The cannabis debate

zhao

there are no accidents
man this new shit Gambia Boy is bringing be on some other level...

baby-tunnel.gif
 

tryptych

waiting for a time
I'm sure it's already been said in this thread, but stronger stuff means you can smoke less, which is in general a good thing.

Research also seems to be pointing towards the fact that some people are genetically pre-disposed to negative reactions, including psychosis and adverse memory effects.

Polymorphism in the catechol-o-methyltransferase Val158Met gene appears to be the key, carriers of the Val allele are more likely to have bad reactions to THC, compared to carriers of the Met allele.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1
 

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
The A[dvisory] C[ommittee on the] M[isuse of] D[rugs] report published yesterday concludes that evidence on its mental health links is not strong enough to justify changing the status of cannabis to class B. "The current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1%."

I find that trying to follow the average thread on the thought forum increases the risk of schizophrenia by at least 3%.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I thinks its fair to say that different drugs will affect different brains in different ways at different times. Skunk is a different drug to the 5%THC cannabis that my parents were toking in the late 60's. Genetically engineered bud that has THC levels over 20% is an odd thing in its self.

This is an urban myth though, isn't it? It's not like weed producers have access to Monsanto-style laboratory equipment, is it? You can change the characeristics of plants or animals just by breeding those characteristics into them (especially a plant like cannabis which reproduces sexually, I should imagine), and people have been doing just that for thousands of years.

Edit:
it's not genetially engineered. its a product of selective breeding which is quite different.
well, not really: you can change something much quicker by messing about with its DNA directly, but selective breeding can achieve the same effect - it's just much slower.

And:
My bad, but its not that different, its just a longer road to the same destination (stronger weed). right?...
isn't quite right - the very strong stuff around today has been bred for THC content at the expense of cannabidiol (CBD) which is an antipsychotic and, in trad weed or hashish, helps ameliorate the brain-frazzling effects of the THC.
 
Last edited:

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
the very strong stuff around today has been bred for THC content at the expense of cannabidiol (CBD) which is an antipsychotic and, in trad weed or hashish, helps ameliorate the brain-frazzling effects of the THC.
The other big drawback (;)) being that it generally isn't hand rolled on the thighs of Nepalese maidens which in studies has been shown to contribute to the positive effects.
 

tryptych

waiting for a time
isn't quite right - the very strong stuff around today has been bred for THC content at the expense of cannabidiol (CBD) which is an antipsychotic and, in trad weed or hashish, helps ameliorate the brain-frazzling effects of the THC.

This isn't quite right either. CBD is apparently not psychoactive, but is a sedative, so the reason that cannabis with THC & CBD is less likely to cause psychotic could be because it's a sedative rather than an anti-psychotic. It does appear that CBD works a little like an atypical antipsychotic, but the sample size of the studies are pretty low at the moment (2 or 3 patients) at the few I looked at.

As ever, more research is needed.

CBD also produces the more "stoning" type effects found in indica type strains, as opposed to the "high" of THC.

More later...
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/eu.smoking

This reminds me - what happened with British hookah bars, did they evade the ban? I'm sure there are still some operatiing.


Unfortunately not. I think there was talk of them being allowed to operate normally as members-only clubs, but then they decided that even members-only clubs had to comply with the ban on indoor smoking. It's utterly fucking ridiculous, I mean the WHOLE POINT of these places is that you go there to smoke, it really *is* the equivalent of banning drinking in a pub. Why they couldn't have made some exception I don't know, but then, I guess that wouldn't have been nearly bureaucratic and authoritarian enough for this government.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
The fucking Independent just beggars belief sometimes. Their headline today was "Sacked for telling the truth", about David Nutt's dismissal from the ACMD after he said that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and that reclassifying weed as class B and keeping ecstasy as class A was unwarranted. (Apparently he was guilty of the heinous crime of "sending out the wrong message" - the right message, presumably, being "using recreational drugs other than the two state-sanctioned ones that rake in billions of pounds in revenue each year is a cardinal sin".) This is the paper that, just a couple of years ago, had the headline "Cannabis: an apology" - reversing its earlier pro-decrim stance and peddling the old line about how the KILLER DEATH SKUNK flooding Britain's streets really is 25 times stronger than the harmless 'pot' so many of our establishment luminaries furtively puffed on as students, liable to turn you into a twitching zombie after a single spliff &c. &c.

So, not so much a U-turn as an N-turn. At least the Daily Heil is *consistently* hysterical.
 
Last edited:

WashYourHands

Well-known member
David Nutt had the last laugh. You can access a legal cannabis prescription more easily than ever in Britain because of his work. Working with opiate and benzo users caught in spiralling circumstances I’d prefer to refer someone to new pro-cannabis patient advocacy groups, particularly those who got into painkillers after accidents or botched surgeries. Would mean immediate dismissal but external agencies are doing it increasingly, so overall outcomes are improving

There’s a flirtatious debate about opiates being oversubscribed in this country. It’s a fallacy. You’re far more likely get an appallingly supervised antidepressant. Opiates have been a US bomb. To get Oxy here you have to be dying. It isn’t even prescribed for major orthopaedic surgery, which says it all

Still the epitome of nuts how the US market exploded. A comparison of opiate use across pre-cannabis decriminalised states and those in a post-legalisation environment would be timely (sure the data’s out there already), harm reduction and education being among the central, long-term aims
 
Top