THE REAL DANGER OF CANNABIS

The real danger of cannabis 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

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 August 2002 09.00 BST Article history

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.

Her status as a distinguished expert on brain processes doesn't lend her much authority because the article isn't about issues related to her field of expertise. I addressed the 'just like alcohol' argument already in the other thread. And I don't see any sense in taking the time putting together a thoughtful, researched response in this one, because your mind appears to be completely made up.

So this really will be my last response to this thread. Really for real
I wonder if something like this should be posted in the political rather than general discussion

thomasjay wrote:Her status as a distinguished expert on brain processes doesn't lend her much authority because the article isn't about issues related to her field of expertise. I addressed the 'just like alcohol' argument already in the other thread. And I don't see any sense in taking the time putting together a thoughtful, researched response in this one, because your mind appears to be completely made up.

So this really will be my last response to this thread. Really for real
I wonder if something like this should be posted in the political rather than general discussion

Your point is valid but the fact that she is an expert on brain processes and weed is interesting and valuable info, especially if you or your child has been affected by smoking weed. It does give me pause for thought.

British Study Warns of Health Danger of Cannabis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Study Warns of Health Danger of Cannabis
Mon Nov 11,12:32 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Smoking three pure cannabis joints is as bad for your lungs as smoking 20 normal cigarettes and marijuana is more dangerous now than it was in the 1960s, British researchers said on Monday.



In what it described as a shocking new report, the British Lung Foundation (BLF) said tar from cannabis cigarettes contained 50% more carcinogens--the agents that produce cancer--than tobacco.


"Three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes," it said in a statement.


It also said the health dangers of cannabis have substantially increased since the 1960s because today's marijuana has increased amounts of a key chemical compound.


Campaigners for the legalization of cannabis disputed some of the findings.


"Saying that cannabis is stronger now than it used to be is like saying that orange juice is stronger these days," said Alun Buffry, spokesman for the Legalize Cannabis Alliance.


"I smoked stuff in the 1960s which was certainly stronger than what's available now and, anyway, when it's stronger, people smoke less of it."


BFL chairman Mark Britton said: "These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is 'safer' for them."


"It is vital that people are fully aware of the dangers so they can make an educated decision and know the damage they may be causing," he said.


The BFL stressed it was not taking a moral stance on the contentious issue of legalizing the drug.


"We're not trying to say 'smoke' or 'don't smoke' cannabis," BLF Chief Executive Dame Helena Shovelton told BBC Radio. "We're saying that if you do, understand the risks involved in doing so.

"Don't have the same situation we had with tobacco, which was years of denial about the problems," she said.

The BFL urged the government to implement a public health education campaign on health risks of the drug.

Member of A.R.S.E.
Founding Member of N.B.I.A.S.B.

thomasjay wrote:Her status as a distinguished expert on brain processes doesn't lend her much authority because the article isn't about issues related to her field of expertise. I addressed the 'just like alcohol' argument already in the other thread. And I don't see any sense in taking the time putting together a thoughtful, researched response in this one, because your mind appears to be completely made up.

Yup.

We've been through this....

There is a thread for this.

And how can you debate when the person's mind is already made up, before the debate, no matter what facts you put in front of them?

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

thomasjay wrote:Her status as a distinguished expert on brain processes doesn't lend her much authority because the article isn't about issues related to her field of expertise. I addressed the 'just like alcohol' argument already in the other thread. And I don't see any sense in taking the time putting together a thoughtful, researched response in this one, because your mind appears to be completely made up.

Yup.

We've been through this....

There is a thread for this.

And how can you debate when the person's mind is already made up, before the debate, no matter what facts you put in front of them?

It seems to be that is just what you are doing also. and no about the thread . This is about the dangers of using cannabis that some say don't exist but some experts do. and seeing as they have a lot more expetise and knowledge than I do I thought there might, just might, be others that might to know these facts. If you are an expert then perhaps you should engage them in a debate Steve.

What constitues an 'expert'? Btw, I have never ever stated that it is totally harmless. Not ever.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:What constitues an 'expert'? Btw, I have never ever stated that it is totally harmless. Not ever.

You will have to ask those that claim to be experts. and I only answered your statement

And how can you debate when the person's mind is already made up, before the debate, no matter what facts you put in front of them?

Please do not add to or twist what I wrote

Old Timer wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:What constitues an 'expert'? Btw, I have never ever stated that it is totally harmless. Not ever.

You will have to ask those that claim to be experts. and I only answered your statement

And how can you debate when the person's mind is already made up, before the debate, no matter what facts you put in front of them?

Please do not add to or twist what I wrote

What did I add?

What did I twist?

One example of each, please, thanks.

Steve this is not a debate. I am simply going to post articles on the dangers of using cannabis. I did not write them. I am just posting them. If you have a problem with them them perhaps you should take it up witgh the person that wrote the article.

I am not going to argue and get into a pissing contest here. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Let it go at that.

There just may be someone out there that might want to know some of these facts. This is for them to.

Posted by CN Staff on July 14, 2003 at 08:50:14 PT
By Isabel Oakeshott, Evening Standard
Source: London Evening Standard

Men are today warned that smoking cannabis could affect their fertility. Scientists have uncovered new evidence that the drug upsets the male reproductive system.
They fear it could reduce the amount of testosterone - which plays a key role in sperm production - produced by the body. It may have a serious impact on the body's natural hormones and they want more research to assess the risk.

The warning comes in a study by scientists at Aberdeen University, who examined the impact of cannabis on male mice.

The animals, whose reproductive systems are similar to those of humans, were injected with cannabinoids - cannabis derivatives - to see if they changed natural messages from the brain to the testes regulating testosterone production.

Because the testes also produce testosterone of their own accord, as well as reacting to brain signals, the research team also looked at whether cannabis affected this function.

The results suggest that the drug has a significant impact on both processes.

Dr Paul Fowler - from the university's department of obstetrics and gynaecology - who led the research, said: "Our study suggests that cannabis interferes with the hormones needed for reproduction.

"It appears to affect the way the testes make and release testosterone, and has an impact on the way the brain regulates production of the hormone."

The team found that in mice, cannabis may actually boost the amount of testosterone produced as a result of brain signals, but it reduces the amount produced by the testes. Dr Fowler said: "These two things could add together to have a serious negative impact on testosterone production."

The research, to be unveiled at a major fertility conference in Aberdeen today, reignites the debate about the potential dangers of so-called soft drugs.

Cannabis is the most widely used drug in the United Kingdom after alcohol and cigarettes. Home Office figures suggest that a third of all 15-year-olds have tried it. Experts estimate it is responsible for 30,000 deaths in the UK every year. Last month, it emerged that cannabis users are seven times more likely to suffer from mental illness, triggering fears of an epidemic of schizophrenia.

The United Nations drugs watchdog has warned that the Government's "softly, softly" approach is putting the health of a generation at risk. Critics say the decision to downgrade it to a Class C drug has sent out the wrong message, encouraging people to think it is safe. Studies show that nine out of 10 children believe it is legal.

Scientists have speculated that falling sperm counts among European men are due to the surge in the use of recreational drugs. Previous studies on mice suggest that women who smoke marijuana during pregnancy risk damaging their baby's reproductive system.

Source: London Evening Standard (UK)
Author: Isabel Oakeshott, Evening Standard
Published: July 14, 2003
Copyright: 2003 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Contact: letters@standard.co.uk
Website: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/

To be entirely honest, the side effects of cannabis are far less harmful than many legal prescription drugs. The argument that cannabis has negative side effects simply does not work - because all drugs including legal ones have negative side effects, most of them WORSE than those of marijuana. Even your over the counter cold medicine can cause more damage to your body and give you more severe side effects than marijuana if abused.

Sure, legal drugs have medicinal purposes, but so does cannabis. And in the end, I think it's far safer for someone to use marijuana for pain than morphine, high strength ibuprofen, or many other pain medications available.

So, OT, I guess I'm just trying to figure out the point you're trying to make with all of this? Cigarettes cause impotence and lung cancer as well, alcohol can cause numerous health problems and even kill you from drinking too much in one sitting. Yet, both of these are legal.

lisan23 wrote:To be entirely honest, the side effects of cannabis are far less harmful than many legal prescription drugs. The argument that cannabis has negative side effects simply does not work - because all drugs including legal ones have negative side effects, most of them WORSE than those of marijuana. Even your over the counter cold medicine can cause more damage to your body and give you more severe side effects than marijuana if abused.

Sure, legal drugs have medicinal purposes, but so does cannabis. And in the end, I think it's far safer for someone to use marijuana for pain than morphine, high strength ibuprofen, or many other pain medications available.

So, OT, I guess I'm just trying to figure out the point you're trying to make with all of this? Cigarettes cause impotence and lung cancer as well, alcohol can cause numerous health problems and even kill you from drinking too much in one sitting. Yet, both of these are legal.

The point of this thread is to show that there are two sides to the story. For my part I will go with what the experts show and report and not what somone that enjoys getting a buzz on thinks. As I have stated above here, this is not a debate but rather an attempt to show that there are indeed dangers to using cannabis. To those of you that like to disagree with these articles I suggest you argue with those that wrote them and perhaps start your own thread here.

Cannabis danger revealed
November 11 2002





Smoking pure cannabis is just as harmful to lungs as tobacco, according to a British report published today.

Three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes, the British Lung Foundation study says.

When cannabis and tobacco are smoked together, the effects are dramatically worsened, it adds.

Evidence shows that tar from cannabis cigarettes contains 50 per cent more carcinogens (cancer producing agents) than tobacco, it says.

Dr Mark Britton, chairman of the foundation, said: "These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is 'safer' for them.

"It is vital that people are fully aware of the dangers so they can make an educated decision and know the damage they may be causing. The report is not about the moral rights and wrongs of cannabis, but simply making sure everyone is completely clear about the respiratory health risks involved."

The report, A Smoking Gun?, also shows that the health dangers of cannabis have substantially increased since the 1960s, because of increased amounts of THC (tetrahydrocanabinol), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, in the substance consumed today.

The study looks at existing scientific and medical research on cannabis smoking and respiratory health.

Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the foundation, said, "Puff and inhalation volume with cannabis is up to four times higher than with tobacco - in other words you inhale deeper and hold your breath with the smoke for longer before exhaling. This results in more poisonous carbon monoxide and tar entering into the lungs."

Old Timer wrote:Steve this is not a debate.

It's a forum.

For debating.

Isn't it?

If not, shall we all just cease to add to this thread, and let you continue pasting information, unfettered?

Please let us know.

Btw - I ask once more. What did I twist?

Thanks

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

Old Timer wrote:Steve this is not a debate.

It's a forum.

For debating.

Isn't it?

If not, shall we all just cease to add to this thread, and let you continue pasting information, unfettered?

Please let us know.

Btw - I ask once more. What did I twist?

Thanks

You are indeed correct. This is a forum. Debate what you will with those that will do so. As I said I am simply going to continue posting articles on the danger of cannabis. Sorry but I am not going to start a donnybrook with anyone here over a difference of opinion. Everyone. say and post what you will but do not look for a response from me on this. If I can convince just one person of the dangers of using cannabis then this will have been worth it.

Very noble. So, what did I twist?

Thanks

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:Very noble. So, what did I twist?

Thanks

Forget it Steve. lets just let it drop OK?

Okay, I guess so. Just not that amused at being accused of twisting something, without knowing what that something is!

I did ask politely. Three times. Fair enough though...

Well then, I guess we could start a topic called the real danger of prescription and over the counter medications. The side effects and dangers of those are far more scary than what cannabis can provide. Birth control can cause blood clots and stroke, Chantix is notorious for causing halolucinatory dreams, morphine is highly addictive and can kill you. Adderall can cause insomnia, heart palpitations, depression, hallucinations, seizures, tics, fevers, chest pain, high blood pressure, confusion, suicidial thoughts and much much more - and doctors prescribe that to children.

Now that sounds like it could become a vey informative thread and a very good idea you have.

Drugs - Documentation
New cannabis studies confirm danger to users
by Richard Egan
From News Weekly, 8 March 2003
Five recent studies published in the medical literature report substantial harmful effects of cannabis use in relation to development of schizophenia; depression, especially in adolescent girls; progression to drug abuse/dependence and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer.

Also, an analysis of the latest statistics on cannabis related deaths demonstrates how misleading is the claim, frequently made by advocates of cannabis law reform, that there are NO cannabis related deaths.

Schizophrenia
A study by Stanley Zammit on "Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969" was published in the British Medical Journal, November 23, 2002.

This study surveyed 50,087 Swedish conscripts from 1969-70 (97% of the country's male population aged 18-20). Data on self-reported cannabis use prior to conscription was cross-checked against linked records for hospital admissions from 1970-1996 for schizophrenia and other psychoses. Confounding variables such as use of other psychoactive drugs and personality traits linked to social integration were controlled for.

Zammit and colleagues concluded that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relationship. Use of cannabis prior to age of conscription was associated with a 30% increase in risk of developing schizophrenia. Risk increased with frequency of use. Cannabis use more than 50 times prior to age of conscription was associated with a 6.7 fold increase in risk for developing schizophrenia.

A second longitudinal study was published in the same issue of the BMJ. This study on "Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis" by Louise Arseneault and others followed 1037 individuals born in Dunedin, New Zealand, in 1972-73 to age 26. It obtained information on psychotic symptoms at age 11 and drug use at ages 15 and 18 from self reports and assessed psychiatric symptoms at age 26.

It concluded that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia even after psychotic symptoms preceding first cannabis use are controlled for. Early cannabis use confers greater risk for schizophrenia, possibly because cannabis use becomes longstanding. 10% of cannabis users by age 15 developed schizophrenia by age 26 compared to 3% of the remaining cohort.

Depression
A third report in this issue of the BMJ dealt with "Cannabis use and mental health in young people". George Patton and his fellow researchers followed a Victoria-wide sample of 1601 students aged 14-15 for seven years to determine whether cannabis use in adolescence predisposes to higher rates of depression and anxiety in young adulthood. Daily cannabis use in young women was associated with a 5.6 fold increase in the odds of reporting state of depression and anxiety. Weekly or more frequent cannabis use in teenagers predicted a twofold increase in risk for later depression and anxiety.

Patton and colleagues concluded that frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later depression and anxiety, with daily users carrying the highest risk. Given recent increasing levels of cannabis use, Patton believes that measures to reduce frequent and heavy recreational use seem warranted.

Gateway drug
The January 22/29 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association included a report by Michael T. Lynskey and others on the "Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls".

This study compared later drug use in a national sample of Australian twins who were discordant for early (pre-17 years of age) cannabis use. Individuals who used cannabis by age 17 years had odds of other drug use, alcohol dependence, and drug abuse/dependence that were 2.1 to 5.2 times higher than those of their co-twin, who did not use cannabis before age 17 years.

Lynskey and colleagues concluded that associations between early cannabis use and later drug use and abuse/dependence cannot solely be explained by common predisposing genetic or shared environmental factors. The association may arise from the effects of the peer and social context within which cannabis is used and obtained. In particular, early access to and use of cannabis may reduce perceived barriers against the use of other illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs.

Respiratory diseases
In late 2002 the British Lung Foundation published "A smoking gun?" This report surveyed the current medical and scientific research into the direct effects of smoking cannabis on the smoker's respiratory health.

It concluded that habitual cannabis smokers have a significantly higher prevalence of chronic and acute respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough and sputum production, wheeze and acute bronchitis episodes; that 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes; that cannabis smoking is likely to weaken the immune system; that the tar in a cannabis cigarette contain concentrations up to 50% higher of many of the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke; that cannabis cigarettes deposit four times as much tar on the respiratory tract as unfiltered tobacco cigarettes and that Benzyprene, a constituent of the tar in cannabis cigarettes, alters gene p53 which plays a role in 75% of all lung cancers.

Cannabis deaths
Those in favour of cannabis legalisation often claim that there are no reported cannabis induced deaths. It is important to understand what this means. It means only that there are no reported deaths directly attributable solely and immediately to a toxic overdose of cannabis.

There are, however, cannabis related deaths. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports a total of 184 cannabis related deaths for the five years 1997-2001. ABS breaks these figures down into: 68 Mental (i.e., mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use); 98 Accidental (i.e., accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances); 11 Suicide (i.e., intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to drugs); 7 Undetermined (i.e., drug-related deaths with undetermined intent).

Australian figures separating cannabis-related deaths where cannabis was the only drug involved are not readily available. Cannabis is often one factor in a poly-drug cocktail that causes death, including cannabis in combination with alcohol.

United States data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, based on those counties in which medical examiners test for cannabis, indicates that out of 664 reported cannabis related deaths in 1999 some 28% or 187 involved cannabis only. (This would suggest an average of 10 deaths per year in Australia that were cannabis related only.)

United Kingdom data report some cannabis related deaths that were caused by inhalation of vomit while intoxicated only on cannabis.

Road traffic deaths
A recent report from P Swann of VicRoads Safety Department stated, "The real risks of being killed when driving whilst impaired by cannabis", shows that cannabis intoxication leads to a relative risk of six of causing a fatal road accident. Cannabis intoxication alone (that is excluding cases where alcohol or other drugs were also present) was found to be responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. These cannabis related deaths are not included in the ABS figures cited above.

In the light of these studies and death statistics it would seem to require a reckless disregard for the mental and physical health of Australian young people to do anything likely to increase access to and use of cannabis.

Richard Egan
Health and Spirituality Links Katinka Hesselink Net Lost? Sitemap

Old Timer wrote:Now that sounds like it could become a vey informative thread and a very good idea you have.

Actually, I think I will do it. A lot of people don't understand how dangerous even OTC meds can be.

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:

lisan23 wrote:Well then, I guess we could start a topic called the real danger of prescription and over the counter medications. The side effects and dangers of those are far more scary than what cannabis can provide. Birth control can cause blood clots and stroke, Chantix is notorious for causing halolucinatory dreams, morphine is highly addictive and can kill you. Adderall can cause insomnia, heart palpitations, depression, hallucinations, seizures, tics, fevers, chest pain, high blood pressure, confusion, suicidial thoughts and much much more - and doctors prescribe that to children.

Its all dangerous....one persons high could be another persons death...Need to search out information on prescription drugs...search articles, internet, webmd. My advice is not take any Doctors word on any prescription...research, research, then make a informed decision...search alternatives. Doctors tend to scare us into it. I worked for a pharmaceutical company for many years so I have alot of knowledge concerning drugs.

I'm in school to get my CPhT (Certified Pharmacy Technician certificate) and I worked in a pharmacy briefly. First, I think the knowledge doctors have about prescription drugs is VERY limited. I think a lot of drugs that people take aren't necessary, what would really help their health is exercise and living more healthy. But it's easier for them to take a pill than it is to live right. Second, I've come to realize that most people don't listen to professionals and often believe they know more about drugs and medications than pharmacists and doctors do. Children under the age of 6 shouldn't take OTC cold/cough medicine without first consulting a doctor. There are freak instances where this medicine actually kills young children, and the dosage may change according to their weight and height - you shouldn't just guess and give it to your kid and hope your right. Not only that, but most pediatricians feel that the OTC medicine for coughs and colds for that age group really don't work (I agree, my daughter responds to Vicks vapor rub and a humidifier far better to any cold medicine we ever gave her). But I saw so many mom's ignore what the doctor told them, ask the pharmacist, and when he told them the same thing ignore him too and STILL BUY cold medicine for their children under 6. There's more... lol. But I'll just leave it to that. I really should be doing laundry... but my husband won't be home for another 4 days so I'm shirking my responsibilities.

lisan23 wrote: Cigarettes cause impotence

I can argue that. 2 packs a day and can still hang my hat. So much for experts.

CarolinaHound wrote:

lisan23 wrote: Cigarettes cause impotence

I can argue that. 2 packs a day and can still hang my hat. So much for experts.

Not that you needed or wanted to know that, just sayin... so much for so called experts.

CarolinaHound wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

lisan23 wrote: Cigarettes cause impotence

I can argue that. 2 packs a day and can still hang my hat. So much for experts.

Not that you needed or wanted to know that, just sayin... so much for so called experts.

And even if not, you could always be the 'taker' instead, right?

Yea if she looks good I'll give her a go even if.

CarolinaHound wrote:Yea if he looks good I'll give him it up the ass

Okay mate, fair enough, who am I to judge?

I love that kid!

*When I say love, I obviously mean in an appropriate manner*

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:I love that kid!

*When I say love, I obviously mean in an appropriate manner*

Look, I'm just gonna say it. I love Family Guy. I looove Stewie. Even though Stewie is my hero, Stewie reminds me of you, I'm not even kidding. My family hears me say that every night. I'm not really sure if I just insulted you or complimented you, but just remember I love that kid.

HotParadox wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:I love that kid!

*When I say love, I obviously mean in an appropriate manner*

Look, I'm just gonna say it. I love Family Guy. I looove Stewie. Even though Stewie is my hero, Stewie reminds me of you, I'm not even kidding. My family hears me say that every night. I'm not really sure if I just insulted you or complimented you, but just remember I love that kid.

Does he?

Well here's a thing.

Lois (his mum), reminds me of you.

Seriously!

New cannabis danger leads to new law
1. Jan 26 2009 by Alastair Gilmour, The Journal

A change of Government policy on drugs comes into force today. Alastair Gilmour reports on the reclassification of cannabis.
WHAT was previously regarded as a strong message on drugs use has become law. Gordon Brown has reversed a decision on the classification of cannabis made five years ago by his predecessor Tony Blair, despite advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) that it should remain a class C substance.
From today, cannabis is reclassified as a class B drug, the same category as amphetamines such as speed and barbiturates. This means enforcement of the law will be tougher – those caught in possession of cannabis could still get a warning on a first offence, but on a second offence they are likely face a fine of £80. If caught a third time they could be arrested. The ACMD has repeatedly called for cannabis to remain as a class C drug but home secretary Jacqui Smith announced in May last year that she was not willing to “wait and see†while risking the “future health of young people†.
The decision, influenced by the Prime Ministerâ€s determined stance, reflects the fact that skunk, a much stronger version of the drug, now dominates the UKâ€s cannabis market. Skunk has swept other less potent forms of cannabis off the market and now accounts for 81% of the drug available on our streets, compared to just 30% in 2002.
There will also be a new targeted approach to tackling cannabis farms and the organised criminals who run them, plus the introduction of additional aggravating sentencing factors for those caught supplying cannabis near educational establishments, mental health institutions and prisons. Changes to legislation and powers used to curtail the sale and promotion of cannabis paraphernalia are also under consideration.
The reclassification, which runs counter to many expert opinions, is what Jacqui Smith calls “part of a relentless drive to tackle drugs and the harm they bring to families and communities†.
The Prime Minister had previously expressed concern at the stronger forms of the drug becoming available.
He said: “Given the changing nature of the stock of cannabis that is coming into the country and greater damage that appears to be doing to people who use it, there is a stronger case for sending out a signal that cannabis is not only illegal but it is unacceptable.â€


Destroyer of families
1. We sometimes fool ourselves into thinking that while heroin and cocaine are dangerous, cannabis is safe. For those who are still oblivious to its dangers we have reproduced an article by former Journal associate editor Huw Lewis.
He wrote four years ago – following the downgrading of cannabis from Class B to Class C – on the devastating effects the drug has had on his family. His view is exactly the same today.
"I always declined – without saying why – the â€̃joints†I was offered at student parties. This may have made me look square and uncool.
But then explaining: "My brotherâ€s life has been destroyed by schizophrenia because of the dope he smoked as a teenager,†does tend to dampen the mood.
"Research linking cannabis to mental illness – particularly in the young, whose brains are still developing – has been available for years. My family read plenty about the link as we struggled to understand what reduced an intelligent, athletic young man to a crippled, haunted shell, bloated by the prescription pills he must take to suppress his moods, dependent on alcohol and constant deafening music to drown out the demons in his head. You imagine such wiped-out wraiths to be paying the price for decades of abuse. But the time my brother took drugs is measured in months, not years – 18."

Penalties
1. The maximum penalty for supply, dealing, production and trafficking in cannabis is 14 years imprisonment. This has increased from five years.
The maximum penalty for possession was reduced from five years to two years imprisonment in 2004, but returns to five years with reclassification to Class B.
A young person found to be in possession of cannabis will be arrested and taken to a police station where they can receive a reprimand, final warning or charge, depending on the seriousness of the offence.
Following one reprimand, any further offence will lead to a final warning or charge. Any further offence following a warning will normally result in criminal charges. After a final warning, the young offender must be referred to a Youth Offending Team to arrange a rehabilitation programme.
This police enforcement is consistent with the structured framework for early juvenile offending established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
It is unlikely that adults caught in possession of cannabis will be arrested. Most offences of possession result in a warning and confiscation of the drug.
Classification
Illegal drugs are put into three different classes in the UK: A, B and C.
:: Class A drugs are considered to be the most harmful and attract the most serious punishments and fines. These include heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and LSD.
:: Class B drugs include amphetamines such as speed and barbiturates – and, from today, cannabis.
:: Class C drugs include tranquillisers, valium and anabolic steroids.

CarolinaHound wrote:Yea if she looks good I'll give her a go even if.

you seem to have a one track mind??????

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:I love that kid!

*When I say love, I obviously mean in an appropriate manner*

Look, I'm just gonna say it. I love Family Guy. I looove Stewie. Even though Stewie is my hero, Stewie reminds me of you, I'm not even kidding. My family hears me say that every night. I'm not really sure if I just insulted you or complimented you, but just remember I love that kid.

Does he?

Well here's a thing.

Lois (his mum), reminds me of you.

Seriously!

lol

When did this come to mind? The second I told you that Stewie reminds me of you?!

I can see it with Stewie. He's the baby anti-Christ and pompous yet lovable. And the British accent, can't leave that out. And, the baby isn't British of course, he's American, but he's slightly delusional.

No, I thought of that months ago, when I was watching old re-runs.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:No, I thought of that months ago, when I was watching old re-runs.

First of all, can I just say that I love your new avatar.