<http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
factual information about it?

"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
than alcohol for instance.

Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.

"name"  wrote in message 
news:1181678767.218233.134280@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> factual information about it?
>
> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> than alcohol for instance.
>
> Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
> It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
>

Incidentally, I am reminded that this book is well worth reading: "Mom's 
Marijuana" by Dan Shapiro.

Dan Shapiro's mother was an avid gardener. But when Dan was diagnosed with 
cancer and needed something to counter the devastating effects of 
chemotherapy, he was surprised to find his previously anti-drug mother 
planting a new crop - ten marijuana plants that eventually towered over 
their backyard garden...

It's non fiction and it's actually a very good read - better than the above 
summary might suggest!  It's mainly about his battle with his illness and 
how it changed his attitude to his life, and the attitude of those around 
him.

name wrote:
> On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> factual information about it?
>
> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

> Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of 
the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers. 
Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a 
"Drug"


Slatts

In article  name  writes:
>On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
>I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
>cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
>factual information about it?
>
>"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
>than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
>of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

I really, really doubt that figure.

>Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
>drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.

For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
as 6%.

>I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
>of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
>hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
>than alcohol for instance.

For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.

I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

>Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
>illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.

I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
effect.

Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
keep it illegal for adults.  Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.

>It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
>regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
>The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
>distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.

To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
 If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."

	-A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming

On 13 jun, 00:44, "Sla#s"  wrote:
> name wrote:
> > On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> > I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> > cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> > factual information about it?
>
> > "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> > than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> > of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

Yeah, that would certainly explain the relatively high level of
dependency they claim, but many of the countries the report seems to
pertain to have a culture where it's not customary to mix tobacco and
weed.  Also, perhaps they would claim that anyone who is using on a
daily basis are apparently unable to stop, without considering the
possibility those people are simply unwilling (but potentially quite
able) to stop.
I've often abstained for months after prolonged periods of daily usage
and it's not such a big deal (not like abstaining from tobacco use
after prolonged daily use), but people automatically seem to assume
you must be an addict if you use it on a daily basis.

>
> > Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> > drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of
> the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers.
> Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a
> "Drug"
>
> Slatts

But they are not consistent using that term... sometimes they speak of
use and sometimes they speak of abuse. But it annoys me as well they
are not clear about this distinction. On the other hand it does kind
of prove the whole article is bogus, because what is this mysterious
abuse anyway if they can't specify what it entails exactly (besides a
small minority that is supposedly unable to quit).

On 13 jun, 02:02, p...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:
> In article  name  writes:
> >On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> >I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> >cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> >factual information about it?
>
> >"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> >than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> >of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> I really, really doubt that figure.
>
> >Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> >drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.
>
> For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
> who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
> as 6%.
>
> >I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> >of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> >hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> >than alcohol for instance.
>
> For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
> higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
> figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.
>
> I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
> since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
> but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

Thx for the figures, they seem credible. But perhaps you also have a
somewhat authoritative source for the aforementioned percentages of
people that become dependent on various psychoactive substances?

>
> >Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> >illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
>
> I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
> actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
> effect.
>
> Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
> keep it illegal for adults.

So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would
like to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz
is about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them?
I think most parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range
trying out a cup of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess
it's the social acceptation factor that comes into play here rather
than objective scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.

Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
coffee.

So I wouldn't be surprised, also based on personal experience using
copious quantities of potent bud, if it turns out that cannabis is
indeed somewhat of a health hazard with respect to people's mental
health in comparison to mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.
Though in comparison to alcohol, the effects of cannabis, especially
if used frequently or in an experienced user, are rather mild. Someone
who is stoned is unlikely to lose control over their behavior to the
degree that people do when they are drunk.
Now tobacco is so addictive and smoking is so harmful that overall I
would rate tobacco more dangerous to people's health (both mental and
physical), but in case of coffee I'm not so sure if the potential
mental health risks associated with cannabis might outweigh any other
hazards associated with coffee.

> Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
> drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.
>
> >It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> >regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> >The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> >distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
>
> To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.

But surely, even Claude, the most prominent advocate of prohibition
here (in uk.politics.drugs), seems to acknowledge the distinction
between use and abuse to some degree, even if he only makes that
distinction for drugs like alcohol that he seems to enjoy himself. I'm
not sure, but I think Claude would qualify any use of tobacco as abuse
and
he certainly qualifies any use of cannabis as abuse.

>
> -Pete Zakel
>  (p...@seeheader.nospam)
>
> "If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
>  If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."
>
>         -A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name,  wrote

> On 13 jun, 02:02, p...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:
> > In article  name
 writes:
> > >On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> > >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
> >
> > >> --
> > >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
> >
> > >I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> > >cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> > >factual information about it?
> >
> > >"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> > >than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> > >of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
> >
> > I really, really doubt that figure.
> >
> > >Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> > >drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
> >
> > For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.
> >
> > For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
> > who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
> > as 6%.
> >
> > >I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> > >of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> > >hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> > >than alcohol for instance.
> >
> > For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
> > higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
> > figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.
> >
> > I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
> > since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
> > but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

    Yes well I get by on a third to half an ounce of 72% b/s chocolate
a day with a cup of cocoa as well but on coffee I get up to several
cups a day if I take one.  That one may ruin me as it provokes panic
attacks and paronoia.   

> 
> Thx for the figures, they seem credible. But perhaps you also have a
> somewhat authoritative source for the aforementioned percentages of
> people that become dependent on various psychoactive substances?
> 
> >
> > >Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> > >illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
> >
> > I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
> > actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
> > effect.
> >
> > Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
> > keep it illegal for adults.
> 
> So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would like
> to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz is
> about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them? I think most
> parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range trying out a cup
> of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess it's the social
> acceptation factor that comes into play here rather than objective
> scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.

    Yeah well my parental units gave me as much coca-cola etc as I wanted
to drink when a kid which is where my extreme caffiene sensitivity came
from so I think any drug for children is generally a mistake unless 
a physician prescribes it.
    If you are going to drag up a protect the children arguement for
billionth time you might take it to the logical end.
> 
> Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee. Sure,
> more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a complete
> absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the effects of
> a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite dramatic,
> especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like coffee.

    That depends entirely on indivual "drug idiosyncrasy" i.e. some
people can tolerate drugs of one kind much better than others but
letting children use drugs is a bad idea because of the problems with
sensitivity and even less attractive reaction that can occur.  And
most children can maintain if the matter of the drugs effects on
a growing body is explained.  Most of the tobacco addicts I know started
young and were unable to stop the craving from the age of 12 or 14
years of age.  

> 
> So I wouldn't be surprised, also based on personal experience using
> copious quantities of potent bud, if it turns out that cannabis is
> indeed somewhat of a health hazard with respect to people's mental
> health in comparison to mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.
> Though in comparison to alcohol, the effects of cannabis, especially if
> used frequently or in an experienced user, are rather mild. Someone who
> is stoned is unlikely to lose control over their behavior to the degree
> that people do when they are drunk. Now tobacco is so addictive and
> smoking is so harmful that overall I would rate tobacco more dangerous
> to people's health (both mental and physical), but in case of coffee I'm
> not so sure if the potential mental health risks associated with
> cannabis might outweigh any other hazards associated with coffee.
> 
> > Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
> > drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.
> >
> > >It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> > >regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> > >The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> > >distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
> >
> > To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.
> 
> But surely, even Claude, the most prominent advocate of prohibition here
> (in uk.politics.drugs), seems to acknowledge the distinction between use
> and abuse to some degree, even if he only makes that distinction for
> drugs like alcohol that he seems to enjoy himself. I'm not sure, but I
> think Claude would qualify any use of tobacco as abuse and
> he certainly qualifies any use of cannabis as abuse.
> 
> >
> > -Pete Zakel
> >  (p...@seeheader.nospam)
> >
> > "If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
> >  If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."
> >
> >         -A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming
> 
    
    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--       
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
 
     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

In article <f4n7mn$1nq7$1@energise.enta.net> "Sla#s"  writes:
>name wrote:

>> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
>> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
>> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

>Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

I keep forgetting that people on your side of the pond like to mix the
happy weed with the noxious stuff.  That just *ruins* it!

>What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of 
>the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers. 
>Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a 
>"Drug"

Meanwhile, they drink their martinis and ales and single malts and never think
twice.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."

			-Lily Tomlin

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:

>Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
>has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
>Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
>complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
>effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
>dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
>coffee.

You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.

Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
psychological symptoms:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caffeine Intoxication

The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.

http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
psychological condition known as panic disorder:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panic Disorder

A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of control.' Panic disorder is
frightening because of the panic attacks associated with it, and also
because it often leads to other complications such as phobias,
depression, substance abuse, medical complications, even suicide. Its
effects can range from mild word or social impairment to a total
inability to face the outside world. 

http://www.apa.org/topics/anxietyqanda.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caffeine can cause caffeinism and panic disorder in relativly low
doses:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=3284301&dopt=Citation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The role of caffeine in causing caffeinism and panic disorder has been
shown in hundreds of research papers:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1444724&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=3358468&dopt=Citation

Google will turn up a practically unlimted number of them.

The evidence is clear. Coffee is a powerful and dangerous drug that
can lead to very serious physical and mental symptoms, sometimes
ending in suicide.

So don't play down the dangers of coffee. It can be a killer.

Clough

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.06.12.18.20.59.943579@stovell.org.uk...
>
>
> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>

Clearly they feel the 954 people addmited in the UK for Cannabis problems 
doesn't equate to nine percent of users.

 I doubt the accuracy of these figures in this article and can't see how it 
can be as high as 9%, and if it is these people aren't complaining hence it 
seems they actually don't want to stop !!

These figures are clearly based on incorrect 'estimates'....In otherwords 
'plucked out of thin air' or might as well be.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 13 jun, 08:42, Clough  wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:
> >Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> >has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
> >Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
> >complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
> >effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
> >dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
> >coffee.
>
> You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.
>
> Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
> psychological symptoms:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------
>
> Caffeine Intoxication
>
> The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
> effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
> restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
> diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
> some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
> day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
> than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
> and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
> psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
> the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
> doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
> failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.
>
> http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------
>
> There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
> psychological condition known as panic disorder:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------
>
> Panic Disorder
>
> A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
> because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of control.' Panic disorder is
> frightening because of the panic attacks associated with it, and also
> because it often leads to other complications such as phobias,
> depression, substance abuse, medical complications, even suicide. Its
> effects can range from mild word or social impairment to a total
> inability to face the outside world.
>
> http://www.apa.org/topics/anxietyqanda.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------
>
> Caffeine can cause caffeinism and panic disorder in relativly low
> doses:
>
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=32...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------------
>
> The role of caffeine in causing caffeinism and panic disorder has been
> shown in hundreds of research papers:
>
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=14...
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_....
>
> Google will turn up a practically unlimted number of them.
>
> The evidence is clear. Coffee is a powerful and dangerous drug that
> can lead to very serious physical and mental symptoms, sometimes
> ending in suicide.
>
> So don't play down the dangers of coffee. It can be a killer.
>
> Clough

Yes, but in what percentage of users?
I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
seem to have problems with it. I just think that cannabis is more
likely to result in mental health problems in case of excessive use
whereas coffee usually just gives unpleasant effects if used
excessively, just like the euphoria induced by cannabis can also be
way more intense and pleasant than the euphoria derived from a nice
espresso. It's difficult to draw an accurate comparison though, given
all the complications of the illegality of cannabis and the associated
pseudoscientific incriminations, the wide social acceptance of coffee
and other issues.
But if I was a parent, I would be less anxious about having a teenager
(aged between 12 and 16) trying out a cup of coffee than having them
trying out a spliff. But maybe that's just because children are likely
to be disgusted by the taste of coffee anyway and smoking in general
has a kind of associated coolness factor (from the way it is often
portrayed in movies and commercials for instance).
All in all, I tend to stick with my position that I think cannabis has
more significant associated healthrisks compared to coffee, but the
dangers are of a different nature and in case of proper drug education
it's probably a close call.

On 13 jun, 10:25, name  wrote:
> On 13 jun, 08:42, Clough  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:
> > >Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> > >has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
> > >Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
> > >complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
> > >effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
> > >dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
> > >coffee.
>
> > You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.
>
> > Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
> > psychological symptoms:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------
>
> > Caffeine Intoxication
>
> > The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
> > effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
> > restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
> > diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
> > some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
> > day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
> > than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
> > and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
> > psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
> > the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
> > doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
> > failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.
>
> >http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-------------------
>
> > There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
> > psychological condition known as panic disorder:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-------------------
>
> > Panic Disorder
>
> > A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
> > because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of control.' Panic disorder is
> > frightening because of the panic attacks associated with it, and also
> > because it often leads to other complications such as phobias,
> > depression, substance abuse, medical complications, even suicide. Its
> > effects can range from mild word or social impairment to a total
> > inability to face the outside world.
>
> >http://www.apa.org/topics/anxietyqanda.html
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­---------------------
>
> > Caffeine can cause caffeinism and panic disorder in relativly low
> > doses:
>
> >www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=32...
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­----------------------
>
> > The role of caffeine in causing caffeinism and panic disorder has been
> > shown in hundreds of research papers:
>
> >www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=14...
>
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_...
>
> > Google will turn up a practically unlimted number of them.
>
> > The evidence is clear. Coffee is a powerful and dangerous drug that
> > can lead to very serious physical and mental symptoms, sometimes
> > ending in suicide.
>
> > So don't play down the dangers of coffee. It can be a killer.
>
> > Clough
>
> Yes, but in what percentage of users?
> I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
> seem to have problems with it. I just think that cannabis is more
> likely to result in mental health problems in case of excessive use
> whereas coffee usually just gives unpleasant effects if used
> excessively, just like the euphoria induced by cannabis can also be
> way more intense and pleasant than the euphoria derived from a nice
> espresso. It's difficult to draw an accurate comparison though, given
> all the complications of the illegality of cannabis and the associated
> pseudoscientific incriminations, the wide social acceptance of coffee
> and other issues.
> But if I was a parent, I would be less anxious about having a teenager
> (aged between 12 and 16) trying out a cup of coffee than having them
> trying out a spliff. But maybe that's just because children are likely
> to be disgusted by the taste of coffee anyway and smoking in general
> has a kind of associated coolness factor (from the way it is often
> portrayed in movies and commercials for instance).
> All in all, I tend to stick with my position that I think cannabis has
> more significant associated healthrisks compared to coffee, but the
> dangers are of a different nature and in case of proper drug education
> it's probably a close call.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Btw, I think the question whether cannabis is more dangerous than
coffee should be settled based on scientific effidence rather than
personal experience, so I submit this scientific assessment in support
of my possition that cannabis is indeed potentially more harmful and
dangerous than coffee (given that coffee is not even listed indicates
it's probably not among the most harmful drugs):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

I would welcome any similar scientific comparisons of various drugs
that would demonstrate that cannabis is safer than coffee for anyone
who advocates this position.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:25:17 -0700, name  wrote:

>Yes, but in what percentage of users?
>I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
>seem to have problems with it.

Coffee is a dangerous drug. Just say no.

Just one cup is enough to cause a panic attack and suicide.

At least it would if the media treated coffee the same way that it
treats cannabis.

Clough

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:44:56 -0700, name  wrote:

>Btw, I think the question whether cannabis is more dangerous than
>coffee should be settled based on scientific effidence rather than
>personal experience, so I submit this scientific assessment in support
>of my possition that cannabis is indeed potentially more harmful and
>dangerous than coffee (given that coffee is not even listed indicates
>it's probably not among the most harmful drugs):

There is a much stronger case to be made, with much more scientific
evidence to back it up, for caffeine being a more dangerous drug than
cannabis.

Both of them are, of course, relatively safe drugs with no real
dangers for adults. It is all a matter of context and proportion, two
things that are usually missing in the media and in public debate.

But cannabis is demonised and so the minimal dangers that do exist are
blown up beyond all proportion.

Just the same could just as easily be done with regard to coffee, and
if the roles were reversed and cannabis were legal and coffee illegal
the media would have an easy time running scare stories of the demon
drug coffee that drives its addicts to panic and suicide. All backed
up with impeccable scientific research.


Clough

Clough wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:25:17 -0700, name  wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but in what percentage of users?
>> I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
>> seem to have problems with it.
> 
> Coffee is a dangerous drug. Just say no.
> 
> Just one cup is enough to cause a panic attack and suicide.
> 
> At least it would if the media treated coffee the same way that it
> treats cannabis.
> 
> Clough
> 
Cannabis causes brain damage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/2/newsid_2540000/2540141.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104744.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article757211.ece

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=72119

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nweed108.xml

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:


>> Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
>> keep it illegal for adults.
>
>So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would
>like to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz
>is about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them?
>I think most parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range
>trying out a cup of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess
>it's the social acceptation factor that comes into play here rather
>than objective scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.

I allow my children to taste my wine or beer - they usually just let
it touch their tongue and then recoil in horror at the taste. They're
7 years old.

Caffeine I don't really have problem with - I know in the USA there's
a strong feeling that children shouldn't be given coffee, but I'd be
comfortable giving my children weak coffee or tea if they wanted to
try it. Occasionally they'll drink weak milky tea, but they don't
often want to. Coffee they don't like.

Cannabis.... in my view the jury is still out on whether there's a
general danger to young people from moderate cannabis use, or whether
there's no danger, or whether there's danger to a particular group of
people. More, and better quality, research is needed.

By the time my children get to 12-14, they will know about cannabis.
They'll have heard about it from me. I will tell them, amongst other
things, that it might be bad for them to use it at their age (assuming
the state of the evidence is the same as it is now), but will add that
if they are going to use it, I'd rather they used stuff I've obtained,
and that they do it with me and in my house. I'd rather they did that
than have their first experience in a park with a bunch of teenagers
who know nothing about it and have got some crappy weed from some
unsavoury character.

I feel the same way about alcohol - over the years we've been told
that the problem of teenage drinking has been increasing, while at the
same time more and more stringent measures are brought into place to
prevent teenage drinking. Could it be that the measures put in place,
serve mainly to ensure that teenage drinking is done out of sight,
knowledge and guidance of adult drinkers?

In the UK the legal age for drinking (not buying) alcohol is 5 years
old. There was talk recently of increasing that to 16. That's
wonderful. That means it won't be legal to gently introduce a child to
the sensible use of alcohol. Rather, they'll start drinking (before
16) in dangerous and ignorant environments.

I hate the dumb fucking government.

>So I wouldn't be surprised, also based on personal experience using
>copious quantities of potent bud, if it turns out that cannabis is
>indeed somewhat of a health hazard with respect to people's mental
>health in comparison to mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.

Me neither. But "wouldn't be surprised" isn't the same as "I believe".
There are experiments to be done, but there are major legal barriers
to doing them properly.

I wouldn't underestimate the safety of caffeine though - we have a
situation where a very large proportion of the population is on
caffeine for long periods of time every day. There are withdrawal
symptoms when they stop, and while they're on it, there's often an
increase in stress levels. 

I can't say I've noticed any long term effects (i.e. effects that
persist when the drug has passed out of my body) from cannabis. I've
certainly never experienced withdrawal symptoms.

>Though in comparison to alcohol, the effects of cannabis, especially
>if used frequently or in an experienced user, are rather mild. Someone
>who is stoned is unlikely to lose control over their behavior to the
>degree that people do when they are drunk.

Not only that, but regular alcohol use is well known to cause
observable organic damage. I don't think the same can be said for
cannabis.

>> To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.

The government will refer to a person having one joint as "abusing"
cannabis. Abuse is use that is not approved of by the government.
Users themselves often use the word in a different way - meaning use
that has bad results (e.g. I've used GHB, I've also abused it. I tend
to abuse rather than use it, so I no longer touch it).

This whole debate is contaminated by loaded words. The word "drug"
should be dropped. In a non-medical context, it's used by the
government to mean a psychoactive substance they don't want people
using. They load it with bad connotations - danger to health and
society, association with crime. Really they're dealing with a huge
range of substances with vastly different effects and risks. If there
was no prohibition, we'd certainly never see a situation where some
substances (including cannabis, LSD, heroin) were classed as "drugs"
and tobacco and alcohol were not. The health issue and the legal issue
have been deliberately confused.

Even the classifications reflect this confusion - often I'll read in
the paper that police officers in London say they're concentrating on
class A drugs. I presume that by this they mean cocaine and heroin.
The list of Class A drugs is huge though - and the vast majority don't
have the same risk profiles of cocaine and heroin. Some of them aren't
even psychoactive....

pj

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:31:56 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>Clough wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:25:17 -0700, name  wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, but in what percentage of users?
>>> I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
>>> seem to have problems with it.
>> 
>> Coffee is a dangerous drug. Just say no.
>> 
>> Just one cup is enough to cause a panic attack and suicide.
>> 
>> At least it would if the media treated coffee the same way that it
>> treats cannabis.
>> 
>> Clough
>> 
>Cannabis causes brain damage
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/2/newsid_2540000/2540141.stm

The primate study mentioned is interesting. The quote from the veteran
was not - one person saying, I smoked pot, and now I can't think
straight doesn't count as evidence. 
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104744.stm

Doesn't count as evidence. If you *know* that cannabis causes mental
illness. Then your son becomes mentally ill, and you find he was using
cannabis, you might make the assumption that the cannabis caused the
illness. Unfortunately, there's no basis for that assumption at all.
People become mentally ill without taking cannabis, people take
cannabis without becoming mentally ill. Only proper controlled
experiments with large numbers of people can establish a correlation.


>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article757211.ece

This sounds like a better study, but unfortunately, it's still based
on the testimony of the subjects. The amounts and strengths of
cannabis they used would have been impossible to determine accurately.
Other common factors (e.g. perhaps there's a correlation between
cannabis use and some other form of behaviour / lifestyle, and it's
the latter that caused the damage, or perhaps they were unconsciously
self medicating) can't be eliminated in a study of this type.

Again, double blind trials. The only way.

>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=72119

This is a bit different, because it's looking at a mechanism. They
might have a point. The last part, where they claim mothers who use
cannabis have higher rates of birth defects in their children is
unreliable - it's quite likely that there's a correlation between
cannabis use and alcohol consumption, or tobacco use (for example). To
establish a real correlation these factors have to be eliminated using
double blind trials.

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nweed108.xml

This is just rubbish. It's not a scientfic study at all. It's just
mental health professionals being more aware that cannabis is linked
(at least in the popular press) with mental illness, are asking their
patients whether they've used cannabis, then writing the fact down.
Something they might not have done a few years ago.

I was in hospital a couple of years ago after a bike crash. Noone
asked me if I'd used cannabis. Perhaps *all* patients admitted to
hospital should be asked if they've used cannabis recently. What
happens if the proportion of people who are admitted for mental health
problems and have used cannabis matches the number of people who are
admitted for ingrowing toenails or vasectomies who've used it?

pj

On 13 jun, 12:31, Kevin Parkins  wrote:
> Clough wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:25:17 -0700, name  wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but in what percentage of users?
> >> I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
> >> seem to have problems with it.
>
> > Coffee is a dangerous drug. Just say no.
>
> > Just one cup is enough to cause a panic attack and suicide.
>
> > At least it would if the media treated coffee the same way that it
> > treats cannabis.
>
> > Clough
>
> Cannabis causes brain damage

Actually, cannabinoids (the psychoactive agents in cannabis) have been
shown to be neuroprotective and there are no credible studies that
demonstrate braindamage associated with cannabis use.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_science1.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth8.shtml

As far as cannabis as a cause for schizophrenia is concerned, there is
no conclusive evidence so far for a causal relationship, although the
relationship between psychosis and cannabis is complicated. There is
even antipsychotic medication derived from certain cannabinoids for
instance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4104702.stm


>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/2/newsid_254...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104744.stm
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article757211.ece
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=72119
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nweed...- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:31:56 +0100, Kevin Parkins wrote:

> Cannabis causes brain damage

There must be multiple millions with brain damage, as cannabis has been
popular for over 40 years. I wonder where they hide?

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

name wrote:
<SNIP>
(A plea - could you lot please learn to snip your posts?)

> I would welcome any similar scientific comparisons of various drugs
> that would demonstrate that cannabis is safer than coffee for anyone
> who advocates this position.

I agree that coffee is comparable to cannabis. Cannabis may get you more 
stoned but coffee is more addictive and physically harmful. As for mental 
harms, you just have to look at the average American to realise how harmful 
coffee is mentally!

Here is a copy of the famous NIDA chart they removed from their site when 
they realised it showed how safe cannabis actually was.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Slatts

Kevin Parkins wrote:
<SNIP>>>
> Cannabis causes brain damage
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/2/newsid_2540000/2540141.stm
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104744.stm
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article757211.ece
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=72119
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nweed108.xml

All disputed on peer review...

Yet when all the other reports say it is less harmfull than tobacco or 
alcohol come out they are rubbished by the media - The Media you note -  not 
the scientists...

Slatts

pj wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:
>
>
>>> Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no
>>> reason to keep it illegal for adults.
>>
>> So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would
>> like to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz
>> is about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them?
>> I think most parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range
>> trying out a cup of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess
>> it's the social acceptation factor that comes into play here rather
>> than objective scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.
>
> I allow my children to taste my wine or beer - they usually just let
> it touch their tongue and then recoil in horror at the taste. They're
> 7 years old.

Mine have been drinking since they were toddlers (They are now in their 
20s) - I didn't realise it was illegal to give a kid under five a drink! 
I've been drinking since I was 3 years old! (My average consumption is now 
about 3 units a month)
Neither of my kids are particularly fond of drinking and tended to come home 
reasonably sober when their friends got wasted.

> Caffeine I don't really have problem with - I know in the USA there's
> a strong feeling that children shouldn't be given coffee, but I'd be
> comfortable giving my children weak coffee or tea if they wanted to
> try it. Occasionally they'll drink weak milky tea, but they don't
> often want to. Coffee they don't like.

Tea seemed to be OK but coffee sent them a bit hyper. We kept them off it 
untill they were in their teens.

> Cannabis.... in my view the jury is still out on whether there's a
> general danger to young people from moderate cannabis use, or whether
> there's no danger, or whether there's danger to a particular group of
> people. More, and better quality, research is needed.
>

I told my lot that the greatest danger was that it was illegal and the 
second most dangerous thing was smoking joints because they contained 
tobacco.
http://www.slatts.ukfsn.org/famous/cannabis-tobacco.htm

<SNIP>

Slatts

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:31:56 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>Clough wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:25:17 -0700, name  wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, but in what percentage of users?
>>> I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
>>> seem to have problems with it.
>> 
>> Coffee is a dangerous drug. Just say no.
>> 
>> Just one cup is enough to cause a panic attack and suicide.
>> 
>> At least it would if the media treated coffee the same way that it
>> treats cannabis.

>Cannabis causes brain damage

There is no hard evidence for this.

There is plenty of hard evidence that alcohol causes massive brain
damage, far in excess of anything cannabis might do even if the
tenouous links they have been trying to demonstrate between cannabis
and brain damage could ever be proven.

Clough

On 14 jun, 00:27, "Sla#s"  wrote:
> name wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> (A plea - could you lot please learn to snip your posts?)

I know... I'm lazy... it's just that I'm using groups.google and it
automatically folds up any quoted part unless you click on it to
expand it, so it never bothers me personally. I'll try to snip it but
perhaps it would be easier if you find a newsreader that is able to
fold up long quoted parts so they don't bother you.

>
> > I would welcome any similar scientific comparisons of various drugs
> > that would demonstrate that cannabis is safer than coffee for anyone
> > who advocates this position.
>
> I agree that coffee is comparable to cannabis. Cannabis may get you more
> stoned but coffee is more addictive and physically harmful. As for mental
> harms, you just have to look at the average American to realise how harmful
> coffee is mentally!
>
> Here is a copy of the famous NIDA chart they removed from their site when
> they realised it showed how safe cannabis actually was.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
>
> Slatts

I've seen the NIDA chart and similar charts but I disagree they show
that coffee is more addictive, because it depends on the importance of
each of the individual factors (like reinforcement) . Not that I think
cannabis is much more addictive than coffee, but I'm not convinced
either way (one being more addictive than the other).

On 12 Jun, 19:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>

I had to click the link to make sure it was a United Nations report.

Really, I humbly suggest the UN should get it's head out of it's arse
about issues that it really shouldn't get involved in. I CBA to look
up it's constitution, but when I were a lad, we were taught it was set
up to provide a forum for countries to work towards peace
diplomatically, and to try to prevent the conflicts which escalated
into the world wars. As an ancillary, I admit, their public health and
aid programmes are worthwhile, if under funded.

I look forward to an increasingly islamic-biased UN starting to
pronounce on alcohol. I look forward even more to UK and US
politicians (the same ones who trumpet the UN sngle convention) having
to explain to use why the UN is wrong about that.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:08:27 -0700, Jethro 
wrote:

>I look forward to an increasingly islamic-biased UN starting to
>pronounce on alcohol. I look forward even more to UK and US
>politicians (the same ones who trumpet the UN sngle convention) having
>to explain to use why the UN is wrong about that.

As Muzzlim political and social influence in the UK increases, you
won't need to worry about UK politicians not liking Muzzlim inspired
UN pronouncements.

Clough

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:44:47 +0100, "Sla#s" 
wrote:

>I told my lot that the greatest danger was that it was illegal and the 
>second most dangerous thing was smoking joints because they contained 
>tobacco.
>http://www.slatts.ukfsn.org/famous/cannabis-tobacco.htm

I haven't explained to them about cannabis yet. I think they're too
young, and are likely to be indiscreet at school, which wouldn't be
good.

I smoked a couple of joints once in their presence - this caused them
a lot of confusion, because I'd told them that smoking cigarrettes is
bad for you. Now I tend only to use a bong - and I rarely do it in
front of the kids.

It's a tricky one.... did anyone see this rather alarming bbc article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6752299.stm

how 1984 is that?

pj

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:08:27 -0700, Jethro 
wrote:

>On 12 Jun, 19:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
>I had to click the link to make sure it was a United Nations report.
>
>Really, I humbly suggest the UN should get it's head out of it's arse
>about issues that it really shouldn't get involved in. I CBA to look
>up it's constitution, but when I were a lad, we were taught it was set
>up to provide a forum for countries to work towards peace
>diplomatically, and to try to prevent the conflicts which escalated
>into the world wars. As an ancillary, I admit, their public health and
>aid programmes are worthwhile, if under funded.
>
>I look forward to an increasingly islamic-biased UN starting to
>pronounce on alcohol. I look forward even more to UK and US
>politicians (the same ones who trumpet the UN sngle convention) having
>to explain to use why the UN is wrong about that.


the UN is a diverse group of organizations. UNODOC is known to be
quite extreme. They were even criticised by the Blair government after
they said that cannabis should not have been reclassified in the UK.
Some of their articles are shocking - I remember reading one about the
increasing use of ketamine and the measures needed to prevent this. It
didn't once mention harm - it seems that they assume any psychoactive
is harmful and should be banned. 

pj

On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
factual information about it?

"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
than alcohol for instance.

Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.

"name"  wrote in message 
news:1181678767.218233.134280@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> factual information about it?
>
> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> than alcohol for instance.
>
> Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
> It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
>

Incidentally, I am reminded that this book is well worth reading: "Mom's 
Marijuana" by Dan Shapiro.

Dan Shapiro's mother was an avid gardener. But when Dan was diagnosed with 
cancer and needed something to counter the devastating effects of 
chemotherapy, he was surprised to find his previously anti-drug mother 
planting a new crop - ten marijuana plants that eventually towered over 
their backyard garden...

It's non fiction and it's actually a very good read - better than the above 
summary might suggest!  It's mainly about his battle with his illness and 
how it changed his attitude to his life, and the attitude of those around 
him.

name wrote:
> On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> factual information about it?
>
> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

> Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of 
the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers. 
Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a 
"Drug"


Slatts

In article  name  writes:
>On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
>I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
>cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
>factual information about it?
>
>"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
>than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
>of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

I really, really doubt that figure.

>Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
>drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?

For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.

For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
as 6%.

>I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
>of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
>hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
>than alcohol for instance.

For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.

I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

>Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
>illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.

I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
effect.

Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
keep it illegal for adults.  Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.

>It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
>regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
>The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
>distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.

To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
 If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."

	-A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming

On 13 jun, 00:44, "Sla#s"  wrote:
> name wrote:
> > On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> > I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> > cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> > factual information about it?
>
> > "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> > than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> > of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

Yeah, that would certainly explain the relatively high level of
dependency they claim, but many of the countries the report seems to
pertain to have a culture where it's not customary to mix tobacco and
weed.  Also, perhaps they would claim that anyone who is using on a
daily basis are apparently unable to stop, without considering the
possibility those people are simply unwilling (but potentially quite
able) to stop.
I've often abstained for months after prolonged periods of daily usage
and it's not such a big deal (not like abstaining from tobacco use
after prolonged daily use), but people automatically seem to assume
you must be an addict if you use it on a daily basis.

>
> > Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> > drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of
> the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers.
> Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a
> "Drug"
>
> Slatts

But they are not consistent using that term... sometimes they speak of
use and sometimes they speak of abuse. But it annoys me as well they
are not clear about this distinction. On the other hand it does kind
of prove the whole article is bogus, because what is this mysterious
abuse anyway if they can't specify what it entails exactly (besides a
small minority that is supposedly unable to quit).

On 13 jun, 02:02, p...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:
> In article  name  writes:
> >On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> >I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> >cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> >factual information about it?
>
> >"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> >than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> >of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
>
> I really, really doubt that figure.
>
> >Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> >drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
>
> For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.
>
> For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
> who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
> as 6%.
>
> >I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> >of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> >hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> >than alcohol for instance.
>
> For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
> higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
> figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.
>
> I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
> since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
> but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

Thx for the figures, they seem credible. But perhaps you also have a
somewhat authoritative source for the aforementioned percentages of
people that become dependent on various psychoactive substances?

>
> >Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> >illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
>
> I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
> actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
> effect.
>
> Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
> keep it illegal for adults.

So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would
like to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz
is about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them?
I think most parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range
trying out a cup of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess
it's the social acceptation factor that comes into play here rather
than objective scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.

Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
coffee.

So I wouldn't be surprised, also based on personal experience using
copious quantities of potent bud, if it turns out that cannabis is
indeed somewhat of a health hazard with respect to people's mental
health in comparison to mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.
Though in comparison to alcohol, the effects of cannabis, especially
if used frequently or in an experienced user, are rather mild. Someone
who is stoned is unlikely to lose control over their behavior to the
degree that people do when they are drunk.
Now tobacco is so addictive and smoking is so harmful that overall I
would rate tobacco more dangerous to people's health (both mental and
physical), but in case of coffee I'm not so sure if the potential
mental health risks associated with cannabis might outweigh any other
hazards associated with coffee.

> Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
> drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.
>
> >It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> >regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> >The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> >distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
>
> To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.

But surely, even Claude, the most prominent advocate of prohibition
here (in uk.politics.drugs), seems to acknowledge the distinction
between use and abuse to some degree, even if he only makes that
distinction for drugs like alcohol that he seems to enjoy himself. I'm
not sure, but I think Claude would qualify any use of tobacco as abuse
and
he certainly qualifies any use of cannabis as abuse.

>
> -Pete Zakel
>  (p...@seeheader.nospam)
>
> "If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
>  If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."
>
>         -A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name,  wrote

> On 13 jun, 02:02, p...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:
> > In article  name
 writes:
> > >On 12 jun, 20:21, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> > >> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>
> >
> > >> --
> > >> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
> >
> > >I don't see what the point of the article is... we should care about
> > >cannabis because it's becoming more popular and there isn't enough
> > >factual information about it?
> >
> > >"The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
> > >than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
> > >of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."
> >
> > I really, really doubt that figure.
> >
> > >Ok, so does anyone know the same figures for various other popular
> > >drugs like alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and coffee?
> >
> > For alcohol and opioids, about 10-15% of regular users become addicts.
> >
> > For regular users of cannabis, I'm not sure what the percentage of those are
> > who become psychologically addicted, but I highly doubt it is even as high
> > as 6%.
> >
> > >I reckon for tobacco it's pretty obvious that a higher percentage
> > >of those who try it are unable to stop using it, but I would find it
> > >hard to believe that cannabis would be more addictive in this respect
> > >than alcohol for instance.
> >
> > For tobacco, about 80% of regular users become addicts.  Similar (maybe
> > higher) for crack cocaine (a/k/a freebase).  For snorted cocaine HCl, the
> > figures I've seen are around 15%-40% of regular users become addicts.
> >
> > I don't know that anyone keeps track of the addiction rate for caffeine,
> > since caffeine addiction is so rarely a problem.  I'm addicted to caffeine,
> > but it only takes two 6 oz. cups of coffee a day to maintain my addiction.

    Yes well I get by on a third to half an ounce of 72% b/s chocolate
a day with a cup of cocoa as well but on coffee I get up to several
cups a day if I take one.  That one may ruin me as it provokes panic
attacks and paronoia.   

> 
> Thx for the figures, they seem credible. But perhaps you also have a
> somewhat authoritative source for the aforementioned percentages of
> people that become dependent on various psychoactive substances?
> 
> >
> > >Anyway, I don't see why cannabis ought to be illegal or how the
> > >illegality of cannabis helps in any way to reduce or prevent abuse.
> >
> > I agree with you, and most studies show that the illegality of cannabis
> > actually increases use among younger people due to the "forbidden fruit"
> > effect.
> >
> > Since cannabis is safer to use than caffeine, I see absolutely no reason to
> > keep it illegal for adults.
> 
> So if you had kids of an age like 12 or 14 and they say they would like
> to try that super strength skunk to figure out what all the fuzz is
> about, you wouldn't think twice about allowing them? I think most
> parents wouldn't object to their kids in that age range trying out a cup
> of coffee or even a little beer or wine. But I guess it's the social
> acceptation factor that comes into play here rather than objective
> scientific assessments of the actual risks involved.

    Yeah well my parental units gave me as much coca-cola etc as I wanted
to drink when a kid which is where my extreme caffiene sensitivity came
from so I think any drug for children is generally a mistake unless 
a physician prescribes it.
    If you are going to drag up a protect the children arguement for
billionth time you might take it to the logical end.
> 
> Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee. Sure,
> more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a complete
> absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the effects of
> a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite dramatic,
> especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like coffee.

    That depends entirely on indivual "drug idiosyncrasy" i.e. some
people can tolerate drugs of one kind much better than others but
letting children use drugs is a bad idea because of the problems with
sensitivity and even less attractive reaction that can occur.  And
most children can maintain if the matter of the drugs effects on
a growing body is explained.  Most of the tobacco addicts I know started
young and were unable to stop the craving from the age of 12 or 14
years of age.  

> 
> So I wouldn't be surprised, also based on personal experience using
> copious quantities of potent bud, if it turns out that cannabis is
> indeed somewhat of a health hazard with respect to people's mental
> health in comparison to mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine.
> Though in comparison to alcohol, the effects of cannabis, especially if
> used frequently or in an experienced user, are rather mild. Someone who
> is stoned is unlikely to lose control over their behavior to the degree
> that people do when they are drunk. Now tobacco is so addictive and
> smoking is so harmful that overall I would rate tobacco more dangerous
> to people's health (both mental and physical), but in case of coffee I'm
> not so sure if the potential mental health risks associated with
> cannabis might outweigh any other hazards associated with coffee.
> 
> > Of course, I also see no reason to keep any other
> > drug illegal for adults, since prohibition tends exacerbate the problems.
> >
> > >It's also unclear if and how the UN wants to improve the situation
> > >regarding the lack of factual information about cannabis.
> > >The article is also unclear about the exact criteria for the
> > >distinction between use and abuse of cannabis.
> >
> > To prohibitionists, any use is abuse.  That's part of the problem.
> 
> But surely, even Claude, the most prominent advocate of prohibition here
> (in uk.politics.drugs), seems to acknowledge the distinction between use
> and abuse to some degree, even if he only makes that distinction for
> drugs like alcohol that he seems to enjoy himself. I'm not sure, but I
> think Claude would qualify any use of tobacco as abuse and
> he certainly qualifies any use of cannabis as abuse.
> 
> >
> > -Pete Zakel
> >  (p...@seeheader.nospam)
> >
> > "If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
> >  If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine."
> >
> >         -A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming
> 
    
    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)

--       
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
 
     "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
     the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
     It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
        --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

In article <f4n7mn$1nq7$1@energise.enta.net> "Sla#s"  writes:
>name wrote:

>> "The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is higher
>> than most casual users suspect. Around 9 per cent
>> of those who try cannabis are unable to stop using it."

>Possibly "... because they are addicted to the tobacco in the joints" (?)

I keep forgetting that people on your side of the pond like to mix the
happy weed with the noxious stuff.  That just *ruins* it!

>What I find most annoying about all these report is their automatic use of 
>the term "abuse". As far as they are concerned all users must be abusers. 
>Which is obviously ridiculous. They just cannot concive of anyone using a 
>"Drug"

Meanwhile, they drink their martinis and ales and single malts and never think
twice.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."

			-Lily Tomlin

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:

>Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
>has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
>Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
>complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
>effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
>dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
>coffee.

You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.

Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
psychological symptoms:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caffeine Intoxication

The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.

http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
psychological condition known as panic disorder:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panic Disorder

A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of control.' Panic disorder is
frightening because of the panic attacks associated with it, and also
because it often leads to other complications such as phobias,
depression, substance abuse, medical complications, even suicide. Its
effects can range from mild word or social impairment to a total
inability to face the outside world. 

http://www.apa.org/topics/anxietyqanda.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caffeine can cause caffeinism and panic disorder in relativly low
doses:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=3284301&dopt=Citation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The role of caffeine in causing caffeinism and panic disorder has been
shown in hundreds of research papers:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1444724&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=3358468&dopt=Citation

Google will turn up a practically unlimted number of them.

The evidence is clear. Coffee is a powerful and dangerous drug that
can lead to very serious physical and mental symptoms, sometimes
ending in suicide.

So don't play down the dangers of coffee. It can be a killer.

Clough

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.06.12.18.20.59.943579@stovell.org.uk...
>
>
> <http://www.unodc.org/newsletter/en/perspectives/0601/page011.html>

Clearly they feel the 954 people addmited in the UK for Cannabis problems 
doesn't equate to nine percent of users.

 I doubt the accuracy of these figures in this article and can't see how it 
can be as high as 9%, and if it is these people aren't complaining hence it 
seems they actually don't want to stop !!

These figures are clearly based on incorrect 'estimates'....In otherwords 
'plucked out of thin air' or might as well be.

>
> -- 
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>

On 13 jun, 08:42, Clough  wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:
> >Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> >has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
> >Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
> >complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
> >effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
> >dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
> >coffee.
>
> You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.
>
> Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
> psychological symptoms:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------
>
> Caffeine Intoxication
>
> The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
> effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
> restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
> diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
> some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
> day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
> than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
> and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
> psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
> the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
> doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
> failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.
>
> http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------
>
> There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
> psychological condition known as panic disorder:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------
>
> Panic Disorder
>
> A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
> because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of control.' Panic disorder is
> frightening because of the panic attacks associated with it, and also
> because it often leads to other complications such as phobias,
> depression, substance abuse, medical complications, even suicide. Its
> effects can range from mild word or social impairment to a total
> inability to face the outside world.
>
> http://www.apa.org/topics/anxietyqanda.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------
>
> Caffeine can cause caffeinism and panic disorder in relativly low
> doses:
>
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=32...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------------
>
> The role of caffeine in causing caffeinism and panic disorder has been
> shown in hundreds of research papers:
>
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=14...
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_....
>
> Google will turn up a practically unlimted number of them.
>
> The evidence is clear. Coffee is a powerful and dangerous drug that
> can lead to very serious physical and mental symptoms, sometimes
> ending in suicide.
>
> So don't play down the dangers of coffee. It can be a killer.
>
> Clough

Yes, but in what percentage of users?
I know so many people who drink coffee and so few of them that really
seem to have problems with it. I just think that cannabis is more
likely to result in mental health problems in case of excessive use
whereas coffee usually just gives unpleasant effects if used
excessively, just like the euphoria induced by cannabis can also be
way more intense and pleasant than the euphoria derived from a nice
espresso. It's difficult to draw an accurate comparison though, given
all the complications of the illegality of cannabis and the associated
pseudoscientific incriminations, the wide social acceptance of coffee
and other issues.
But if I was a parent, I would be less anxious about having a teenager
(aged between 12 and 16) trying out a cup of coffee than having them
trying out a spliff. But maybe that's just because children are likely
to be disgusted by the taste of coffee anyway and smoking in general
has a kind of associated coolness factor (from the way it is often
portrayed in movies and commercials for instance).
All in all, I tend to stick with my position that I think cannabis has
more significant associated healthrisks compared to coffee, but the
dangers are of a different nature and in case of proper drug education
it's probably a close call.

On 13 jun, 10:25, name  wrote:
> On 13 jun, 08:42, Clough  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:35 -0700, name  wrote:
> > >Personally though I'm somewhat doubtful if cannabis, especially if it
> > >has a high percentage of THC, is less as dangerous than coffee.
> > >Sure, more people have died from caffeine overdoses compared to a
> > >complete absence of lethal overdoses associated with cannabis, but the
> > >effects of a spliff of potent bud on ones state of mind are quite
> > >dramatic, especially in comparison to a relatively mild drug like
> > >coffee.
>
> > You grossly underestimate the dangers of coffee.
>
> > Coffee is a powerful drug and can cause very serious physical and
> > psychological symptoms:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------
>
> > Caffeine Intoxication
>
> > The essential features of this disorder are such characteristic
> > effects of recent use of caffeine-containing substances such as
> > restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face,
> > diuresis, and gastrointestinal complaints. These symptoms appear in
> > some people following ingestion of as little as 250mg of caffeine per
> > day, while others may require much larger doses. At levels of more
> > than 1g/day, there may be muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought
> > and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and
> > psychomotor agitation. Mild sensory disturbances such as ringing in
> > the ears and flashes of light have been reported at higher doses. With
> > doses exceeding 10g of caffeine, grand mal seizures and respiratory
> > failure may result in death. This disorder has been called Caffeinism.
>
> >http://www.drowning.com/caffeine.html
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-------------------
>
> > There is much research which shows that caffeine can induce a serious
> > psychological condition known as panic disorder:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­-------------------
>
> > Panic Disorder
>
> > A panic attack is not dangerous, but it can be terrifying, largely
> > because it feels 'crazy' and 'out of contro