Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.

posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am

As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis, it
becomes apparent that it is anything but the 'soft drug', that pro drug
legalisers, and so called 'drug advisory agencies', have for so long been
perpetuating myths for so long.

One of the most dangerous myths touted is that cannabis is not addictive,
nothing could be further from the truth, a fact that was established as
long ago as 1998, (1) but suppressed in the UK by those with vested
interests in legalsing and therefore spreading the use of marijuana.

Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
drugs combined. (2) Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers
approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.

A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was
made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug
of choice.

So why was it downgraded? Well since the politicians, and those who press
for legalisation appear incapable of telling the truth, that's something
they will never reveal. This writer posits that the Government was keen to
be seen to be reducing drug crime and therefore by downgrading it, without
'presumption of arrest' for posession, was able to conveniently move it
out of the crime figures, thus allowing them to claim their policies were
reducing drug crime.

As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory agencies', who
also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so, one can only conclude
that they have vested interests in those companies who would be licensed
to produce and distribute it. Whether those interests are disguised as
'funding for research', or other euphemisms for 'pushing' is unknown. What
is interesting is those same people push for 'education of drugs based on
the facts', so that people can make an 'informed choice'. How strange they
do not include the above facts in their 'Information Fact Sheets'

Marijuana: Facts for Teens. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E.
A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing
Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use
Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.ÿ

Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
02-3727, 2002.

Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
02-3727, 2002.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=26158

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Jan 31, 2:39 am, Dr John Watson 
wrote:
> Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
> posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am
>
> Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
> downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
> with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
> drugs combined. (2)

Of course, because far and away more American teenagers use cannabis
than all other illicit drugs combined. Would we prefer that more of
them use heroin or meth?

> Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
> and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers
> approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
> 'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.

Wildly wrong; as has been shown in this newsgroup (t.p.d.) the correct
number is 14.

> A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was
> made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
> abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug
> of choice.

See first response.

On 31 jan, 09:39, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
> posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am
>
> As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis, it
> becomes apparent that it is anything but the 'soft drug', that pro drug
> legalisers, and so called 'drug advisory agencies', have for so long been
> perpetuating myths for so long.

Eh, the myths are being perpetuated primarily by narconazis:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth.shtml

>
> One of the most dangerous myths touted is that cannabis is not addictive,
> nothing could be further from the truth, a fact that was established as
> long ago as 1998, (1) but suppressed in the UK by those with vested
> interests in legalsing and therefore spreading the use of marijuana.

Cannabis is not addictive. Besides, it's a pretty meaningless
statement to
claim it's addictive or not. Come up with some statistics that show
what you mean
by that statement. How many people try cannabis, how many use it often
and how many need help to quit their habit? Compare that to tobacco,
cocaine, chocolate and other substances that can be habit forming and
you'll find that cannabis is at the lower end of the spectrum in terms
of the addictive potential.
In my experience it's about equally addictive as coffee and I've often
abstained for months after prolonged periods of daily usage. Most of
the time it takes little effort to abstain it nowhere near the effort
required to abstain from something like tobacco.

>
> Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
> downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
> with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
> drugs combined. (2)

Enter treatment? Forced into treatment by narconazis you mean.

Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
> and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers> approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
> 'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.

More bullshit. It seems it's close to 14 each week rather than 500 and
by itself that
says nothing because it depends on other factors like how many people
are using and
to what degree are they well educated about the effects.
If there are 100 people who use it and 14 enter treatment, that's a
lot, but if there are 100.000 people who use it and 14 enter
treatment, that's not so many.

>
> A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was> made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
> abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug> of choice.

Again, it's primarily narconazis that force people into treatment.
They test your piss, they see you have been using cannabis and so they
force you into treatment to sponsor the drug 'treatment' industry.

>
> So why was it downgraded? Well since the politicians, and those who press
> for legalisation appear incapable of telling the truth, that's something
> they will never reveal. This writer posits that the Government was keen to> be seen to be reducing drug crime and therefore by downgrading it, without> 'presumption of arrest' for posession, was able to conveniently move it
> out of the crime figures, thus allowing them to claim their policies were
> reducing drug crime.

You have it all backwards. Prohibition fuels crime. Take a look at
failed attempts to prohibit alcohol. The best way to ensure that kids
have access to potent cannabis is to ensure it's prohibited so there
is no regulation whatsoever and unscrupulous dealers who are only in
it for the money will ensure kids have access to drugs (not just
cannabis, but also coke, meth, crack and smack).

>
> As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory agencies', who
> also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so, one can only conclude> that they have vested interests in those companies who would be licensed
> to produce and distribute it. Whether those interests are disguised as
> 'funding for research', or other euphemisms for 'pushing' is unknown. What> is interesting is those same people push for 'education of drugs based on
> the facts', so that people can make an 'informed choice'. How strange they> do not include the above facts in their 'Information Fact Sheets'

Legalization is inevitable. How can you claim the government needs to
protect adults
from cannabis, when nobody has ever died from cannabis and we allow
adults unrestricted access to lethal and addictive drugs like alcohol.
Alcohol is not just potentially lethal in case of chronic and acute
abuse, but even the withdrawal effects are potentially fatal.
Drugs laws and the associated education are a complete joke and they
are only effective at sponsoring organized crime.

>
> Marijuana: Facts for Teens. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998.http://www.nida.nih.gov/Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E.
> A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing
> Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use
> Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.ÿ
>
> Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
> Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
> 02-3727, 2002.
>
> Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
> Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
> 02-3727, 2002.
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=26158
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

On Jan 31, 10:55 am, sobriquet  wrote:

So as not to confuse Google Groups users about the facts, I recommend
using the thread title "More lies from the loonies" (as I have done
with this post).

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
> posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am
>
> As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis,
<SNIP>

I guess he will go out of business if the propaganda isn't kept stoked up!
It's a bit like saying crossing the street is lethal.
Anything can be dangerous! Water drunk in sufficient quantities can kill 
you.
See Leah Betts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

But all in all cannabis is the safest "recreational substance" known to man.

I can't think of a safer one, certainly not coffee who's LD 50 is about 100 
cups. Nor even chocolate who's LD50 is between 250-500mg/kg (or about 2lbs 
according to a recent BBC radio show).
The LD 50 of cannabis is about 40,000 doses. In other words it's impossible 
to ingest that amount. A fact backed up by 5k years of history - unlike 
O'Loughlin's claims!

As for it being addictive here is a chart prepared by the NIDA:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Slatts

In article  Dr John Watson  writes:
>Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
>posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am

Sigh, another polemic.

>As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis, it
>becomes apparent that it is anything but the 'soft drug', that pro drug
>legalisers, and so called 'drug advisory agencies', have for so long been
>perpetuating myths for so long.

Again, sigh.  Almost all the myths are perpetuated by prohibitionists and
other anti-drug types.

>One of the most dangerous myths touted is that cannabis is not addictive,
>nothing could be further from the truth, a fact that was established as
>long ago as 1998, (1) but suppressed in the UK by those with vested
>interests in legalsing and therefore spreading the use of marijuana.

Marijuana is not physically addictive in the same sense of drugs like alcohol,
tobacco and heroin, nor is it psychological addictive in the same sense as
cocaine.

Marijuana can be habituating to some people, but that is a small minority.

>Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
>downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
>with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
>drugs combined.

That's primarily because cannabis is illegal in the US, it is by far the
single most popular illegal drug in the US, and the most common punishment
for marijuana possession in the US is remanding to treatment.

So the vast majority of teens who enter treatment do so for no reason other
than to avoid jail.

>(2) Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
>and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers
>approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
>'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.

And the misleading "500 a week" figure has already been debunked in these
newsgroups the last few days.

>A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was
>made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
>abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug
>of choice.

Which because most teens know cannabis is much safer than any other illegal
drug, and also it is the easiest to procure of all illegal drugs (except for
inhalants, but most teens know to stay away from them).

And again, the vast majority of teens who present themselves for treatment
are doing so because the American "justice" system requires it, not because
they actually need treatment.

The rest is just more bullshit based on the above, so I'll stop here.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

    F-shock (ef' shok)  n. The discovery, after having a flash photo
			taken of yourself, that you are albino.

Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
<SNIP>
> Marijuana can be habituating to some people, but that is a small
> minority. 
>

To put it in perspective, it's less addictive than biting your nails.

Slatts

On 31 jan, 09:39, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
> posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am
>
> As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis, it
> becomes apparent that it is anything but the 'soft drug', that pro drug
> legalisers, and so called 'drug advisory agencies', have for so long been
> perpetuating myths for so long.
>
> One of the most dangerous myths touted is that cannabis is not addictive,
> nothing could be further from the truth, a fact that was established as
> long ago as 1998, (1) but suppressed in the UK by those with vested
> interests in legalsing and therefore spreading the use of marijuana.
>
> Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
> downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
> with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
> drugs combined. (2) Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
> and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers> approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
> 'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.
>
> A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was> made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
> abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug> of choice.
>
> So why was it downgraded? Well since the politicians, and those who press
> for legalisation appear incapable of telling the truth, that's something
> they will never reveal. This writer posits that the Government was keen to> be seen to be reducing drug crime and therefore by downgrading it, without> 'presumption of arrest' for posession, was able to conveniently move it
> out of the crime figures, thus allowing them to claim their policies were
> reducing drug crime.
>
> As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory agencies', who
> also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so, one can only conclude> that they have vested interests in those companies who would be licensed
> to produce and distribute it. Whether those interests are disguised as
> 'funding for research', or other euphemisms for 'pushing' is unknown. What> is interesting is those same people push for 'education of drugs based on
> the facts', so that people can make an 'informed choice'. How strange they> do not include the above facts in their 'Information Fact Sheets'
>
> Marijuana: Facts for Teens. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998.http://www.nida.nih.gov/Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E.
> A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing
> Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use
> Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.ÿ
>
> Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
> Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
> 02-3727, 2002.
>
> Treatment Episodes Data Set 1992-2000, National Admissions to Substance
> Abuse Treatment Services. SAMHSA. DASIS Series S-17, DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)
> 02-3727, 2002.
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=26158
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

I've posted two comments online at medicalnewstoday under my full name
Niek Sprakel.
If anyone knows of additional arguments to debunk their cannabis
demonization claims,
it might be interesting to post it there as a comment as well. It
seems Mary Brett is also
among the people who commented on the story.

sobriquet wrote:
> On 31 jan, 09:39, Dr John Watson  wrote:
<SNIP>>
> I've posted two comments online at medicalnewstoday under my full name
> Niek Sprakel.
> If anyone knows of additional arguments to debunk their cannabis
> demonization claims,
> it might be interesting to post it there as a comment as well. It
> seems Mary Brett is also
> among the people who commented on the story.

I put this there:
.........................
Divorce drugs from the political process.



The recent program of demonising cannabis would seem to be almost entirely 
political driven. It always seems to rise in pitch just before the ACMD is 
due to deliberate. Most of these stories in the newspapers are based on 
opinions rather than on any peer reviewed scientific studies. In very nearly 
every such study cannabis is shown to be less harmful than drugs currently 
licensed for public consumption.

The argument over whether drugs should be available for public consumption 
has been run through many times and as a society we have agreed that on the 
whole it is better to allow it than to prevent it.

Our problem then it to decide which ones can be used. Cannabis is, as least 
from a scientific point of view, the least harmful of the drugs currently 
used, be they legal or illegal. I refer to tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, 
amphetamines, morphine derivatives and manufactured substances such as 
Ecstasy. I do realise that from a political point of view cannabis is a very 
dangerous subject, particularly for the Americans who are the main drivers 
of its prohibition. But that's another story.

One problem I do concede with cannabis is that recently in the UK there has 
been a trend for the smugglers to adulterate it with all sorts of unsavoury 
fillers. I often wonder if this could be a reason for some of the reports of 
strange behaviour of cannabis users that was never seen historically. But it 
is a result of its prohibition and not of the substance itself.

Politicians hate drugs, not because they are drugs as such but because they 
can't be seen to do the wrong thing. They can't be sensible because they 
would be seen as 'soft on drugs' by the red top newspapers and they can't be 
too hard as it would be a disaster. Perhaps it is time to remove drug policy 
from the politician's hands and divorce it completely from the political 
process. After all doing that with the bank rate did produce a previously 
unheard of stability.

..............



Slatts

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
news:60dfq7F1pmnl7U1@mid.individual.net...
> Marijuana Is Not 'soft Drug'.
>
> posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:19 am
>
> As more and more evidence emerges about the dangers of cannabis,

Does he mean that there is more evidence for the dangers of cannabis
now, than there was when, say, Reefer Madness was made?

> it becomes apparent that it is anything but the 'soft drug', that pro drug
> legalisers, and so called 'drug advisory agencies', have for so long been
> perpetuating myths for so long.
>
> One of the most dangerous myths touted is that cannabis is not addictive,
> nothing could be further from the truth, a fact that was established as
> long ago as 1998, (1) but suppressed in the UK by those with vested
> interests in legalsing and therefore spreading the use of marijuana.

He sounds paranoid.

> Another fact that was suppressed and was available before cannabis was
> downgraded is that each year in America more teenagers enter treatment
> with a primary diagnosis of cannabis dependence than all other illicit
> drugs combined. (2) Since cannabis has been down graded in the UK, more
> and more kids have been presenting for treatment, with the current numbers
> approaching 500 a week. Facts like that do not prevent politicians and
> 'pushers' telling us that cannabis use is declining.
>
> A third important fact that was known before the decision to downgrade was
> made, is that no less than sixty per cent of teens presenting for drug
> abuse treatment in America acknowledge that cannabis is their primary drug
> of choice.
>
> So why was it downgraded? Well since the politicians, and those who press
> for legalisation appear incapable of telling the truth, that's something
> they will never reveal. This writer posits that the Government was keen to
> be seen to be reducing drug crime and therefore by downgrading it, without
> 'presumption of arrest' for posession, was able to conveniently move it
> out of the crime figures, thus allowing them to claim their policies were
> reducing drug crime.
>
> As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory agencies', who
> also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so, one can only conclude
> that they have vested interests in those companies who would be licensed
> to produce and distribute it.

It's the only conclusion.

> Whether those interests are disguised as
> 'funding for research', or other euphemisms for 'pushing' is unknown. What
> is interesting is those same people push for 'education of drugs based on
> the facts', so that people can make an 'informed choice'. How strange they
> do not include the above facts in their 'Information Fact Sheets'

It's not included, because he just made it up.

5trfg6h7 wrote:
<SNIP>
>> As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory
>> agencies', who also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so,
>> one can only conclude that they have vested interests in those
>> companies who would be licensed to produce and distribute it.

Not like him of course. It's not as though he benefits from its prohibition!
http://www.edenlodgepractice.com/

Slatts

"Sla#s"  wrote in message news:fo55p0$dtu$1@energise.enta.net...
> 5trfg6h7 wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >> As for the pro durg legalisers and the so called 'advisory
> >> agencies', who also pressed for legalisation and continue to do so,
> >> one can only conclude that they have vested interests in those
> >> companies who would be licensed to produce and distribute it.
>
> Not like him of course. It's not as though he benefits from its prohibition!
> http://www.edenlodgepractice.com/
>
> Slatts

Cannabis.
(Advantages) Calming & Relaxing
(Disadvantages when effects wear of) Mood swings: Outbursts of temper: aggression & anger.

Outbursts of temper, aggression and anger?

For me, that would be caffeine. The only weed that effects me
negatively is indica, which is why I don't smoke it.

But then, some people can't handle sativa because of it's
trippy effects, which is why they only smoke indica.

5trfg6h7 wrote:
<SNIP>

> (Disadvantages when effects wear of) Mood swings: Outbursts of
> temper: aggression & anger.
>
> Outbursts of temper, aggression and anger?
>
> For me, that would be caffeine. The only weed that effects me
> negatively is indica, which is why I don't smoke it.
>
> But then, some people can't handle sativa because of it's
> trippy effects, which is why they only smoke indica.

You have put your finger on one point very rarely brought up in the 
prohibition debate. That is that cannabis is available in many different 
varieties, all having different effects, some of which may be contrary to 
each other.

Slatts