Prescription drugs kill, cannabis has never killed anyone
September 27, 2006 — Mahakal / מהכאל106 Responses to “Prescription drugs kill, cannabis has never killed anyone”
Leave a Reply
-
Numbers
- <!--Methodology challenged: link
-->
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: The Sword of Desirable Mindfulness.
-
Syndication
Cannabis News- The Cannabis Conundrum: Friend or Foe?
- Medical Marijuana Should Be Made Legal
- S.C.'s Tight Medical Pot Rules Protect Users
- Honor Our Hemp-Raising Patriot Heroes
- Senate Commission To Study MJ Decriminalization
- Lynch At Center of Medical Marijuana Fight
- The Last Drug Czar
- This Is Your War on Drugs
- Group Wants Lynch To Veto Medical Pot Bill
- House Subcommittee OKs Pot on D.C. Ballot
- Indybay drugwar newswire
- San Diego's War on Medical Marijuana Continues -
- Marijuana Clinic Owes Overtime, Worker Says
- Drug addiction on the rise in besieged Gaza
- Los Angeles: 29 Medical Marijuana Hardship Hearings Scheduled Today
- Los Angeles Schedules 29 Medical Marijuana Hardship Hearings For Mon June 29th
- New Medical Marijuana Dispensary Prohibition Being Rushed Through Tuesday at City Council
- The Measure K Oversight Committe Meeting of June 15, 2009
- "Lowest Marijuana Enforcement Priority" Committee Meets Today
- Proposal for City of Oakland: Grow Hemp
- Los Angeles City Council Schedules Medical Marijuana Hardship Hearing for This Wednesday
September 28, 2006 at 1:49 am
Misleading and false.
Cannabis, though generally safe, has killed plenty of people. There those people who become acute psychotic with cannabis and thus commit dangerous and impulsive acts. Then, there are the silly people who get stoned and drive.
Cannabis probably does help with pain but it does not help with depression, not in the way antidepressants do. Although certain compounds in cannabis probably are useful agents, these are still being developed and tested. Cannabinoid type medications will not be illegal. In this manner, cannabis is illegal for the same reason opium is, but derivative agents are not in controlled settings.
Prescription drugs are dangerous. That is why you need a prescription and need to seek medical advise.
As for the question as to why cannabis is illegal (and for example, why tobacco is not), that is simple due to the consequence of history. That tobacco is legal, however, is a no justification for the legalisation of cannabis. Arguably, it is the other way around.
September 28, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Dr. Tam,
Cannabis has killed no one.
We have no argument over whether prescription drugs are dangerous. They are, they can kill, and did in this case. Yet doctors like you hand out prescriptions that depressed patients could easily overdose, as Mr. Smith did in this case. Whether you associate causality or not, many anti-depressants have been found to increase suicide risk in certain patients. Mr. Smith was on two kinds of anti-depressant, in addition to the synthetic opiate methadone, which can certainly kill on its own and is often prescribed as an alternative to street heroin.
As to whether cannabis can kill, it never has done so directly. If you want to say that someone who took cannabis would not have hurt themselves in some other way but for having taken the cannabis, you’d have a very difficult case to make. And there are journal articles in addition to many patient testimonials to the anti-depressant benefits of cannabis. You are right that it does not work in the same way as your pharmaceuticals, it is more likely to result in a euphoric emotional state than a flattening of affect as is common with the SSRI-type medications.
There have been several cases where people went on a psychotic killing rampage having been on SSRI-type anti-depressants. I seem to recall that was the case in Columbine. Interestingly whenever such a person is found to have ever used marijuana the press accounts seem to suggest that this was the trigger. But I can’t find a single case in the literature of such a person who was not on some other drug.
Even more fascinating are the vehicle accident statistics, which show no incidence of increased risk due to cannabis alone. There are, again, cases where a person was on several medications, drugs and/or alcohol, in addition to cannabis, and it seems again that the propaganda value of blaming cannabis outweighs the honesty of acknowledging the role of those other drugs. There is a very comprehensive relationship between consumption of alcohol and motor vehicle accidents. No similar relationship can be made to cannabis.
As for outlawing tobacco, well I guess that wouldn’t cause a whole lot of crime and people smoking impure tobacco cut with other things that cause more problems, violence, theft, and general social disorder. Like when alcohol was prohibited, the people who prefer to smoke tobacco will not stop because you pass a law, they can only be reached by persuasion and you can only do that honestly when they aren’t outlaws hiding from you. But there has been a lot of attention on the risks of smoking tobacco and the rate of tobacco smoking has been declining for some time.
Cannabis has been growing continuously in popularity despite its illegal status, and no amount of additional persecution will cause people to stop using cannabis. Again, we have crime and people smoking impure cannabis cut with other things (like soap) that cause more problems. Due to the gangs being involved we have violence, theft and general social disorder. Like when alcohol was prohibited, but I’m repeating myself.
End cannabis prohibition.
September 28, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Sorry, but that ridiculously obtuse. Alcohol rarely “kills” anyone directly from a pharmacological effect. That does not make it any less dangerous an any number of settings (e.g., driving). A death cause by drinking driving is still a death from alcohol. The same is with the case of cannabis. There are clear studies that being stoned impairs driving, despite your assertion to the contrary. Alcohol with marijuana seems a particularly bad mix: http://vitualis.blogspot.com/2005/12/stoned-driving-doubles-fatal-crash.html
As for “easily overdose”, if you are even vaguely aware of the history of pharmacology, you would realise that SSRIs are extremely safe in overdose compared to previous anti-depressants. If you actually read the meta-analyses on antidepressants rather than cherry-picking small articles (oh, I see that you don’t actually refer to any), you would realise that SSRIs in fact DO NOT increase the rate fatal suicides over placebo. All efficacious anti-depressant therapy are somewhat “risky” initially as the demotivation from the depression often lifts before the mood (i.e., as the depression improves, there is a period when the patient is more likely to “act” on their low mood). All antidepressants do this.
With regards to Mr Smith, I have no idea of his medical therapy but the use of two SSRIs is definitely not standard practice. If fact, it is highly contraindicated.
As for the triggering of psychosis in the use of cannabis, perhaps you should go visit your local psychiatric hospital or emergency department. Your assertion that it does not trigger psychosis is palpably laughable. There is little evidence that cannabis CAUSES psychotic illness (e.g., schizophrenia) but there is plenty of evidence that it is a trigger in some predisposed people. I have personally seen many people working in psychiatry who have psychosis (or drug-induced psychosis or drug intoxication, call it what you want) when then even smoke one joint. Usually, they are stark raving mad for a few days, calm down over a 1-2 weeks and are “okay” after that, as long as they don’t use cannabis. Despite the obviousness of this relationship and their vows that they will “never touch cannabis again”, most bounce back.
And no, many people are not “using” anything else.
If someone was taking an SSRI and they went crazy afterwards, I can almost guarantee that they will never every touch the medication again. The case does not seem to be so with cannabis. Why? Cannabis may not be addictive in the traditional sense but there is a strong psychological dependence with it.
In any case, I believe in harm minimisation and I don’t believe that criminisation of marijuana is an effective means of containing its harm. In that, you and I actually AGREE. However, I do not believe that the efforts of people like yourself who use misleading information to further their own agenda to be helpful. That prescription medications are dangerous when used inappropriately (duh) is absolutely no support for the case of cannabis. Are you truly suggesting that for patients who would benefit from SSRIs it would be preferably that they smoked dope instead? Ludicrous.
Regards,
Michael Tam
September 28, 2006 at 7:44 pm
There are many drugs that can kill that are available over the counter. There are plants in our gardens and yards and available at Wal-Mart or any nursery, that can kill.
Life and the world are full of things that are very, very dangerous and often lethal.
Cannabis is not one of them.
Prohibition of cannabis HAS killed people. Quite a few of them.
Cannabis was made illegal because of racism, gullibility and ignorance, corporate greed, and job security for government agents after prohibition of alcohol ended.
Cannabis prohibition is irrational and dangerous…even deadly.
September 28, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Dr. Tam,
In further response to your statement, “Cannabis probably does help with pain but it does not help with depression,” you should look at the recent post regarding recent studies that show otherwise. I would be interested to have your response to that article: Cannabis treats depression.
September 28, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Dr. Tam’s second message was delayed in moderation so I am replying to that now.
Your blog post of last December, “‘Stoned’ driving doubles fatal crash risk” includes this:
Let me get back to the first part in a moment, but start off by acknowledging a basic agreement that cannabis is safer than alcohol. I also want to say that I am not encouraging people to drive under any condition of mental or physical impairment, including lack of sleep or while using a cellular telephone.
The study itself is interesting, it states that while alcohol was the presumed cause of 29% of fatal accidents, 2.5% are attributed to cannabis. In the same study and in the article, it states that “the prevalence of cannabis in the French driving population is 2.9%, similar to that for alcohol, at 2.7%.”
It is common in reporting of these studies to see the actual figures ignored and a conclusion stated contrary to the data. This is apparently one of those cases.
Where the prevalence of alcohol-using drivers is 2.7%, and 29% of fatal accidents involve alcohol, a strong conclusion is that alcohol drinkers who drive are at least ten times more likely to have a fatal accident than sober drivers.
But where the prevalence of cannabis is 2.9% (higher than alcohol) and in only 2.5% of accidents had cannabis been used by the driver, there could actually be a negative correlation, though probably not a very statistically significant one.
There certainly is no basis from these numbers to conclude a doubling of risk.
There are other studies and I would be willing to discuss this more but I don’t want to ignore your other points for now and this reply could get longer than intended anyhow.
I do not want to argue with you over the relative safety record of SSRIs, I do realize they have a much better safety record than the tricyclics and MAOI-type drugs they mostly have replaced. I believe it is not uncommon for a doctor to prescribe two psychiatric drugs at the same time when switching a patient from one that is not working well to another one that is hoped to provide better results. In this circumstance the patient may be tapering one medication down while gradually increasing their dose of the second drug.
As far as claiming a relationship between cannabis and psychosis, even as a trigger, there is very little to support this. The studies that have claimed such a relationship have failed to show a higher rate of psychosis correllating to cannabis use, whether a person who was already in a state of agitation approaching a psychotic break would be likely to exhibit disordered thinking when taking cannabis is a separate question. Since there is no higher overall incidence, the most that could be said is the psychosis displayed earlier or more obviously than otherwise, and may therefore be more susceptible of early treatment.
It may even be the case that cannabis helps in treatment of psychosis. “Ludicrous” sounding or not, there are psychiatrists who have used it in their practice with success, and it is recommended in some cases by those doctors, though I imagine with a great amount of care and attention to the very specific facts of their patient.
A final note, and not to be especially picky, but dope is not a nice word for cannabis, and it isn’t appropriate. Dope is airplane glue. Please keep that straight. Don’t insult me and I won’t insult you.
September 29, 2006 at 3:13 am
With regards to the response to that article, I suggest that you read it again. You’ve completely misinterpreted the result. The article was studying whether cannabis CAUSED depression as there is a high correlation between regular marijuana usage and depression. There is no evidence that this is the case insofar as a positive correlation in that study. There is also no real evidence that it is useful as a treatment for depression either. Those were retrospective studies where data is self reported, that is, it is weak data. High quality evidence comes from prospective double blinded randomised control trials. There are none (that I’m aware of) for depression and cannabis.
There is plenty of evidence that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo, especially for moderate and severe depression. There is absolutely none for THC.
As for the driving data, I think you need to read it again. Your “analysis” makes absolutely no sense at all. I assume you didn’t actually read the source article. The “prevalence” numbers you are using are in people involved in accidents who “were not at fault”. See the following except from the source article:
September 29, 2006 at 3:19 am
Sorry, stuffed up the “blockquote”. The blockquote contained a some “greater than” and “smaller than” characters. I suggest that you just read from the source article.
The paragraph beginning with “As for antidepressant therapy, your…” is a new paragraph after the end of the blockquote.
Cheers.
September 29, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Dr. Tam, with all due respect, regarding the presence of cannabis metabolites in the bodies of motorists involved in auto accidents: surely someone who is purportedly conversant with the literature regarding cannabis metabolites is aware that their presence in the body is not, perforce, an indicator of immediate impairment. All their presence can denote is proof of past exposure. To argue that their presence a priori implies impairment is illogical…not to mention intellectually dishonest. But it is a tactic that those favoring continued prohibition utilize because they are aware that the average citizen doesn’t keep up on the research and therefore are easy marks for such tactics. Rest assured that drug law reformers are not so easily gulled.
Likewise, to argue that cannabis is indirectly responsible for people’s deaths, when there are many factors to be weighed and considered as to the events leading up to such deaths, is to engage in gross simplication. Again, another common tactic of opponents of drug law reform. The technical term for this tactic, I believe, is reductio ad absurdum.
With regards to the use of cannabis by those deemed mentally ill, I’m sure you have considered the possibility that those so afflicted by various neurochemical imbalances are seeking relief from their maladies courtesy of the only natural botanical substance known to man that has no established LD-50.
Given that it appears that many such unfortunates are suffering from a deficit of serotonin, and that THC can artificially increase serotonin levels, one might consider this a form of self-medication…a practice which has been confirmed in observing animals in the wild. Given the presence of anandamide receptors in the brain, and that such receptors would not have developed without extensive evolutionary exposure to their agonist(s), that supposition of self-medication becomes more credible.
As to cannabis triggering latent mental instability, again, like the presence of cannabis metabolites in the body, all such presences denote is exposure. Not cause. To make such a claim, studies would have to be performed in which a statistically ‘naive’ person with indications of but no recorded history of mental illness suffered a psychotic break after using cannabis. It would appear that you are basing the supposition of ‘cannabis-as-trigger’ solely upon the subjective experiences of the psychiatric patient who was exposed to cannabis as those experiences were related to the physician. Hardly qualifies as science, does it?
Finally, as someone who has learned first hand as well as through the loss of a loved one via malpractice what the word ‘iatrogenic’ means, I am only too well aware that allopathic medicine is only as good as it’s purveyors are. Yet the majority of its’ practitioners would seek to limit the choices of the average citizen based upon self-serving bureaucracies, equally self-serving medical associations, and their hand-in-glove cooperation with government regulatory bodies and their de facto symbionts in the pharmceutical industries. I am well aware of the practice of marketing pharmas based upon n + 1 methodologies, namely, a pharma being considered passing muster even if only one person above the mean receives benefit from it. Yet, hypocritically, the same consideration is refused cannabis. You’ll forgive me my cynicism, but it’s hard earned…
September 29, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Michael Tam said:
- Then, there are the silly people who get stoned and drive. –
Call me silly if you like, but I have been driving “stoned” for 27 years and have never had an accident. What would you call that—luck? I call it evidence—for me, anyway—that cannabis causes any lack of attention or depth perception or whatever deficits you would suggest are caused by it. In fact, I would submit to you that the effect is a positive one on driving concentration, as I have observed that without being stoned, my driving is worse… more impulsive, quicker to anger, etc. My driving is more mindful and focused when I’m “stoned”. I acknowledge that this may not be the case for others, and in their cases I would agree they shouldn’t drive after using cannabis. But the fact that it totally fails to cause any problems for me (beyond causing me to occasionally miss an offramp) tends to make me view your dire warnings with suspicion, as well as the total lack of any real-world statistical data supporting the concern.
September 29, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Michael Tam,
Now you are being deceptive, because you fail to state the reason the prospective double blinded randomized control trials do not exist — it is impossible to perform those kinds of studies under a prohibition regime. Doctors and researchers want to do those kinds of studies but cannot obtain permission or supply of high quality cannabis through legal channels in order to perform them.
What we do have is a record of many millennia of human use, far more data than exists for almost any other herb and certainly more than exist for any synthetic pharmaceutical. Whether cannabis does or does not help an individual patient with their particular condition, there is little risk and no chance of fatality due to overdose. These studies can be performed with willing volunteers and could be done tomorrow, but you and your governments prevent us.
The retrospective data is very strong, and doctors rely upon that and patient self-reporting to evaluate whether cannabis is helpful, and they have in many cases concluded quite rightly that it provides a benefit to patients for treatment of both physical and emotional or psychological pain.
Of course, most of those doctors that I have talked to have been working in the field for a few decades and have a bit more experiential knowledge than a recently graduated doctor who has had less opportunity to see and evaluate the evidence. I’d invite you to come to a place like California where medical marijuana is legal and learn for yourself.
September 29, 2006 at 9:30 pm
@ kaptinemo
That is to some degree true but you are again missing out on context. This form of study would be difficult to do prospectively. However, your argument can be used on alcohol as well. A high blood ethanol level says relatively little about the driver’s level of impairment at the exact time of the accident. The results of the study, nevertheless, is that a higher level of THC was significantly and positively correlated with increased rate of fatal accidents, AND importantly that this correlation was dose related. This is suggestive of a real effect. Furthermore, this effective is entirely consistent with biological plausibility. Any substance or activity that impairs concentration and judgement would conceivably impair driving ability.
That is completely junk. THC has an LD-50. The problem is that it is difficult to measure accurately in animals. If you mean that it is impossible to eat enough of it orally for it to be toxic then it is true, but the same is also true for many other things. For example, it is impossible to eat enough carrots for the beta-carotene to kill you.
Firstly, depression cannot be so simply reduced to a deficit of serotonin in the brain. Let me remind you that there are many drugs that are serotonergic that have no effect on depression. Secondly, that cannabis is used as a form of self-medication is hardly controversial – that is accepted. What you are ignoring, however, just because it is used as a form of self-medication does not mean that it is an appropriate treatment. Alcohol is frequently used by people to “self-medicate” in depression and mental disorders with an affective component. In its own way, alcohol is a reasonably good antidepressant. However, the other problems with alcohol make it a poor candidate for primary therapy.
And yes, it is silly for you to consider it “evidence”. That is “n=1″ evidence and is completely meaningless. Not everyone who smokes cigarettes is going to get lung cancer either. The fact that YOU haven’t had an accident does not mean anything at all.
Who is being deceptive here? There are many parts of the world where cannabis has already be decriminalised and where medical use of marijunana is allowed. It would not be difficult to perform a study. However, the use of smoked marijuana would never pass an ethics approval board for good reason. The use of cannabinoids derivatives is still experimental. Even if there are compounds that are useful for various complaints, smoking the drug would never be acceptable, just as we wouldn’t accept people smoking opium for analgesia.
Absolute rhetorical nonsense. The “data” is in your dogmatic belief, not in high quality factual information that can be critically analysed.
Studies on willing volunteers are pointless. The useful studies are prospective RCTs. As for “you and your governments” – don’t put the blame on me. YOU need to do a better job of convincing people and using junk science and conspiracy theory makes you look like a nut.
Again, if knew anything about trial design you know that retrospective data is never strong as it is often a skewed or biased population group that is difficult to control for and it is difficult to adjust for all confounders. About 40% of patients with mild depression will respond to a placebo (i.e., to nothing except for the belief they are receiving “treatment”). It would be close to impossible to tease apart the effect from a retrospective study.
Well, you can really say anything you want but I have no idea who these “doctors” you see are. Perhaps they are the same doctors who would prescribe two SSRIs at the same time as well. I believe that there is a place for medical marijuana. That, however, is completely different from YOUR agenda which is really very clear to just about anyone. You want it legalised simply to legitimise your own habit.
Regards,
Michael Tam
September 29, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I want it legalized because the punishments and criminal records and the killings are because of prohibition.
Prohibition does more harm than good.
September 30, 2006 at 10:16 am
Dr. Tam, an LD-50, whether derived from studies of infrahumans or from actual human experiments, is a quantifiable number.
The actual, concrete, hard science LD-50 number has never been established…precisely for the reason you attempt to use to refute my statement. Namely, that it is impossible to ingest an amount of THC massive enough using the normal means of introduction within a certain time period to cause death. This is hardly ‘junk’.
September 30, 2006 at 10:40 am
Dr. Tam writes:
You are not ignorant of the UN Single Convention. You are pretending to make valid points in contradiction of facts that you know to be true. There are countries which have a gray market, and places where it is legal to grow and possess for your own medical use. The studies that can be legally performed are restricted, and prospective double blind randomised studies cannot be performed until the laws are changed.
September 30, 2006 at 10:48 am
Also, a request to Dr. Tam. If you would like to put quotation marks around other doctors, would you like them around your own credentials?
Please be respectful.
September 30, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I have another article up on cannabis and Meniere’s disease, which Dr. Tam is invited to review.
October 2, 2006 at 1:16 am
This is completely junk because you don’t even understand what this means. You, amongst others, have held up the fact that the fact that there is no single identified LD-50 as proof of “safety”. This is absolutely not the case. Firstly, THC does have a LD-50. However, given that THC is so lipid soluble and has differing effects when ingested vs IV administration, it is meaningless to quantity it as a single number. That is, when given in a particularly administration vs. another, the LD-50 can be substantially different. Regardless, yes, you cannot ingest enough THC for it to kill you if you are taking THC in the form of cannabis. As before, this is somewhat irrelevant and definitely not “unique” in the natural world. The aforementioned example of carrots stands. Similarly, it is probably impossible for a person to smoke enough cigarettes in a day for the nicotine to be lethal.
No one is arguing that THC will lead to a pharmacological death through “overdose” so I don’t know why you people keep beating this drum.
Please don’t deliberately miss the point. As before, I have absolutely no idea who these “doctors” you say are. Why? You have not named them. You have not linked to any of their published works. You have not even linked to any of their verifiable quoted statements. The only thing I know of them is what you say that they think; which is as before, you may be saying anything. The examples that I do have even within this thread is of how you completely misinterpret published research and its conclusions for your own narrow vision.
With regards to your “article”, it is unreferenced. Furthermore, the “routine use” is in fact not study data, it is the personal opinion of a physician who is an advocate for marijunana. In that same article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner09302006.html
How is Timothy Hullar?
http://www.neuroto.com/
He is the principle investigator of the “Hearing and Balance Research Laboratory” at the Washington Univerity School of Medicine.
Now, I do not personally know of any of these doctors. I’m Australian. However, you are presenting a credularity gap. In the absence of any presented study data (i.e., looking only at the personal opinions of specialists) Hullar is the the credibly authority.
Regards,
Michael Tam
October 2, 2006 at 1:42 am
Michael, I’m not quite sure what a “credularity gap” or a “credibly authority” is. If you are trying to say that you think that Timothy Hullar is the only credible authority on the subject of whether marijuana helps to treat Meniere’s disease, even though he’s never even heard of anyone using it and therefore has zero experience on the subject, versus multiple doctors who have actually treated patients who have used it and reported their findings, then I think you have a credibility gap.
I know you Aussies have your odd spellings and pronunciations, but I don’t think you’re quite speaking English there.
October 2, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Michael Tam writes:
Let’s clarify the meanings of our terms. An LD-50 is the dose at which 50% of the people who consume that amount of a drug will die as a result.
You just argued that THC will lead to a pharmacological death through “overdose” when you claimed it had an LD-50.
Cannabis has never been fatally overdosed in the history of the human race, and it has been used since before the beginning of recorded history.
If you say that theoretically everything has an LD-50 in some impractical sense that if one could actually consume that quantity of the drug, but it has never been established that there is any such dose of cannabis.
And please do not substitute THC for cannabis, they are not the same thing. There are synthetic forms of THC, such as sold by prescription in the form of the pharmaceutical Marinol. I have no idea what its safety is, and would not make any claims about it, due especially to the very short time it has even existed and the small patient population to which it has been exposed. Marinol is not cannabis.
October 2, 2006 at 8:35 pm
As has been pointed out, if, as Dr. Tam claims, there is an LD-50 for cannabis, then what is its’ numerical value?
This should not be hard to establish at all, given the…certainty…in which the claim that an LD-50 exists for cannabis is made. Given that millions of people around the planet have used cannabis daily for the past 4 decades, if it possesses the quality of lethality, a considerable statistical population of those who died solely from cannabis usage should number in the scores of thousands at least. Such news would be trumpeted by prohibitionists in the mainstream media across the planet in every language as vindication of their positions. But…the exact opposite is heard: silence.
So, instead of studies that can survive peer reviews, instead, what we receive is propaganda.
Which brings us to the matter of agendas. Since the good doctor has brought the issue up, yes, let us examine the agendas of both sides. The claim has been made that we seek to ‘legitimize’ our ‘habit’. Habit implies addiction. Addiction implies an inability to abstain from use. This is usually accompanied by the symptoms associated with withdrawal, which in the case of opiates, and stimulants such as methamphetamine, can be quite painful, leading to further drug usage to stave off those painful experiences. Yet, what are the supposed withdrawal symptoms of cannabis? Purportedly, no worse than that experienced by caffeine addicts; hardly as life threatening, as, say, abusers of barbiturates. The advantages of cannabis vis-à-vis just about every other ‘recreational drug’ appear to be overwhelmingly positive.
Yet, of all the (present) illicits, cannabis suppression consumes the lion’s share of drug law enforcement budgets. Now, what, pray tell, could be the rationale behind expending so much of the taxpayer’s dollars in doing so? What agenda might those who favor continued cannabis prohibition have? The claim is made that it is done for ‘public safety’…but which drug is recognized as being the cause behind the majority of murders, vehicular manslaughters, spousal and child abuse, civil disturbances, etc.? Cannabis? No. Alcohol. A legally available psychotropic drug. Whose sale, despite proven lethality (LD-50 = 10; what is it for cannabis, again? I didn’t hear it mentioned) provides millions of dollars in profits for it’s producers and purveyors. Who would have powerful monetary reasons to keep a competitor such as cannabis off the market by working to maintain it’s continued prohibited status. As they do with their support of front organizations who are quick to accept their funding. Who, with police organizations and politicians are acting in symbiosis, a mutually beneficial arrangement from they all profit…and usually at the taxpayer’s expense.
The political benefits in having a large portion of a minority population, restive and bitter from past discrimination and present exclusion from job markets, marginalized politically via felony convictions leading to voter disenfranchisement should also be obvious; witness the American 2000 elections, and the efforts expended to keep such people from voting. Indeed, the drug laws themselves were products of racist bigotry masquerading as ‘public health’ issues, with lurid tales of ‘cocaine n*****rs’ and cannabis-crazed Mexicans in the mainstream media used to frighten a technically ignorant and politically naive populace, who then demanded that lawmakers craft those laws. Which require enforcers. Who then have a reason to maintain drug prohibition, namely, their salaries and pensions. You can just hear the conductor shouting “All abooooooard the Gravy Train!”
But they are not the only beneficiaries of maintaining cannabis in its presently illegal status. The illicit dealers, too, also benefit from the artificially high price of cannabis. Much easier than working in a factory, and far more lucrative. Legalized cannabis would cause an immediate drop in ‘market share’, particularly if it were handled in the same way as alcohol presently is. That is, controlled and regulated, with quality monitoring a given. Such a move would gut organized crime in a way that, if done quickly, would prevent it’s possible rebounding. The proof of this was the end of the American ‘Great Experiment’, a.k.a alcohol Prohibition. Had the same been done with illicit drugs and at the same time, the Mafia as we know it today might never have risen to the threat it became; the ’seed money’ from Prohibition used to enter the narcotics trade big-time would have been cast on stony ground, never to sprout.
So…let us talk of agendas, and ask: Why would those who claim that they have society’s best interests in mind by supporting drug prohibition refuse to admit that they also support organized crime with the artificial price supports that drug prohibition produces?
Whose agenda can bear greater scrutiny?
October 4, 2006 at 10:01 am
[...] trackback [...]
October 17, 2006 at 3:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_he_me/bad_drug_reactions
October 19, 2006 at 5:08 am
Tick…tick…tick…
The clock’s been running since the last chess piece has been moved – 17 days ago. The opposition appears frozen. Not a single sign of motion. Have you conceded, Doctor?
October 25, 2006 at 12:04 pm
it looks like your arguement is slowing down, (which i’m still upset i read it, i can’t get that 15 minutes of my life back) i was pondering.. for long term safety of cannabis, most people tend to eat more daily on cannabis, most smokers don’t gain weight, but still eat a lot.. i’m wondering if the increased calories in a diet.. go long term, actually cut down the length of ones life. anyone?
October 25, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Skylined, I don’t understand your question exactly. Are you asking if cannabis causes non-obese people to suffer the effects of excess calorie consumption? I don’t actually know if there is any research on that at all, but I certainly don’t think there’s any reason to believe it is true.
October 26, 2006 at 9:11 am
no.. for example.. say i eat 3000 calories a day normally.. but when smoking daily, i eat probably about 5000 calories.. i don’t gain any weight from the extra food.. and i think a lot smokers are the same.. my friends all are, so i’m wondering if long term, cannabis would shorten a lot of peoples lives just because they eat more. i kno that’s ridiculous.
October 26, 2006 at 9:14 am
i meant YES now that i reread what you wrote
October 26, 2006 at 9:44 am
As far as I am aware, there is no risk to eating more calories if they don’t cause obesity. The health consequences of overeating are mainly due to weight gain, and if you aren’t gaining weight when you eat more it probably indicates a higher level of physical activity — those calories have to go somewhere, if they aren’t stored as body fat they have to be burned and consumed as energy. Since higher levels of physical activity correlate with greater health, I’d suggest you probably have little to worry about here.
November 12, 2006 at 2:17 am
I love you Kaptinemo.
November 30, 2006 at 1:12 am
[...] Trackback [...]
November 30, 2006 at 3:58 am
There is an LD-50, but it is so great an amount of weed that it is ridiculous. Also, on the “cannabis psychosis”, I keep hearing about that one. It is true, that when I’ve had “bad” weed, weed that is just plain cheap and unpotent, that there have been rather manic episodes connected with it. Yet, I also think there may have been some purity aspects involved. Also, cannabis does work with the cannabinoids and definitely affects the brain. It would not take much of an effect for a person to take a fresh view of the world, from their own mind, to become rather frantic. To realize how far we are from our natural selves. But, the manic phase is short lived. I live in a world in which we all live rather extreme lives. Lives which encourage these swings due to the heavy adrenaline flows.
These changes are part of life. When they pass, one becomes calmer, more peaceful, and less garbage inner talk. In other words, we can hear ourselves think clearly.
In another way of viewing it, Cannabis sometimes has to move through our own mental mindfield to help heal our mind. Sometimes, you just can’t get there from here! And there are a few hiccups along the way.
On the pharma side, lets not forget the medical fields of marijuana in Indiana. And who sold it! And also, lets not forget friends of mine this year who killed themselves after taking the pharma drugs for depression which listed “Suicide” as a side-effect. Cannabis has no such side-effect. The AMA and the pharma industry were opposed to the illegalization of marijuana (smoked was the form, especially in the case of expectorants, which was the first thing it was used for). Yes, I do smoke my medication, and I enjoy it.
Dear Doctor, if there is no medical use for it, then why is there Sativex? Why do most medical organizations cry for more research or even for the right to use it outright?
The arguments of the prohibs are simple: You do not smoke medicine. You must avoid the “dreaded high” of marijuana for it to be medicine.
I do smoke my medication and I love the high of it all. Case closed. It is my body and my life. Stay out of it and my right to my own pursuit of happiness. Rev Jim
November 30, 2006 at 11:16 am
Jim — what is the LD-50? How much “weed” are you talking about? How many people have taken a fatal overdose?
The number is zero. There is no established LD-50 for cannabis.
But do feel free to provide or link to any evidence to the contrary, if you can find it.
November 30, 2006 at 5:41 pm
It was in Francis Young’s opinion when he recommended that marijuana be legalized. I think you would have to ingest something like fifty pounds. Which is possible, but even broken into super bubble hash brownies would be one gluttonous feast! Also, I think the cause of that one death might be in a race with eating until your stomach exploded. As far as I know, no one has ever died from weed. Nor would I expect anyone to die from it. It would almost require synthisizing the plant into a super concentrate to physically put that much into your system. But all substances have one of these ratings. I would say that cannabis having the lowest rating that I know of, is a good thing. No need to get all righteous on me thar! Just kidding. By the way, if the doc wasn’t just a jerk, you might have unwanted attention there. Not that I care. I think there is nothing they can really do that matters anymore.
Could they arrest us? Yes. But that will only allow us to bring in all our printed materials and the context they were used into a court of law.
Could they do anything else. Not really. So fuck them. That is, if the doc wasn’t a jerk, but a troll. It’s always weird to me when I feel paranoia while high now. Hell, I skydive high, so paranoia is a stranger in my emotional base anymore. But, I thought I would throw out that little thought to ya. Hey, if you’re not just a jerk, but an agent, check out my site! Maybe we could get the same cell! Don’t worry, I’m sure we can still get weed in jail. Peace Bro, Rev Jim
December 1, 2006 at 4:50 am
Weed sounds like something unwanted to me, and you are still wrong about an established LD-50. I don’t mean to come across as hostile, because I am not and we’re on the same side of ending cannabis prohibition, but there is a meaning to that term and it isn’t just to pull an absurdly high number out of your ass when nobody has ever actually received a fatal overdose. That isn’t science.
Can they arrest me? For what? Cannabis is legal for medicinal use in California.
This is what DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young said about the LD-50 of cannabis,
There followed some hypothetical discussion of an estimated LD-50 of around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000 but it isn’t clear why it shouldn’t be set at 1:1,000,000 or any other astounding and impractical value, since no fatalities have ever been observed at any dose in any species. In any case, how would you smoke 20,000 or 40,000 joints of cannabis at one time without simply asphyxiating yourself and the cause of death then being simple lack of oxygen? It’s ridiculous.
December 1, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I know I’ve read of it in his rulings, and it was some ridiculous number, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have one. An LD-50 isn’t concerned with practicalities , it is concerned with the 50%. Nothing is impossible, so someone could OD on it, but it would definitely make the headlines. I don’t worry about whether it’s ridiculous anyway, it is a safe enough substance for me. But, in his ruling I do know I’ve read of a specific amount. I think that he put it safer than water (hey, we’re something like 70% water, I think), which means it’s a ridiculous amount. Perhaps the only way to od on it would be to utilize a straight injection into the brain. But, I really don’t know. It’s not that important. What is important to me is that I finish this bowl. Though I live in Florida, where everyone gets high and they all carry guns as well. Me, I just get high. Peace, chill, Rev. Jim
December 1, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Jim, cannabis does not have an established LD-50.
Synthetic or pure THC has an LD-50 in rats, but even that is absurdly high.
What you can do is take the THC LD-50 and then figure out by estimated percentage by weight in herbal cannabis, and then figure out how much you’d have to consume and how quickly to reach the same dose. And that guess would be invalid for the fact that at lower concentration, and in the presence of other cannabinoids, terpenes and herbal material, the effects would be appreciably different.
As a practical matter it is quite physically impossible to fatally overdose cannabis. It’s never happened, even when scientists intentionally attempt to sacrifice animals to find the lethal dose for that animal. No such dose has ever been reached. N=0 does not allow for assigning a value to something.
December 1, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Whig. Just because our technology doesn’t establish something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t matter that it is a totally ridiculous number. What concerns me is that you are waging a huge war on something so inconsequential when you could be waging peace on the ultimate goal. I haven’t bothered looking up the LD-50 because, as I think I may have stated or at least inferred, I don’t care about it.
There is one point on the troll earlier. You talked as if running a blog on cannabis reform is okay because cannabis is legal for medicinal purposes in California. Wasn’t Tommy Chong living in California when they busted him? There is no safety in a nation that does not demand individual rights over all else. For that is a nation smothered in fear. A nation that will surely fall on it’s own sword. Much as ours is at this moment.
December 2, 2006 at 3:52 am
There is no established number, so I don’t understand why you keep arguing about it if, as you say, “I think I may have stated or at least inferred, I don’t care about it.”
You may think it is inconsequential, it is not.
Cannabis has never killed, and I do care about reporting that accurately. There is entirely too much disinformation about cannabis, and it is especially harmful when pro-cannabis advocates like yourself blow smoke without bothering to check out the facts.
I already quoted the Francis Young opinion for you, but obviously that’s not good enough to satisfy you. So look it up for yourself to confirm, or offer some substance to refute. Right now you’re just confusing people.
December 2, 2006 at 3:57 am
I think you missed the point entirely. Never mind. I misunderstood you to be a little more focused than the Cannabis News site people, a group that roundly criticizes even letters that support marijuana legalization because they don’t phrase it the way they would have written it if they were actually doing something. Re-read the posts if you like, I don’t really care. Keep thinking like a lawyer and get misled into the devil lands of details. Either way, I’m sick of this pointless argument. One can’t argue with the deaf.
December 2, 2006 at 6:00 am
I see, you don’t like “the Cannabis News site people” of which I am one. Well, that’s fine. If you think this is all a pointless waste of time, then go do whatever it is that amuses you more. As if we were actually doing something, indeed.
December 28, 2006 at 2:18 pm
I read once that it is estimated that the LD-50 in humans for cannabis is around five pounds of female flowering tops. Eating five pounds of cannabis in one sitting would be quite a feat, I can see why it’s never happened. In any event it is misleading, because the safety issue revolves around how close the therapeutic dose of a drug is compared to the lethal dose. In some drugs such as heroin or alcohol it’s very close, which is why we see overdoses in such drugs. In cannabis they are absurdly far apart, and there’s no way someone could lethally overdose on cannabis while trying to get a therapeutic dose.
Frankly the whole issue of cannabis and health seems silly to me, staggering sums of money have been spent trying very hard to find such dangers, and despite numerous stacked commissions ans studies, what they have come up with is trivial. Not to mention that cannabis has been in widespread heavy use by tens of millions of people in the USA since the 60s. If such long term use caused any increase in any disease, it would have started showing up by now.
Not to mention anecdotal experience. I’ve never known anyone to ruin their life and health with cannabis, can’t say the same for tobacco, alcohol, and numerous other drugs. In fact the biggest complaint that cannabis users seem to have is how much money they have spent over the years. Hardly a serious health issue, especially coming from people who have careers, jobs, and homes for the most part.
JMO
Doug
December 28, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Well stated, Doug.
December 29, 2006 at 9:18 am
I personally can attest that cannabis works very well for me to treat my chronic pain and the depression having chronic pain can cause. I really wish the govmint would get out of my business and allow me to choose the medicine that works best without having to worry about being arrested. Why should it matter to anyone if I smoke?
February 23, 2007 at 11:36 pm
More dialogue with Michael Tam in the comments here, if he hasn’t deleted the whole thing.
February 26, 2007 at 2:41 am
After going through the comments in my blog, I noticed that Doug responded that he had read somewhere that Cannabis had an LD-50 of about five pounds of flowering tops. Your reply was “well-stated”. My thoughts on the subject were ridiculed, as you had decided that it couldn’t kill anyone. Please, if you are going to be an asshole, at least be consistent.
February 26, 2007 at 9:12 am
There is no established LD-50 for cannabis, Jim. You must have misunderstood something. Regardless of what you think I might have said, the facts remain. There has never been a lethal dose of cannabis, not in humans or animals, not even when deliberately administered with the purpose of establishing a lethal dose. Never. It is as a practical matter impossible to do. And how are you even going to consume 5 pounds of flowering tops in a single dose — all at once? You might manage to suffocate some animals with smoke and lack of oxygen, but that’s another matter.
If you’re here to call me names, please don’t bother.
February 26, 2007 at 11:31 am
In my piece i noted it was a ridiculous amount. You responded with the usual attack instead of a debate or question. I am not here to call you names, read the posts I had earlier and then read dougs. Then read your responses to them and tell me you are not an inconsistent ass.
February 26, 2007 at 11:32 am
Oh yeah, as far as being on your site to call you names, it is only becauswe you were such a rude sob on mine. The problem with the perpetually stoned is that you are never straight enough to figure out where the hell you are. Everything in moderation.
February 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Jim, you are the one being rude here.
February 26, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Yes I am. I am treating you as you treat others. I don’t think you like it, so why are you so rude? Read the posts, they are only a few back. And perhaps read the ones you wrote on mine. Maybe then you can understand why I don’t care about your thoughts. You were an asshole before, so I am an asshole now. You reap what you sow.
February 26, 2007 at 3:13 pm
What do you want to accomplish here, Jim?
You are wrong. It’s that simple. Your belligerence does not do you any credit.
Apparently you will be unsatisfied unless you are reaffirmed in your falsehood. I cannot help you with that.
February 26, 2007 at 4:27 pm
oh, the arrogance of false humility. What I wanted to accomplish I have already done. You are an ass, and I just wanted to let you know it.
February 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm
So glad you could stop by to inform me of that.
No, actually, in all honesty, I wish you’d just ask for help if you need it, and I don’t know what kind of attention to give you. I don’t have any ill will for you, just a desire that you pursue your own happiness that you say you have so much of, or tell me what you want from me that I can give you without reaffirming a deception. Perhaps you choose to blame your life choices on something other than yourself. I don’t really know.
February 27, 2007 at 6:04 am
I reapeat the previous. Also, if you were to spend 30 seconds on Google you could find the LD-50. But then you would be a real activist instead of just an arrogant ass.
February 27, 2007 at 7:38 am
What search terms did you use and what did you find? Please provide an actual link supporting your view that an LD-50 has been established for cannabis. What is the LD-50 and how would such a dose be administered? Please be specific.
February 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm
In considering Jim’s confusion, what he seems not to recognize is an important difference between estimation and establishing a number. An estimate is someone’s guess, it might be based on a variety of assumptions that may or may not be true and without taking into consideration practical objections. Some estimates are more realistic than others, to be sure, but we don’t do science that way. Actual data would have to confirm the estimate for it to have any predictive value. Since no human or animal has ever died of cannabis overdose, no established probability of death exists at any dose whatsoever.
And if Jim ever gets around to doing his Google search and actually reading the results, he might come around.
February 27, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I have done all the research I am willing to do for you. When you can find the balls to climb off your high horse of arrogance, then perhaps you can find the answer for yourself. That is, unless you find it much more satisfying to remain a smug little prick.
February 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Okay, you are no longer allowed to comment here, Jim. I’m sorry to cut you off, because I’d rather have a constructive conversation but you are apparently interested in nothing but being disruptive. Goodbye.
February 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I see what you mean about looking around.
If there was ever an academy award for the best website, you whig have earned it, God Bless.
Wondering what ever happened to Tam, did the good doctor inhale, and caught that twinkle to the everlasting stars, those stars that are mere lights that lighten every quantitative study, into the mind of men and animals, in the meantime, if you were born with dark skin, some Ahab, who must perpetually look for water, since all the wells are heavily guarded, with no thought to sharing, forget about salt, salt that is born from the richest resource on our’ planet, it is about our planet, it is about how we’ manage our gifts, from the simplest moment in your reflection, when you caught a glimpse,..Hail Ceaser , who brings bread and food that intoxicates the mind, again
I say nice cyberplace to allow some swallowed up useless slave to type a few characters, of some forgotten letters, that spells
Whig I had a great link to direct you too, but alas, I was made aware, there is a crucifixion, that I must attend, to offer my witness, such a large part of this world, is at war, and largely denied the clearer grace of understanding, and knowledge, I can smell the day when foolish clowns, fall and are torn to pieces, and stand up and become the most straight soldiers, Cannabis and Justice
February 28, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Thanks, Gw. Off-topic conversations can be put in any open thread.
March 2, 2007 at 4:15 pm
sure wish whig, this was some other place, where a person may come to read the latest news, feel comfortable, to explore every idea, even as alternative views, are being typed by some other strange person, can you imagine somebody with the name Rev. Jim Lunsford, posting?
You had the good doctor tam, even Hope, was close and within your grasp, and I can only see dregs, useless words, hiding behind so many fears, and sanctions and confusion, in this cyber and digital place, where many who have been forgotten, have typed some letters, some words, and some ideas, was it for some good?
Was it for change, change, is it about looking at your reflection, that face that breathes, in this world, it would be nice if fomme could grace this time,
March 2, 2007 at 4:47 pm
what was i thinking about? i must have been delusional to think that i might see some difference in my reflection, or the reflection of so many innocents and fallen,smoke and mirrors, and a fine mortgage i come with grace and some winning thoughts, dreams, that can focus to a better understanding, Maybe someday, Orwell, Kafka, Mary Magdeleen, may be some respectable citizen, who decides to speak, to record injustice, and to vote, in thought or deed, justice and honor are the fruits and legacys, i bring to the table, it is a long table, H
March 2, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Gw, the most recent open thread is here.
March 24, 2007 at 3:10 am
will i fail medical check up after weeks taking cannabis and cocaine?
March 24, 2007 at 9:57 am
I have no idea. Why are you using cocaine?
March 24, 2007 at 11:57 am
re: will i fail medical check up after weeks taking cannabis and cocaine?
you might pass
March 24, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Gw, do you have some knowledge of this person?
April 29, 2007 at 6:51 pm
[...] Trackback [...]
May 6, 2007 at 12:59 pm
As always you are absolutely right. Cannabis isn’t the killer, so why ban it?
July 12, 2007 at 9:48 am
Dr. Tam
Marijuana has never killed anyone! why is everyone so fucking caught up on this marijuana is not bad i smoke everyday and i am a perfectly normal human being. I do not get angry or depressed from smoking. Plus, isn’t having a beer more damaging to you than smoking a nice relaxing bong or something. Then you dont get addicted to marijuana, people just think they are addicted to it and it is all mental you can stop smoking pot whenever the fuck you want with no prblem. Then you have the drunk and stoner comparison when a drunk gets drunk they get angry and want to fight in most instances whereas if you smoke pot you just want to sit around and play video games have a nice social life
July 12, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hi squernst, I don’t think Dr. Tam is participating here any longer.
You are correct that cannabis is a safer alternative to alcohol, and may in fact be beneficial to health if consumed medicinally. I believe that a more widespread public acceptance of recreational marijuana would also lead to a sharp reduction in societal violence.
Also, if I were a parent advising my daughter, I would hope she would know that alcohol can render you unconscious and defenseless. Cannabis does not do this.
November 18, 2007 at 8:24 pm
As for marijuana induced psychosis…up to 25% of the population has a predisposition for the type of psychosis that claim refers to. Marijuana only increases those peoples’ chances of developing a psychosis by less than 2%. People against marijuana use the argument because technically it is correct, but increasing by 2% the chance of developing something 25% are predisposed to have is really a negligible harm. What is really ridiculous is when you look at the conditions caused by tobacco and alcohol, such as cancer and liver failure. People who develop those are typically NOT predisposed to developing them, therefore making alcohol and tobacco CAUSES, rather than minute triggers. Yet they are legal. Many people with bi-polar disorder are thought to be depressed, and are prescribed anti-depressants, which can increase mania and cause hallucinations. Painkillers are some of the most addictive substances around. One can argue that the legality of alcohol, alcohol, and prescription medicines is not a relevent issue, but really it is. The relevence is that it clearly points out that the government that makes marijuana illegal does so not out of concern for the health of it’s citizens, but legalizes things out of concern for money through taxes and donations. Marijuana doesn’t kill, but some people will use any argument to defend a view engrained in them by a mindless authority.
November 18, 2007 at 10:01 pm
There isn’t really any evidence that cannabis causes psychosis, though it may precipitate a crisis for someone who is already premorbid, which means only that the person might exhibit symptoms sooner than otherwise. To the contrary, however, there is substantial evidence that cannabis may be helpful in many cases to treat psychosis.
January 9, 2008 at 8:19 am
i dont see what the problem with cannabis,pot,weed or whatever you want to call it to my understanding is the big deal is that it impairs you or ”gets you high” but cannabis is a plant just like tabacco. i kno first hand that the first time a had a smoke i felt high for the lack of a beeter term at the time plus tabacco also has added chemicals and toxins so whats to say smoking weed is worse than smoking cigeretts
January 9, 2008 at 8:25 am
i see it to be less likley that a person ”high” on cannabis to go out and cause harm to themselves or anyone else, as they’re stoned. the only thing they want to do is eat and watch funny tv shows with some friends
January 10, 2008 at 1:16 am
Cannabis does not harm health as tobacco does. Unlike tobacco, cannabis does not increase the risk of lung cancer or emphysema, though if you smoke it you may have some irritation which can be limited by using a vaporizer or preparing it as food.
January 10, 2008 at 6:08 am
no no no you took what i said the wrong way. what i ment was why is smoking legal when it can cause cancer and other medical problems but if i smoke a joint the cops wanna throw me in jail when the worst thing pot will do to you is PUT YOU TO SLEEP cause your to stoned to do anything else.
January 10, 2008 at 6:12 am
AND THEY ARE BOTH PLANTS that would grow in the wild if
the government would stop havin it cut down
January 10, 2008 at 6:14 am
Alcohol was made by man, Cannabis was given to us by mother nature wich one should we trust? personaly i trust mother nature
January 10, 2008 at 10:57 am
Some things that are natural are good for you and some things are poison. Recognize the difference.
January 11, 2008 at 7:30 am
go smoke Joint and shut up
(life a b@#$#, one day we’ll die so @#%$ it all and lets get high)
pot is not poison magic mushrooms are poison and i would eat those too. my point being no matter if it’s legal or not people are going to keep smoking,growing, and selling
January 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Psilocybin mushrooms are not toxic either. However, I don’t wish to discuss it further.
March 1, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I think I may have the reason why the government will not legalize marijuana.
Most (if not all) prescription drugs are made in labs and are sold straight off the market, as patients can not exactly obtain these drugs by simply making them in their own home. Cannabis, however, can be grown where ever and when ever because it’s a plant. The government fear they would probably lose money if they legalized marijuana, as they may not be able to sell it if everybody starts growing freely in their own homes, etc.
March 1, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Not everyone can or will home grow, and the same argument could be made of tobacco, which the government has no problems taxing.
March 12, 2008 at 5:58 am
Why is Marinol (and Sativex, for that matter) legal while a plant growing in your closet isn’t? Let’s finally get real here, guys. PROFIT. Herbal cannabis will remain illegal because it is basically free. Save for some plastic containers, soil and water. Now, we can’t have that on today’s corporate-run planet , can we? Heavens no! The capsule known as Marinol (dronabinol) is pure synthetic THC in an oil medium. Sativex is a whole-plant extract made into a sublingual spray. The cost of each follows (and here’s where the juicy profits come in)… Marinol: around $12 per pill. Sativex: varies but averages around $125 per vial. With many, many pills/vials required each month. The ONLY difference between pharmaceutical cannabis and smoked cannabis is that pharma products create enormous amounts of revenue for big business. I can absolutely guarantee that more and more “cannabis-based medications” will be popping up in the future as pharma labs pick apart the constituents of the whole plant. Why? Because each one can be patented and exploited. But don’t you DARE grow that “crude” plant yourself! It’s dangerous! Instead, why not come on over to Big Pharma, Inc. for all your cannabinoid needs? We’re here to help you! Just remember to bring LOTS of cash. Now, don’t you feel better being a law-abiding citizen?
I can’t wait to hear “Dr. Tam” chime in on this one.
March 12, 2008 at 6:52 am
By the way… And I quote:
“Cannabis probably does help with pain but it does not help with depression, not in the way antidepressants do.”
Citations, please, Dr. Tam?
If you ARE a doctor, how many scripts for SSRIs have YOU shelled out? That many, huh? No surprise there.
Moreover, of the hundreds of thousands of patients on these “oh-so safe and effective” ADs, how many end up going on a shooting rampage or hanging themselves while on them or in during the throws of withdrawal?
Yessiree, those ADs are a whiz-bang tratment alright. Great for kids too. Just listen to the drug reps. Oh, thats right, you probably have.
March 12, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hi Broc, I don’t think Dr. Tam has been participating here for a while.
You make some good points. Synthetic THC is not the same as herbal cannabis, and there are other constituents of the natural plant which contribute to its benign effect.
March 13, 2008 at 2:55 am
Hi Michael
It may seem I’m a bit biased against antidepressants however I do have a reason. They almost cost me my life. And when I see these so-called “doctors” pushing this poison, I just have to confront them. I was, unfortunately, duped into taking one of the nastiest SSRIs of them all. Paxil. Precribed simply for some mild anxiety. I lost eight years of my life to that evil GSK concoction and, as I mentioned, I barely made it out alive. The “chemical imbalance” theory is a complete fabrication from Big Pharma. Hmmm… sounds like someone is a bit paranoid. Perhaps they have a pill for that! While on it I became an emotionless zombie whom my friends and family didn’t even recognize any longer. And the FOUR years it took me to break my addiction to it was a roller coaster ride through the bowels of Hell. And included overwhelming thoughts of suicide. I now use cannabis to control the apparently permanent neurological damage that the Paxil has caused. Which includes tremors and tics, depression (which I NEVER had beforehand), continuing severe insomnia and PSSD (post-SSRI sexual disfunction). Quite the “sucessful treatment, wouldn’t you agree? Not only does the cannabis completely relieve all the symptoms above, it has no side effects whatsoever. Except for the possibility of being arrested. So you can see why I might have a strong oppinion against these “antidepressants.” Cannabis is literally safer than aspirin with a lethal dose approaching the weight of a Volkswagen Bug consumed in 15 minutes. Even the most enthusiastic “stoner” would fall disappointingly short of that feat. It cannot kill. Yet we have fellows such as our Dr. Tam touting the opposite while enthusiastically waving his prescription pad. Absolutely and tragically irresponsible on his part. I’ll take a feeling of euphoria over suicidal ideation anytime. Thanks, Dr., but you can shove your “obtuse” and astoundingly transparent ignorance up your decending colon.
March 13, 2008 at 3:48 am
Hi again Michael
Sorry for my last sentence in the post above. I’m just very passionate on exposing the pharmaceutical fraud that is so pervasive in our “modern” society.
Speaking of “obtuse” (that’s a BIG word), yet another quote from our dear doctor…
“Alcohol rarely “kills” anyone directly from a pharmacological effect.”
Really.
Try this little experiment: Chug a fifth of Jim Beam whiskey in fifteen minutes (as referenced with the cannabis above) and you’ll be stone-cold DEAD in, oh, a half hour or so. Preceded by some delightful seizures and drowning in your own vomit.
Where did you recieve your doctorate, Mr. Tam? Fly-by-night University? Or was it Opposite-Land U.?
Jeez…
March 13, 2008 at 4:12 am
One last comment on SSRI “antidepressants.” Paxil (paroxetine hydrochloride) was found to INCREASE the chance of suicidal thinking (ideation) 6.4 TIMES as compared to placebo. This FACT was found in GlaxoSmithKline’s own “trials” which they were forced to disclose during the discovery phase of a recent class-action suit involving over 5000 victims in the U.S.
Knowing that, could you please pass the bong?
I feeling so much better.
March 13, 2008 at 4:39 am
Wish you had an “edit” feature available. That was supposed to read… I’M feeling so much better.
It’s now 4:39 AM. I’m going to bed. I think I need to!
)
March 13, 2008 at 6:03 am
Back again. I mentioned I have bad insomnia! Thank you, Paxil. I’m out of herb at the moment. Otherwise, I would be snoozing peacefully.
Anyway, I realize Dr. Tam has flown the coop. But I’m still enjoying blasting him.
) Perhaps he will return one day.
Whig, thanks for such a fantastic site. Some great conversations going on here. Well, except for “Mr. Lunsford” LOL
Peace to all.
March 13, 2008 at 9:34 am
Broc, I don’t mind people having strong discussions but when the participants have gone, further personally directed comments are kind of unhelpful. You have many excellent points, but this is an old post. I’m glad you enjoy the site and hope you’ll check out some of the other posts and comment more.
There are a few other herbs that might help with insomnia, you might try some tulsi tea and see if it helps. Cannabis certainly does help many people sleep normally who would not otherwise. It may be that endocannabinoid deficiencies exist in many people which are effectively treated by cannabis.
March 14, 2008 at 3:04 am
Sorry, Michael
I guess I just had to get that stuff off my chest. Thanks for the advice on the tea. I’ll Google it and see what it’s all about. I have tried 5-HTP several times in the past with no success. How about a big, thick anandamide milkshake? ;o) But, seriously, the cannabis seems to be the only thing that helps me function normally anymore. Most importantly, relieving the tremors, tics and mild seizures I have to now live with because of the Paxil.
Are you the moderator here? I thought it was whig. If so, apologies for that too. Thought he was the one who banned Jim.
Dr. Tam was such a juicy opponent I couldn’t help myself even though he had departed. One time, during a visit to MY “doctor”, he suggested I add yet another SSRI to my Paxil. Which would have surely resulted in serotonin syndrome and would no doubt have put me in the hospital at best. I called him on it and he became very incensed. Not surprisingly, I found myself another doctor after that. So after reading “Dr.” Tam’s posts it made my blood boil quickly. These pyhsicians are supposed to be educated. And not just from the drug reps coming in with their lies and perks.
I will check out the rest of the site and may participate in further discussions with hopefully a lighter heart.
Thanks, Michael
March 14, 2008 at 4:13 am
A note on cannabis possibly causing “psychosis.” In my opinnion, if someone were to smoke or otherwise consume a strain extremely high in THC and extremely low in cannabidiol, such as a potent Sativa, it may well cause a good deal of distress in the user such as paranoia and feelings of panic. Particularly in a first-time user whom is completely unfamiliar with the effects of cannabis and does not know what to expect. Cannabidiol has been found to posess sedative, neuro-protective and anti-seizure properties. It also works to mediate the effects of the THC. I’m now curious to learn if Marinol might have a potential to cause “psychotic” symptoms; especially in high doses. THC has unique medicinal properties of its own however it seems to work best in synergy with the other major cannabinoids in its natural herbal form. I will be very interested in any new “pharma” drugs which concentrate on cannabidiol. And what they will claim it can do. Indica strains of cannabis have a much higher ratio of cannabidiol. Which is what I prefer as my medication. It sure works for me.
March 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Broc, I’m formerly known as whig, to address the possible confusion. Jim has his own blog, which I think you can follow the link to from his comments. No point commenting further on ancient history.
As far as SSRIs, some people evidently do have problems with them, and cannabis does help some people that are not helped by patent pharmaceuticals.
There is no question but that cannabis causes temporary changes in mental processing, calling this “psychosis” is a stretch. It can be described as an alteration of consciousness, and although it can be a bit uncomfortable for novices, experienced cannabis users do not demonstrate any higher rate of psychosis or mental impairment compared to the general population.
But yeah, you have to learn to adapt to it, like anything. For some people it is an enhancement above normal, at least for certain activities.
April 24, 2008 at 3:32 am
[...] really care. Keep thinking like a lawyer … Okay, you are no longer allowed to comment here, Jim.http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/prescription-drugs-kill-cannabis-has-never-killed-anyone/Opiate Detox Recovery… get totally clean and sober. I no longer want to live this vicious [...]
May 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I am an avid cannabis smoker, I can say for some one with depression and post tramatic stress syndrome it has helped me emensly. Now the reason i can say that weed helps is because I have tried to help my issues before with anti depressent and they had extreme and dangourous side effect. I just wish that the government could see how many people like me this plant can help.then I wouldn’t have to be so affraid to be me
May 12, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Tiffany, the idea in California and other states with medical marijuana is that doctors can recommend it if it is appropriate for patients. There are many antidepressants with many different effects (including “side” effects and “knock on” effects). Choosing the right medicine should be a process that includes your doctor.
June 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm
and how!
August 14, 2008 at 6:26 am
i guarantee that after a day with you’d be begging for me to smoke one
i don’t mean to but i drive people nuts
September 13, 2008 at 5:31 pm
hmmm.
most of this crap doesnt mean much to me..
i can agree on alot of what the gov. and anti-marijuana people have to say.
i do however believe they act as if its more negative towards a human then what it actually is.
sure i can agree it can be somewhat mentally addicting, but if it did any physical damage where i could instantly tell, i sure in the heck would stop the usage.
but to say that it can in time cause brain damage and cant learn as much, and could even cause cancer… i find that really funny, considering coffee of all things could cause cancer, hell electric poles can cause cancer. the fact remains that everything said about marijuana can be said about 10000+ legal substances. If you visit the gov. site about the plant, they use things like youll do bad in school, you cant walk correctly so you may embarress yourself, youll be so out of it you wont understand what the teacher is saying and your grades will be destroyed… i could say i drank coffee this morning, shoot i want double mocha today my hearts a pounding, caffiene high, im so pumped i missed a step going down the stairs of the schools hallway, now im hurt and embarressed.. heck i cant stay occupied on my work cuz i just want to run around, oh no i got an F.. and 10 yrs later i got cancer.. well dang, shouldnt coffee be illegal.
the best thing i notice is the fact that we can legalize drinking but not smoking.. drinking shows to have more negatives then smoking.. and the best of all is pills, i love pills so very much, they treat this this and this, can help with this this and this… but like ALL commercials for medication, and the back of medication, show/say atleast 3 negative side effects, majority show long term effects, and could even cause death… theres been more deaths related to drinking and pills then marijuana. this only goes to show there is no significance to why marijuana is illegal. and certainly shouldnt be.
September 13, 2008 at 7:46 pm
David, you might be interested to know that cannabis treats cancer. Far from causing cancer, even smoked cannabis does not appear to increase the risk.
There has never been a confirmed death caused by cannabis.
January 17, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Alright, i read through the first 5ish posts on here and i really need to say something, Not a single person in history has ever been killed by weed or cannabis or whatever you want to call it, Yes people have died from something they have done after smoking weed, but was that the plants fault? Did the plant kill them or was it their own stupidity? Onto driving while being high, that is also the users stupidity. There are plenty of legal things that kill people, like cigarettes and alchohol. Many people think that weed is more dangerous then cigarettes and that is why its illegal. But that is certainly not true, they are about equally dangerous, and weed would still probably be less harmful then weed. Weed kills brain cells at a higher rate then cigarettes, but cigarettes kills brain cells, will eventually give you cancer, it is addictive, and even second hand smoke cigarettes are deadly. Weed is not addictive, not physically at least, and because it isnt addictive, you dont smoke as much of it as you would cigarettes. Thus right there meaning that you wont kill yourself with weed. Some doctors even prescribe medical marijuana for stress relievers or even depression. If you ask me, weed should be legalized, then people will be less addicted to other drugs such as heroine or meth because they will just do weed. and imagine, If the U.S legalized weed, how much they could tax us on it. We would have plenty of money for wars or funding of cures for terrible deseases.
June 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm
unfortunately i was taking 32 paramol (UK branded codeine OTC drug) a day for over a year as it made me ‘happy’..also gave me headache so I took cheap stuff for those too. I did it also cos i didnt feel hungry and i lost over 25kg. It also helped me sleep at night which i had always had problems with. I had to trail around different pharmacies for my addiction and even got banned from two places for buying too many. Then i got them off the internet…3 packs a time. They made me more energetic and as i said happy, but they also messed up my body big time. I now have to visit the hospital a few times a years as my intestines are inflamed and bleeding and my stomach never feels right. I havent told them what i did for me to be like this as i am ashamed…they presume its colitis and give me pills for that. I wish i never did all that shit. I cost me a lot of money for what? A messed up body, pain, constipation, and i actually do feel better without. I still get tempted to get that high sometimes but prevent myself…i hope i can carry on with the willpower…maybe i should just find a weed supplier