posted here, all of which have been related to the dicussion at the time,.My intention was not to spam.0
-
ordinarywoman wrote: »i already am a member of norml,and the BMCR,and other pro-medicinal majuana organisations.I have read every article i have posted here, all of which have been related to the dicussion at the time,.My intention was not to spam.
I appreciate the links you posted. I wasn't referring to your posts as spam.0 -
ISAW, with reference to your post #746, I would suggest you follow your own dictate and
"If you make the claim yo9u support it."
Belatedly quoting from abstracts of studies whose funding, methods, and actual results are not available does nothing at all to support your statement that cannabis is addictive.
I requested access to the results of studies on which you based your opinion.
If you cannot link to those studies, then that implies you have not read or studied them.
That alone gives me a fair understanding about your expressed opinion.
For instance you quote the following supposedly in support of your opinion .....Abstract: Suggests that more attention should be paid to the public health impact of cannabis use, especially by young adults in many contemporary developed societies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, the European Union and the United States. On the available epidemiological evidence there are a number of probable adverse health effects related to both acute intoxication and chronic ingestion that could potentially produce a substantial public health burden if the prevalence of cannabis use increased. (Quotes from original text)
Not a mention of addiction ......
Not what I might call a proof of your opinion ..... or even remotely related.
So again I call on you to show the evidence (so that it may be studied), on which you based your opinion.
Lets see the studies and their results. No more little snippets, thank you.
regards.0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »ISAW, with reference to your post #746, I would suggest you follow your own dictate and
"If you make the claim yo9u support it."
which claim do you say i did not support.
As far as i am aware the claim of cannabis assisting ADD was the one I was opposing.
If anything I made a counter claim.
The person posted some references to papers and i showed ho w they dont support their claim.
I stated there was oublished material as regards addiction. I produced it. The claim was made that they are not entire papers. It isn't necessary to produce entire papers but a reference to them and to the fact that the content supports the claim. Furthermore the papers are not available just by googling. You have to go to a library and read them.
I can do so and have done so.
I can produce the relevant tract from the paper supporting my claim but this isn't necessary. the abstract says what the paper claim and if necessary I add in the relevent bit from the conclusion.Belatedly quoting
One can only quote after publication so it must be belated.from abstracts of studies
The abstract is a shoirt summary. if ujit tell you the paper is about addiction to cannabis then the paper IS about that!whose funding, methods, and actual results are not available
They ARE available! Just not from a simple google search! Any research library or aggregate journal datbase will have them. If you go to any public library there is an international system called "inter library loans" where you can request any publication anywhere. It might take a while to get the printed copy but anyone can do it.does nothing at all to support your statement that cannabis is addictive.
Go anmd read a book will you. If I claim something is published in a peer review journal and yu go and see it is then it clearly does support my claim!I requested access to the results of studies on which you based your opinion.
Go to any library/ Most will jave back issues of the Lancet or British medical journal. If not they will have interlibrary loans or access to a database of journals.If you cannot link to those studies, then that implies you have not read or studied them.
I can link to them. I have access to a research library. Sadly much of the pharmachem and brain science journals are expensive to subscribe to e.g. maybe 10k a year for a subscription. But even avoiding these journals ( and I didn't quot any of them) there is still ample peer reviewed and published evidence.That alone gives me a fair understanding about your expressed opinion.
It isnt just my opinion that cannabnis is addictive. Try using "cannabis addiction " min google scholar.
If you cant get a print online look at the person whos name is on the paper
for example
Investigating the effects of a craving induction procedure on cognitive bias in cannabis users
You wil find is by
Eastwood, B., Bradley, B.P., Mogg, K., Tyler, E. and Field, M. (2010) Investigating the effects of a craving induction procedure on cognitive bias in cannabis users. Addiction Research and Theory, 18, (1), 97-109
If you cant get addiction research and theory
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4BM92JN-3&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F09%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1587538184&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=de9bd5e81123b3e62e076f992c9f70d0&searchtype=a
tells you the researchers are in the university of southhampton.
Looking for the psychology depart ment staff and finding their publications brings you to
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64504/
If you wish you can contact professor Bradley and ask him.For instance you quote the following supposedly in support of your opinion .....
Not a mention of addiction ......
It was about adverse effects of Cannabis. "more attention should be paid to the public health impact of cannabis use" which is the general discussion of this thread i.e. that making it freely available for recreational use is something we should do.Not what I might call a proof of your opinion ..... or even remotely related.
Wrong! It is related to the discussion about free availability for recreational use!So again I call on you to show the evidence (so that it may be studied), on which you based your opinion.
Opinion ( not necessarily MY opinion) : Cannabis should be made freely available for recreational use.
Evidence : Lancet and plenty of other publications which say "more attention should be paid to the public health impact of cannabis use"Lets see the studies and their results. No more little snippets, thank you.
regards.
If I was to post the entirety of every paper supporting the general claim it would take up several thousand pages!
that is why there are abstract databases in the first place! You can go and read the research and say whether it supports the case or not. It is widely published in health and medical literature. a single doctors opinion isn't sufficient! If you want to deny the broad swathe of publications attesting to addiction or to adverse effects then that is your problem not mine.ordinarywoman wrote: »i already am a member of norml,and the BMCR,and other pro-medicinal majuana organisations.I have read every article i have posted here, all of which have been related to the dicussion at the time,.My intention was not to spam.
i accept that. You seem open minded. But your literature is biased in source.
You may be interested in these:
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1169801/?site_locale=en_GB
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199581481.do0 -
The point is that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence. You cant just shift the burden onto someone else to prove your claim!which claim do you say i did not support.
As far as i am aware the claim of cannabis assisting ADD was the one I was opposing.
If anything I made a counter claim.
The person posted some references to papers and i showed ho w they dont support their claim.
I stated there was oublished material as regards addiction. I produced it. The claim was made that they are not entire papers. It isn't necessary to produce entire papers but a reference to them and to the fact that the content supports the claim. Furthermore the papers are not available just by googling. You have to go to a library and read them.
So what your saying is, you don't need to produce all your evidence on this forum, we need to go to a library.
therefore using logic and reason i have deduced that what you said is 'do your own research into my claims [sic]'
your right, it isn't necessary, and neither is my replying to your posts, which i'm not gonna do any moreI can produce the relevant tract from the paper supporting my claim but this isn't necessary. the abstract says what the paper claim and if necessary I add in the relevent bit from the conclusion.
NASA had something printed in one of the most prestigous peer reviewed journals recently didn't they, i notice how everyone just took them results as fact with no discussion about it. :rolleyes:If you go to any public library there is an international system called "inter library loans" where you can request any publication anywhere. It might take a while to get the printed copy but anyone can do it.
Go anmd read a book will you. If I claim something is published in a peer review journal and yu go and see it is then it clearly does support my claim!
so if the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is addictive, i am gonna ask exactly how addictive you think can prove it is.it isnt just my opinion that cannabnis is addictive. Try using "cannabis addiction " min google scholar.
More addictive than crystal meth?
More addictive than heroin?
More addictive than coke?
More addictive than coca cola?
More addictive than tea?
More addictive than caffeine?
More addictive than solpadeine?
so what they have said is, results inconclusive, and need more data.Opinion ( not necessarily MY opinion) : Cannabis should be made freely available for recreational use.
Evidence : Lancet and plenty of other publications which say "more attention should be paid to the public health impact of cannabis use"0 -
i accept that. You seem open minded. But your literature is biased in source.
You may be interested in these:
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1169801/?site_locale=en_GB
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199581481.do [/QUOTE]
i checked out your two links again i would have to read the conclusions...the first one gave an excerpt of the first ten pages on the history of marjuana, the conclusions were not available ,but find it interesting that you would suggest the second book...considering the name and the contents
Part I: Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond Stalemate
1: Introduction
2: The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis Use
Annex : Health Advice on Cannabis Use
3: The Cannabis Prohibition Regime: Patterns of Use, Markets and Policies
4: The Range of Reforms within the System: Softening the Prohibition
5: The Impacts of Cannabis Policy Reforms within the Current Drug Control Regime
6: Beyond the Current Drug Conventions
7: Paths Forward from the Impasse
Part II: Conclusions and Recommendations
Annex: Research Priorities
Part III: Draft Framework Convention on Cannabis Control
References
About the Authors and the Beckley Foundation
I see your point about my information being biased...but information i provided the conclusions were all visable. so in relation to addicion from the mereck manual,(online medical library)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The following is an excerpt from the Merck Manual, the US military's field guide to medicine: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] ...no physical dependence [as a result of cannabis usage]; no abstinence syndrome when the drug is discontinued. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continuous basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with it's obvious connotations probably is misapplied. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Many of the claims regarding severe biological impact are still uncertain, but some others are not. Despite the acceptance of the 'new' dangers of marijuana, there is still little evidence of biologic damage even among relatively heavy users. This is true even in the areas intensively investigated, such aspulmonary, immunologic, and reproductive function.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
http://www.ukcia.org/research/merck.htm if you want to see it for yourself...but if you had read any of the links i have provided then you would already know this...
and then there is this..From Erowid
4 Q. Is Marijuana Addictive?
A. No, it is not [8]. Most users are moderate consumers who smoke it
socially to relax. We now know that 10% of our population have
"addictive personalities" and they are neither more nor less
likely to overindulge in cannabis than in anything else. On a
relative scale, marijuana is less habit forming than either sugar
or chocolate but more so than anchovies. Sociologists report a general
pattern of marijuana use that peaks in the early adult years, followed
by a period of levelling off and then a gradual reduction in use [9].
5 Q. Has Anyone Ever Died From Smoking Marijuana?
A. No; not one single case, not ever. THC is one of the few chemicals for
which there is no known toxic amount [10]. The federal agency NIDA says
that autopsies reveal that 75 people per year are high on marijuana
when they die: this does not mean that marijuana caused or was even a
factor in their deaths. The chart below compares the number of deaths
attributable to selected substances in a typical year:
Tobacco...............................340,000 - 395,000
Alcohol (excluding crime/accidents).............125,000+
Drug Overdose (prescription)............24,000 - 27,000
Drug Overdose (illegal)...................3,800 - 5,200
Marijuana.............................................0
*Source: U.S. Government Bureau of Mortality Statistics, 1987
6 Q. Does Marijuana Lead to Crime and/or Hard Drugs?
A. No [11]. The only crime most marijuana users commit is that they use
marijuana. And, while many people who abuse dangerous drugs also smoke
marijuana, the old "stepping stone" theory is now discredited, since
virtually all of them started out "using" legal drugs like sugar,
coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
7 Q. Does Marijuana Make People Violent?
A. No. In fact, Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger once
told Congress just the opposite - that it leads to non-violence and
pacifism [12]. If he was telling the truth (which he and key federal
agencies have not often done regarding marijuana), then re-legalizing
marijuana should be considered as one way to curb violence in our
cities. The simple fact is that marijuana does not change your basic
personality. The government says that over 20 million Americans still
smoke it, probably including some of the nicest people you know
I find you seem to use the term 'stoner' in a derogitary way, as if you would call anyone who has a glass of wine with their dinner an alco. Would you call a cancer patient that takes hemp oil in hope that it will ease their pain, or help them over nausea a druggie??
Or a MS patient?? and if you condone the current legislation you continue to make innocent, sick people who chose an alternative way of trying to heal themselves take less than adequate medication and then call call us criminals.
To make the statement 'stoners will rob you of your crops' after all your nit picking and ripping apart of other posts shows a lot.
So yea, we can agree on one thing you can bet your backside i'm a PROUD and BIASED STONER!0 -
More addictive than crystal meth?
More addictive than heroin?
More addictive than coke?
More addictive than coca cola?
More addictive than tea?
More addictive than caffeine?
More addictive than solpadeine?
so what they have said is, results inconclusive, and need more data.
My close relative is so heavily addicted to cannabis that they get suicidal if they don't have.
Out of my large group of stoners, I think only about two people made it out unscathed, the rest of us have picked up a long litany of the usual; social anxieties, panic attacks, disorders, etc, etc
Affects from use of cannabis vary from person to person and are also subtle and range wildly from short-term to long-term. Seems very hard to pin down and get accurate unbiased stats from anywhere.
There is the argument about moderated use, but you could say its fine to sniff glue in moderation.
Not on some crusade here, just common sense and experience.0 -
So what your saying is, you don't need to produce all your evidence on this forum, we need to go to a library.
No! What i am saying is that peer reviewed research says something. i dont have to provide you with a copy of all papers. It is sufficient to cite the papers and quote the relevant part which supports my position. that is entirely different to others googling a term and citing what comes up which is not peer reviewed and which they have not even bothered to locate or read up on.therefore using logic and reason i have deduced that what you said is 'do your own research into my claims [sic]'
No! citing a reference is not the same as not providing sources to research!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty; to attribute to other authors the ideas they have previously expressed, rather than give the appearance to the work's readers that the work's authors are the original wellsprings of those ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method
The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing
Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.
Usually ( since it is peer reviewed) citing the journal and abstract is enough to make a convincing argument. for example a paper on cannabis in a Journal for addiction studies is hardly going to be about the need to make cannibis freely available for recreational use ( although it could be about that).your right, it isn't necessary, and neither is my replying to your posts, which i'm not gonna do any more
You can run away from the debate if you wish but that wont support your position. As i have stated i am neither for or against the issue. I f anything i support legalisation or decriminalisation to some degree . But whay I personally think does not matter. EVIDENCE is what matters. If anyone is for legalisation they had better be clear on the arguments because they are going to have to face much stronger arguments than those I have presented.NASA had something printed in one of the most prestigous peer reviewed journals recently didn't they,
I dont know did they? About cannabis?i notice how everyone just took them results as fact with no discussion about it. :rolleyes:
Just because you state that does not make it true! But thisis EXACTLY the point I am making! If NASA or stoners or anyone says we shoudl legalise something or there are WMD in Iraq or Saddam supported Al Kayda we should ask "where is the evidence"so if the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is addictive,
Actually it isnt! That was a counter argument to the idea that it is all sweetness and light and helps ADD and autism sufferers. If anyone produced any evidence it did so i probably would be up to my doctors asking for a perscription.i am gonna ask exactly how addictive you think can prove it is.
More addictive than crystal meth?
More addictive than heroin?
More addictive than coke?
More addictive than coca cola?
More addictive than tea?
More addictive than caffeine?
More addictive than solpadeine?
But now you are on a slippery slope! Before it was "no evidence" now it is "how addictive"
Dependence isn't the only problem in the literature. Psychotic episodes are also listed and other problems. Nicotine is probably more addictive than heroine. it is more harmful than pure heroine anyway since it is a poison but heroine does no permanent harm. But that isn't a sufficient reason to ban it.so what they have said is, results inconclusive, and need more data.
Not when loads of people produce similar results! and you are "shifting the burden" . Legalisation requires evidence. counter evidence of harmful effects are just cream on top for the opposition.0 -
Advertisement
-
ordinarywoman wrote: »
i checked out your two links again i would have to read the conclusions...the first one gave an excerpt of the first ten pages on the history of marjuana, the conclusions were not available ,
I'll Pm you
but find it interesting that you would suggest the second book...considering the name and the contents
Why? I believe in proper research. I am not biased. I am not against cannabius. I am undecided on legalisation.Despite the acceptance of the 'new' dangers of marijuana, there is still little evidence of biologic damage even among relatively heavy users. This is true even in the areas intensively investigated, such aspulmonary, immunologic, and reproductive function.
This is true for pure heroine. Is that sufficient reason to make heroine legal?
So then why cannabis?http://www.ukcia.org/research/merck.htm if you want to see it for yourself...but if you had read any of the links i have provided then you would already know this...
ukcia = cannabis internet activist = biased source!
Even this pro legalisation source says:
Downsides can include
http://www.ukcia.org/culture/effects/effects.php
Paranoia: Fear of what others think of you, or of who you are. Again, not something to overplay but this is a fairly common thing to happen from time to time. If it happens a lot, cannabis isn't for you.
Forgetfulness: You easily forget things when stoned, especially things which have just happened or more frequently that you have just thought about.
Laziness: Cannabis is good for slobbing out and watching the world go by, be careful not to let it do that too much
If ever there is an argument for controlling a substance they just provided it!
see? I did read it.and then there is this..From Erowid
4 Q. Is Marijuana Addictive?
A. No, it is not [8].
source: 8. Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency. Costa Rican Study,
1980; Jamaican Study, 1975; Nixon Blue Ribbon Report, 1972, et. al.
9. Source: Psychology Today, Newsweek, et.al.
They are not proper references. What studies?
http://www.maps.org/mmj/russo2002.pdf
references them on page 3 and 4
ALL of these three studies were on recreational use and not controlled trials on medicinal benefits!
The above paper concludes with the benefits but also lists risk of heart attack. And it is in controlled medical environment and not recreational use.Most users are moderate consumers who smoke it
socially to relax. We now know that 10% of our population have
"addictive personalities" and they are neither more nor less
likely to overindulge in cannabis than in anything else. On a
relative scale, marijuana is less habit forming than either sugar
or chocolate but more so than anchovies. Sociologists report a general
pattern of marijuana use that peaks in the early adult years, followed
by a period of levelling off and then a gradual reduction in use [9].
Again an incomplete reference to Psychology today. Her is a complete one:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/200907/how-much-pot-is-too-much-pot
When does substance use become substance abuse? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV-TR (2000), which is the most widely used psychiatric classification system, lists 8 Cannabis Disorders. They are: Cannabis Dependence, Cannabis Abuse, Cannabis Intoxication, Cannabis Intoxication Delirium, Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Delusions, Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Hallucinations, Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder, and Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. The diagnostic criteria for Cannabis Abuse, for example, are
1. recurrent use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home
2. recurrent use in situations that are physically harmful, like driving a car
3. recurrent substance-related legal problems
4. continued substance abuse despite recurrent social or interpersonal problems exacerbated by the effects.
In other words, Cannabis Abuse is considered a mental disorder when it impairs social or occupational functioning. In a teenager or college student, this usually takes the form of poor school performance, change of friends, and/or conflict with the law.5 Q. Has Anyone Ever Died From Smoking Marijuana?
A. No; not one single case, not ever. THC is one of the few chemicals for
which there is no known toxic amount [10].
No source given! what is given is Source: All univerity medical studies: UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.
Where are they?
By the way pure heroin is not toxic.
Tobacco...............................340,000 - 395,000
Alcohol (excluding crime/accidents).............125,000+
Drug Overdose (prescription)............24,000 - 27,000
Drug Overdose (illegal)...................3,800 - 5,200
Marijuana.............................................0
So why not make all of them illegal instead of legalising cannabis?I find you seem to use the term 'stoner' in a derogitary way,
Your opinion. I use it for people who frequently like getting stoned for recreational purposes. I have had many such friends.Would you call a cancer patient that takes hemp oil in hope that it will ease their pain, or help them over nausea a druggie??
Or a MS patient??
Having been in one of the above and having related to people in the other group and fundraised for them as well, I have to stress that medicinal use and recreational use are different!and if you condone the current legislation you continue to make innocent, sick people who chose an alternative way of trying to heal themselves take less than adequate medication and then call call us criminals.
I state it again: medicinal use does not equal recreational use! . i never called anyone a criminal.To make the statement 'stoners will rob you of your crops' after all your nit picking and ripping apart of other posts shows a lot.
Yes I t shows I am aware of where and how crops are grown and how to grow them. It also shows that i am aware that when my stoner friends are down to their last lump of hash they guard it jealously and if there was a field of it next door they would be dipping into the stash all the time.So yea, we can agree on one thing you can bet your backside i'm a PROUD and BIASED STONER!
So if you just want to get stoned don't try to sell us this line that you are doing it for cancer or MS. When did you ever do anything for cancer or MS not related to legalising cannabis? did you ever organise to visit and talk to someone you didn't know in a hospital or clinic for example?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement