Legalise Cannabis Ireland calls on new Taoiseach to grow-up, tune in and cop-on

by shoe -in Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:57

Brian Cowen admitted to 'inhaling'. Bertie never tried the stuff- maybe he should.
He is a 'Bass' man,(the red triangle)

by Hang on Mon Jun 18, 2007 18:12

The connection between mental illness and cannabis(I was sure it already had been established....anyway) doesn't necessarily support an argument against legalisation or decriminalisation. Decriminalising a drug will not necessarily increase uptake in use (studies have shown that this is not the case in the long-term in areas where it has been decriminalised or legalised), but it may facilitate more widespread education and information programmes that can promote safer use and support for users. Not only this, but it would free up enormous resources of various agents of the criminal justice system used to pursue and process minor convictions, and would prevent the criminalisation and consequent stigmatisation (and everything that goes with it) of otherwise law-abiding people.

by Seán Hurton - Legalise Cannabis Ireland Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:27 seanhurton at hotmail dot com 0877632128

CANNABIS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Is cannabis harmful to health?
A: No, not pure cannabis. See The Lancet and Judge Young, The Merck Manual, LaGuardia, Wootton, Shafer, Jamaican Studies, Costa Rica Studies.

Q: Is cannabis a drug?

Q: Is cannabis poisonous? / Is there a fatal dose? A: No. It has been established that there is no conceivable toxic amount of cannabis for human beings. Medicinal substances frequently have a dosage above which death may follow after consumption. This quantity is known as the LD-50 rating - that is the dose above which 50 per cent of animals tested have dies. It has never been possible to give enough cannabis to an animal to kill it. It is estimated that the LD-50 for cannabis is around 1:20,000, which means that an average human would have to be given at least 20,000 times as much cannabis as is contained in the average joint or spliff. Based upon the dosage supplied to patients on the NIDA program in the USA, this would mean consumption of some 1500 pounds in weight of cannabis within 15 minutes to induce death. This of course is impossible and cannabis can accurately be described as non-toxic.
The figure of 20,000, sometimes quoted as 40,000, was based upon research carried out in the laboratory on mice using concentrated THC.

Q: Does cannabis intoxicate?
A: Not in the sense of losing control, which is what intoxication does. Toxins produce intoxication; cannabis is not toxic. The word "intoxicate" is semantically incorrectly applied to cannabis.

Q: Is cannabis THC?
A: Tetrahydrocannabinol is one of hundreds of cannabinoids in cannabis. THC is not cannabis, cannabis is not THC.

Q: What are the effects of cannabis?
A: We'd like to simply say 'take it and see' but that would be a crime! Cannabis relaxes alpha waves produced by the brain. The effect is usually mild, relaxing and pleasant. Any undesirable or unpleasant effects or high dosed or in the novice wears off as the cannabis wears off. It can produce giggles, increase concentration, stimulate appetite, help sleep etc. Many artists and sportsmen use cannabis. We must be careful to distinguish between the effects of pure cannabis and those of the dubious quality substances often sold on the street, which may contain drugs.

Q: Does cannabis damage the reproductive system?
A: No. This false claim was based on the work of Dr Gabriel Nahas who experimented with cells in Petri dishes. The scientific community has rejected Nahas' generalisation from the laboratory dish to human beings. Studies of humans have failed to reveal any damage. Moreover we all know plenty of people who have used cannabis for years and they all have plenty of normal, healthy children. See also Greek Studies.

Q: Does cannabis damage the immune system?
A: No. Again there is no evidence. Two studies in 1978 and one in 1988 showed that cannabis actually stimulates the immune system.

Q: Does cannabis impair short-term memory?
A: No. Some people may find themselves distracted whilst others find cannabis aids concentration and improves memory. That is why so many good musicians smoke cannabis and are able to remember complex series of notes and words.

Q: Is today's cannabis more potent than in the past?
No. It is about the same. In the past delays in analysis effected results. Potency cannot be determined by the amount of THC alone. The most potent form of cannabis that was probably that sold as 'American Cannabis' in the 1920's.

Q: What does cannabis smoke contain?
A: Over two thousand different chemicals, none of which produces harm. Compared with coffee, which contains over 800 volatile chemicals, only 21 of which have ever been tested on animals and 16 of those caused cancers in rats.

Q: How many convicted annually?
A: In 1994 there were over 72,000 convictions in the UK. This was 83% of 'drugs' convictions. This costs hundreds of millions of pounds.

Q: How many people die as a result of cannabis use?
A: None. Ever. It is not toxic, there is no overdose.

Q: Is cannabis addictive?
A: No. It is habit-forming only in the sense that it is natural to wish to repeat a pleasant experience. There is no withdrawal. One simply returns to whatever state one was in before consumption. See LaGuardia, Shafer.. But we must remember that those people with addictive personalities can come to psychologically depend on anything, and those using cannabis to ease their suffering may depend upon it as a medicine. This does not mean that the hundreds of millions of people worldwide are cannabis addicts.

Q: Does Marijuana Use Cause Long-Term Cognitive Deficits?: Four letters in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 22 May 2002

Q: Is cannabis a 'gateway drug'?
A: No, otherwise the 5 million smokers of 1991 would be addicts of other drugs by now. The situation in Holland has confirmed that cannabis use does not lead to drug use. In any case a huge percentage of the population takes drugs of one sort or another. The fact that a lot of heroin users previously took cannabis does not suggest that most cannabis users will ever take heroin.

Q: Do you advocate the use of cannabis?
A: We would like to be able to advocate the medicinal use of cannabis in preference to many prescribed drugs, as well as advocate the preferred use of cannabis for hard drug users. Unfortunately if we did this we would be subject to arrest for incitement.

Q: Some doctors, nurses and drug workers frequently tell us that they see people, especially young ones, who suffer from mental problems due to cannabis. Surely legalisation would increase the numbers?
A: These problems do not seem to occur in the East where cannabis has been used for centuries. Nobody would deny that a certain percentage of society suffers mental problems, understandable maybe under the pressures that western society often puts people under, and specifically applied to cannabis users under a legal system which threatens them with arrest. It is more likely that these cases are mentally nor ill people who use cannabis, rather than the case of cannabis causing the illness. We must remember of course that all of these cases apply to banned cannabis - how sure are we that it is pure cannabis that has been used, and can we be sure that no dangerous illicit drugs have been used
But the essential question is: should the law punish people who suffer mental illnesses if they consume cannabis? Should it punish those who use cannabis at all. Surely ill people need help, not fines and prison.
It also appears true that cannabis may help bring some of these problems to the surface where they can be recognised and dealt with.

Q: When was cannabis made illegal?
A: In the UK in 1928. As a result of the mis-classification of cannabis as a narcotic.

Q: How many cannabis users in the world?
A:: An estimated 600 million - probably far too low.

Q: Is cannabis fat-soluble? Does it stay in your system?
A: Yes, for from 14 to 40 days. But this is long after any effect has worn off and it causes no harm.

Q: What are the other uses of cannabis?
A: Besides social use and medicinal use, as a fibre for paper, rope and cloth, as a building material and board for furniture, packing material, animal bedding, foodstuff, prevents land erosion, to make plastic, paints, varnish, and sealant, as a fuel, as a lubricant etc. See here.

Q: What are the penalties for cannabis?
A: For possession, ion the UK, anything from a caution to five years with or without a fine up to £2500. For cultivation, supply, possession with intent, importation and conspiracy (including being concerned or knowingly involved with any of these offences), up to 15 years in prison with an unlimited fine and confiscation of assets. In Holland the sentences for even huge amounts are relatively light. In some countries even the death penalty is a possibility.
In India the law is so crazy that there is a maximum sentence of 5 years for over 5 grams of ganja (herb) but a MINIMUM sentence of 10 years for over 5 grams of charas (resin).

Q:: What are the dangers of smoking cannabis?
A: Mixing it with tobacco.
Getting arrested.
Health hazards from impurities.
Being offered drugs.
Becoming a social outcast = persecution.
Conviction = criminal record, banned from USA, Australia etc.
All prohibition created problems.

Q: Is cannabis at all dangerous?
A: Of course, everything has some danger. You can drown in water, air starts fires, and you can choke on a sweet. Cannabis is about as dangerous as the same sized piece of wood. You could hit somebody with a large lump. However, cannabis was described, by DEA Administrator Judge Francis Young, as one of the safest of substances.

Q: Is decriminalisation a step in the right direction? A: No. Decriminalisation is simple turning a blind eye to small time users or growers. It simply avoids the real issues of control. Cannabis quality could not be tested. We want the weed to be free. We want it sold by reputable dealers with their profits taxed. We do not want limits on the amount possessed or amount of plants cultivated.

Q: What about synthetic cannabis?
A: Research is continuing to produce medicinal cannabis substances that do not give a high when consumed. Cannabis is a holistic plant - the whole plant is necessary. Synthetic 'drugs' such as Nabilone are considered virtually useless compared with natural cannabis and can have unpleasant side effects such as depression. Cannabis usually alleviates depression.

Q: In third world countries the poor and unemployed are seen sitting smoking cannabis, they never seem to get anything together and remain poor. Isn't this an effect of cannabis? That is, does the use of cannabis a-motivate?
A: No. The reverse is true. Because they are poor and unemployed they have time to sit and smoke. Cannabis grows wild in many of these countries. They smoke it because it helps them stay happy in their positions. In the same countries many working people smoke cannabis. You do not see them on the streets because they work and smoke at home. The same is true in Britain.

It would take a million wise men to answer all the questions one fool can ask

by toker Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:33

Labour Party conference and self-publicity. They even has a little boy who wants to be
Tony Blair ranting about young people and usage. The thing is they would rather get
stoned than take on the health system. it looks incredibly like extinction when the media
covers smoking/toking/cannabis and refuses to address poverty and union alliances.

I would distance yourself from Lab and do this independently- its not cool to go all
Blairite and tokey when there are poverty issues, but I suppose medicinal maryana
is on the menu, cos the hospitals are so scary with the MRSA et al.....

by hemp knight Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:11 superskunk1989 at yahoo dot com

it is my view that the goverment should not have the choice to stop us from smoking cannabis. i have smoked cannabis for eight years and had people hounding me the whole time . it is stupid to think that alcohol is legal when it is a cause a lot more problems and crimes compared to a plant which relaxes you and will not overpower your better jugdement .i think it should be a persons own choice to smoke or not and not have to do what some fat bald penny pinchers thinks is right for us how can they know if it is good or bad if they have never tried it

by hmmmmmmmm Wed Jan 30, 2008 23:39

L.A. has seen its first customers for marijuana from automated vending machines. Users need a special card & the bill gets sent to their health insurance, coz this is the states we're talking about & it's not like it's going on their national insurance or anything.

from the BBC

......"Vending machines distributing the drug marijuana are to begin operating in the US state of California.

The machines can only be used by people who have been prescribed the drug for health reasons.
Patients will have to provide a prescription, and be fingerprinted and photographed before being allowed to use the facilities. Eleven US states allow the medicinal use of marijuana, primarily for pain relief, but it remains controversial. Vince Mehdizadeh, owner of the Herbal Nutrition Centre in Los Angeles, where one of the two first machines is based, said it would allow patients to buy extra supplies whenever needed.
Once the users have been photographed, fingerprinted and have shown their prescription, they will be issued with a card which can be used in the machines, he told KWTX News 10 in the US. "They'll be greeted by a security guard right there. They'll slide the card in and they'll fingerprint in to verify that it's them," he was quoted by KWTX News 10 as saying. "A camera takes a picture of them, verifying that they're actually at the machine. And they get the medicine and they move on." The operators think that vending machines issuing prescription drugs could become a common sight in the US. Proponents say marijauna is a valuable tool for relieving pain and stimulating appetite in the sick.
However, it remains banned by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act and the US federal government does not currently recognise any legitimate medical use.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212778.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...8.xml
http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2008/01/30/need-marijuan...hine/
http://itn.co.uk/news/eb94d7859dae0a55dabfb65f5304f2de.html
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/180692,weed-mac....html

I suppose for the libertine jokers this will seem like the tide is turning after all that depressing stuff of amsterdam's window prostitution and mushrooms being banned. BUT because I'm not actually an idiot, & belong to a very serious group of people into "cognitive liberty" I see this as a step forward for many important reasons & a step back for many other important reasons.

forward -
it means medical cannabis is being accepted and attempts to genetically modify the plant to remove psychoactive THC has been thwarted.
backward -
it means further control of certain drugs of the pharmocopeia and ironic infringement of civil liberties. Would we countenance photo-ID or security checks for every diabetic who needed fresh needles? or every TD who needed Viagra?

they won't really look like this.

by teacher's friend Fri Feb 01, 2008 02:18

I have one question that Sean Hurston might add to the above cannabis cathecism:-

Does regular cannabis use demotivate students and slow down their learning?

Some teacher friends of mine tell me Yes.

by ExCannabisUser Fri Feb 01, 2008 07:27

I smoked cannabis for years and made all the rationalisations made above and more to all who would listen. I woke up one day and ten years of my life had gone with nothing to show for it but a bunch of disloyal people who did nothing with their lives but smoke cannabis and talk about smoking cannabis as my only "friends". (and they very quickly left when I stopped smoking it)

Now I have the difficult task of rebuilding my life with no real friends. Any decent friends I did have eventually drifted away in frustration at seeing me waste my life away and due to difficulties dealing with my other dodgy cannabis "friends".

Looking back, I believe I smoked cannabis to some extent as a relief from depression, which to some degree a cannabis induced haze took the edge off. Now I try not to fall back into the trap of giving up on the world and slipping back into a life of smoking cannabis. Each day is a struggle to face a bleak depressing reality, but at least I am engaging now. I still bear the damage from those years though. I have quite serious memory problems which I never had before I began smoking cannabis. Cannabis caused me to be very moody and to go off at people if they tried to make me do anything that required effort (cannabis makes you say, "I can't be bothered" a lot!) . Also, it exacerbated any latent paranoia I might have had. Basically it stole away part of my life which I spent much of sitting around in dark smoky sitting rooms talking nonsense to lowlifes I didn't like (but who usually had cannabis) and getting wasted. And whilst I know that it is not considered physically addictive, it still took me 10 years to get away from it, despite it sounding like such a stupid way to spend your life when you write it down on paper and read it back. 10 of my best years which I will never get back.

I was an idiot to waste my life that way but it just seemed to creep up on me and was interesting and pleasant at first and the psychoactive aspects fed into a curiosity about altered states. And I did end up using other drugs a little as a result of being around people who had them and offered me them (but admittedly only occasionally). I had several frightening episodes where I passed out alone after heavy cannabis use, one of which left me scarred from hitting my head. I woke up covered in blood, having evacuated my bowels. A very low point! Does that sound harmless to you or something you would like to happen to your impressionable teenager? I really don't recommend it.

An informed decision to waste your life smoking cannabis and all it entails is arguably a valid life choice but the nature of drugs is such that very few users are actually making such a choice, whether they believe it or not. It alters the very tool you use to make your rationalisations, and as such they can no longer be fully trusted. I rationalised to myself that my life was a result of such a decision but looking back, I no longer believe this.

Let my wasted years be a warning for those who are considering this path or have already begun to travel it. Get away from it while you can or one day you will wake up like I did, several years and broken friendships down the line, wondering where the time went and why your life has gone nowhere in that time, and why your memory is not working particularly reliably any more.

I don't believe prohibition is the solution. Perhaps legalisation, taxing and using that money for better rehabilitation and social programs for kids might be a little better, but its not an easy problem to solve. It has its roots in other social problems or complex interactions of them. Any solution has to address these root causes. Who knows, any such joined up approaches might have positive knock on effects on our alcohol problems too.

by chaoseed Mon Aug 11, 2008 17:33 nacromia at gmail dot com

After a long observation on consumption of marijuana( over 15 years of smoking ) i can say thats effect of marijuana are entirely dependent from who you are, where you are and with who you are.
I agree with the fact thats marijuana can be dangerous for some peoples who have already a hidden pathologies as marijuana functioning well on broking down a defending part of ego structure-;Social mask which ego fabricated and using for the social integration purposes-been of normality which open different doors and interaction in the modern society.
Under this mask different problems coexist in the form of memories altered otherwise by brain, which become very alive after using of cannabises.
Consequences: person getting a strong emotional discharges which can damaged temporarily a psychologies. Different trues and logics become apparent and absorbed by conscientiousness will have to become analyzed and understand which will form in the end a progress of individual evolution.
The danger it is not to become aware of own self but in the incorrect treatment of those individuals who in normal weed smoking situation become often a fun or rejection target for others.
In the right way of using thc with help of professionals we could attenuating progressively effects of paranoia, schizophrenia, panic attack etc. because of extended capacity's of self observing and understanding.
The peoples who are naturally lazy will experiment even bigger laziness and apathy which is a sign of rejection of reality, lack of self confidence driving emotional instability resolved in depressions or aggressiveness.
Marijuana is a powerful kick in system which have a magic in it, we just have to learn how to use it.
As I'm someone who always analyzing my self with the help of marijuana i become aware of different parts of me and how they working together.Thats help me understand who em i and why i reacting in many different ways as i do which incontestably helping my self bettering.

Marijuana consumption inducting high capacity of concentration, artistic evolution, courage, inventiveness, intuition, positive thinking,kindness, personal philosophy extensions, self modeling extended possibility, facility accepting and infinity of imagination.
As well as paranoia, lack of confidence, laziness, complexes amplification, brain incontrollable hyperactivity's and stupidity general in practical situations.

by Vincent Tue Aug 12, 2008 20:39

. "What hasn't been known up to now is how THC has produced psychotic symptoms" -Philip McGuire, professor of psychiatry and cognitive neuroscience . How rich can you get ? psychiatric drugs are well known to cause all kinds of illness especially neurological illnesses such as tardive dyskinesia, not least to mention paranoid and disturbed behaviour.

by Mr Man Tue Aug 12, 2008 21:55

Vincent

Perhaps I am missing something in the context of your comment, but it would seem to me that Philip McGuire was referring to the biochemical pathway by which such symptoms are expressed, of which relatively little is known. As opposed to the more general question of 'does smoking weed increase chances of going loopy?'

by Vincent Tue Aug 12, 2008 23:22

you misunderstand man. there is a serious contradiction in a man professessing to be a doctor of medicine making presumptions about cannabis, which he as a member of the the status quo, does not wish to challenge , prescribing drugs which are effectively poision.

by Mr Man Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:40

Ok, apologies.

I would still not see a contradiction. While there is definately over-prescription of anti-depressants, to blame psychiatry is not the answer. Firstly, the majority of anti-depressants are prescribed by GPs, which only ask relatively few questions before prescribing and little follow up is done after, wheras in psychiatry, a more in-depth analysis of the problem is done before prescription, and more continuous monitoring of the situation is undertaken. Secondly, anti-depressants help a lot of people, in my own circle of friends there is at least 2 who believe anti depressants literally saved their life. The problem of addiction/bad reactions/worsening conditions etc. is not a problem with the drugs, rather the care that is put into pre and post prescription analysis.

" there is a serious contradiction in a man professessing to be a doctor of medicine making presumptions about cannabis, which he as a member of the the status quo, does not wish to challenge , prescribing drugs... "

I do not profess to have read all his work, but I find it difficult to believe that he (Philip McGuire) as a professor of neuroscience (which I did a masters in) supports the current state of psychoactive prescription. It is almost page 1 of a neuroscience coursebook that a) we really know little about the brain b) antidepressants are a double edged sword. So if he really does not wish to challenge the current state of drug prescription, he is not part of the status quo.

by vincent Wed Aug 13, 2008 18:18

to respond generally to what you say- first of all psych drugs are prescribed on the understanding that the person concerns suffers from a brain chemical imbalance and that the drug helps redress this - indisputable that the vast bulk of psychiatrists support this theory. 'mental illness' is primarily social in origin (life experiences, etc_ --not biological!

it has bec. increasingly evident that big pharma has been involved in fraud- witness seroxat scandal, etc

if we do not know what a neurochemically balanced brain is then my point is obvious

plenty of evidence that psych drugs cause tardive dyskinesia, akathesia, drug related diabetes, suicide, increased agitation, etc

psychiatry is a fraud - they treat no real illnesses - no brain scans, blood tests, etc can prove the existence of even 1 mental illness.

by Mr Man Wed Aug 13, 2008 20:12

"first of all psych drugs are prescribed on the understanding that the person concerns suffers from a brain chemical imbalance and that the drug helps redress this "

Actually, the routine procedure is to initially prescribe based on that the person has an emotional imbalence, not a chemical one (what determines what an emotional imbalence is is subjective of course). Prescribing based on chemical imbalences is rare, primarily because it's relatively expensive and harder to run those tests. It is referred to as a chemical imbalence as it is seen as a product of social and environmental factors (the blurry lines of nature/nurture) ie the state of ones environment effects ones biochemical constitution. An actual biologically determined chemical imbalence does exist, much rarer though.

Prescription of anti-depressants are seen as treatments, not cures. They alleviate debilitating conditions, but do not offer a method of getting over something permnamently (but they may help). Ideally, it should be coupled with counselling.

"plenty of evidence that psych drugs cause tardive dyskinesia, akathesia, drug related diabetes, suicide, increased agitation, etc"

Undoubtably, but until more research is put into developing better drugs/diagnoses/treatments etc. the overall benefits outweigh the negatives.

"psychiatry is a fraud - they treat no real illnesses - no brain scans, blood tests, etc can prove the existence of even 1 mental illness."

Well, I sort of agree, but I wouldn;t call it a fraud, it's just in it's infancy as a scientific discipline (relatively). And you can't prove anything in the biological sciences, only in maths and physics do you get proofs, laws and theorum. Everything else gets theories ie accepted that it may not be true but all kosher experimental/observational evidence suggests it may be. But in the conventional sense, I suppose you could 'prove' alzheimers through the plaques on the cerebral cortex, but I do know what you are getting at ( Reactive attachment disorder; Separation Anxiety Disorder; Oppositional Defiant Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder etc.)

But unless you are in some kind of looney bin, no one forces you to take these drugs. People feel that there is something wrong and want help, so go to a GP or psychologist/iatrist and they prescribe things to try and help. There are different brands, dosages, drugs, all which can effect different people in different ways. You find one that works for you and you stick with it or you try to overcome without it. You tell the doctor when you feel normal, the doctor can't tell you that. Doctors suggest courses of action, based on the best evidence available at the time, the onus is on the patient to determine their own fate

by vincent Wed Aug 13, 2008 21:02

no harm man but you clearly understand or know little about the nature of psychiatry. incidentally what is an emotional imbalance? people have problems and struggles in life which get labelled mental illness. these drugs are prescribed on the the chemical imbalce theory. for ex. some one with 'schizophrenia' is told they have a brain illness( unproven) for which they must take a neuroleptic drug such as resperidal, olanzapine, etc for the rest of their lives- not for a short period of time to get them through a period of severemental distress. theses drugs then cause real illness of the cns such as tardive dyskinesia, etc - also drug related diabetes (20 years of a life on average these drugs can take off a persons life, also suicide- a terrible outcome and one which psychiatrists and big pharma must be held to account.

prescribing medical cannabis would be infinitely wiser!!

by el mundo Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:17

Leading Psychiatrists at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Convention 2006 clearly admitted that there are no medical tests that can prove anyone has a “mental illness”. The DSM-IV classification system of mental disorders is soley based on a hand vote! Psychiatry is a fraud.

Caption: Video Id: gbL7tX78Pg4 Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by Mr. Man Thu Aug 14, 2008 15:23

Vincent;

Oh for sure, I don't know much about it. Only the drugs side of things, not the waffle. As I said they treat chemical imbalences, but acknowledge that usually they are a product of ones own environment. And as I said, 'emotional imbalence' is subjective.

I agree with you nearly 100%, except for laying the onus on psychiatry and pharma (aside from the cover ups etc). Psychiatric methods for dignosing 'illnesses' are full of holes at best. But if you know a better methodology for trying to assess what may be the problem with someone who comes into your office crying for help because of a debilitating issue, i'm sure psychiatry would love to know as they are well aware of the holes in the methodology. They do their best to try and help.

"20 years of a life on average these drugs can take off a persons life, also suicide- a terrible outcome and one which psychiatrists and big pharma must be held to account."

Yes, but they still do help a lot of people. Patients are told risks and side effects. The benefits outweigh the problems. I mean, you could say 100 per 100000 commit suicide while on the drugs, but how many would commit suicide whithout the drugs? If a statistically significant less amount of people die on the drugs, then you prescribe it (well, theres more to it obviously, but thats the jist)

I agree that cannabis should be prescribed more but unfortunately, due to illogical regulatory issues in most countries, we actually know quite little compared to some other drugs. I mean, in order to do research on cannabis in Ireland, you have to get people who take it illicitly (with no control over quality/quantity/duratioin/truthfulness). Wheras you can get a drug with is infinately more dangerous (eg. prozac) or of COMPLETELY UNKNOWN effects on humans and guesstimate where the non-fatal-yet-effective dose lies. In other countries you have to get all kinds of special permissions and extra controls, for a drug that has been proven to be pretty much non-fatal at ANY dose. Only because of historical stigmas is there such a problem with cannabis research. And the onus for this falls squarely at the feet of politicians.

by Malachy Steenson Thu Aug 14, 2008 16:39 malachysteenson at yahoo dot com

I am sick to the teeth of so called do gooders and liberals advocating the legalising of drugs. Last week we had
three funerals in Lourdes Church in Sean Mc Dermott Street of Drug addicts. When these middle class trendy lefty's are burying their own children and grandchildren lets see how they feel. See attached photo of one of them 37 year old Alison Lawlor.

by Mr Man Thu Aug 14, 2008 17:43

I don't think there is anyone here (not pretty much anywhere)advocating legalizing cocaine and heroine. Just legalization/ decriminalisation of cannabis, which has zero fatalities from overdose.

"When these middle class trendy lefty's..."
So you are speaking as the lower class uncouth righty? Perhaps thats why you didn't bother to read the body of text, ignored the context, used an unrelated example with demagogue tactics and made hyperbolic statements a la daliy mail/sun.
ABC1>C2DE

by vincent Thu Aug 14, 2008 19:11

the man makes some good points . as he is someone who has studied neoroscience as opposed to what is largely a drug pushing industry (psychiatry) i would excpect that. still genuine help care and support and an end to neurolptic drugging (often lifelong) for people labelled seriously mentally ill could save 10-20 yrs of their lives so psychiatry's fraudelent and highly damaging treatments( the harm i believe far outweighs any good here) must end.

malachy, i understand those concerns and all drugs carry risks, inc. cannabis but would you condem highly toxic drugs (whose alleged effectiveness is hyped up and distorted by so called clinical trials) precribed by psychiatry and given to the 'mentally ill' children with learning difficulties and the elderly in nursing homesfor behavioural restraint?

by Malachy Steenson Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:17

Certainly I would condemn the use of drugs on people by the medical profession, whose only real interest is in controlling the victms and pushing ahead their own careers and making huge profits.

I am also reminded on the death of a young student in the early 80's who died as a result of a clinical trial in Austin Darragh's clinic. Darrargh's view at the time on Gay Byrnes radio show where he was the resident medical guru were that we paid him his money and he took his chances.

I have huge reservations about the legal drugs industry particularly the State Methadone programme back up with prescribed "zimmers".

Mr. Man - All of those who I know in my community who are drug addicts began with cannabis, I therefore repeat my earlier comments.

by WhiteWidow Thu Dec 11, 2008 15:09

"Mr. Man - All of those who I know in my community who are drug addicts began with cannabis, I therefore repeat my earlier comments."

They began with cannabis because its a soft drug hence the term "began with" how many stoners steal old women's handbags to pay for some weed, none, and why is that because they are out working just like any bloke who enjoys his few cans at home while watching the football and how come these supposed drug users can sustain a job because its not a debilitating drug such as heroin or even alcohol, how many working days are lost to the economy through hangovers?

All the alcoholics I know began on shandy, so should we ban shandy? Besides if weed is legalized it stops people having to deal with the scumbag gangs and dealers who may want to sell them any dodgy crap or get them to try something more dangerous and addictive such as coke or heroin. Alcohol is clearly Irelands biggest problem, I would feel a lot safer walking down a road full of stoner's than a road full of drunk muppets carrying their bottles around. I smoke weed,dont drink, i work hard, pay my taxes yet if I'm seen smoking a spliff I'll be nicked while some wino pissed off his head can kip on a bench in town, get rowdy, shout abuse at tourists or whomever and he gets a slap on the wrists. I have mates who are coppers some are former stoner's themselves and they tell me that a lot of good honest coppers who want to serve their country are sick of wasting their time chasing stoner's while big time drug dealers and gangsters can do what they want with impunity. Even if we as a nation didn't take the amsterdam route of cafes and so on why not allow people to grow their own by introducing a yearly licence for say a 100 euro all the equipment needed can be bought in the state so therefore the state wins twice.

by Shaun Thu Dec 11, 2008 18:47

I would say that canna can be psychologically addictive as opposed to being physically addicted. this does not necessarily lead to 'crime' though . this i think depends more on your circumstances. i have been stoned every day now for about a couple of months. the problem is that it can be very reinforcing because it is so enjoyable and let's you see the funny and unusual side of things and there is no down side .

by Michael - Human League Sat Dec 13, 2008 06:10

Yes some valid points are being made in regard to soft drugs . My point in regard to any ''illegal drug'' is to bear in mind the same Illegal drugs
are in some peoples opinion too dangerous ,and that leaves the Alcohol more socially acceptable .
Have you noticed since the anti smoken ban was Forced Upon Us ,the amount of off license sales increased to an all time ''high'' ,pardon the pun,
and in the process has had the effect of Family Drinking Parties where danger may play a part in Family Breakdown ,

The Legal Eagles are Sooooo looking forward to plenty of court cases as a result of family feuds so watch that you dont overdo the ''gargle'' at home
as sooner or later you may not even have a home in which to go to .
You have been warned

by Mark Smudge Wed Feb 11, 2009 00:35

I think we're well past the stage of argueing this topic.

It is 100% ludicrous to have laws over cannabis. It is safer than alcohol and tobacco.
As if that wasnt enough, it is also looking hopeful as an extremely effective cancer medicine.
Holland has tried having cannabis available freely and it has a lower rate of usage than Ireland, which has the second highest in europe.
Shouldnt our politicians care that these cannabis flower users are being introduced to a dangerous unregaulated market?

Not only that but we can run cars on it's fuel.
An acre of hemp makes 4 times as much paper as an acre of trees.

AT THE MOMENT THERE IS CANNABIS LACED WITH CRACK COCAINE BEING SOLD TO CANNABIS USERS IN DUBLIN. THIS IS BEING BOUGHT BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGULATION ON WHAT CAN BE SOLD.

So to those worried about health. Whats healthier and safer: Have cannabis users buying pure cannabis or to have cannabis users being tricked into using crack cocaine?

I think you'll find your answer way back in the 1930s in America's prohibition when they worked out all this stuff. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK, EDUCATION DOES.

by gerry dunne Wed Feb 11, 2009 01:11

Research has shown in USA that men are 70% more likely to get testicular cancer under the age of 50 if they use cannabis.

by Medical Student Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:12

Cancer links:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/articlepage....32722

http://www.herald.ie/world-news/cannabis-linked-to-test....html

.

by shaun Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:57

people should be wary of this research. the medical profession are always saying things like this despite the fact that their so-called treatments and pharmaceuticals DEFINITELY cause disease and death. if you smoke try to restrict to once a week , take additional vit c , and take regular exercise. people should also note that aging is also RELATED to disease and death.

by In Memory of Bob Doyle Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:55

Some Cannabis users live a long and fruitful life, eg Bob Doyle. Heres some more good news.

**************************

Cannabis has been used recreationally and for medicinal purposes for centuries, yet its 60 plus active components are only partly understood. Now scientists have discovered how a compound in cannabis can help cells to function in our bodies, and aid recovery after a damaging event.

Dr Bettina Platt, from Aberdeenns University's School of Medical Sciences, said: "Scientists have known for a long time that cannabidiol can help with pain relief but we never really knew how it worked.

"However we have discovered what it actually does at the cellular level. We are hoping that our findings can instruct the development of cannabidiol based treatments for disorders related to mitochondrial dysfunction such as Parkinson's disease or Huntington's disease."

http://www.physorg.com/