|
« The groans of academe
Main |
January 08, 2004
Re-classify cannabis upwards
Daily Mail, 8 January 2004 Three weeks from now, the government’s reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug comes into effect. At that point, it will be officially considered no more dangerous than painkillers, steroids or tranquillisers. Indeed, simply as a result of announcing this change — which also means the police will no longer arrest people for possessing small quantities of marijuana —many young people now believe cannabis really isn’t very dangerous at all. Yet now comes the starkest warning yet that it is so dangerous it is causing unprecedented numbers of people to go mad. Professor Robin Murray, one of this country’s foremost experts on psychosis, has told The Times that cannabis is now the ‘number one problem’ reducing mental health services in the inner cities to crisis point. Up to 80 per cent of all new patients suffering from psychosis are reporting a history of cannabis use which, the professor says, has brought on their illness. Four recent studies show that cannabis use — particularly by young people — can increase the likelihood of psychosis by up to 700 per cent. Furthermore, the drug drastically reduces the chances of recovery, since when patients leave hospital they return to their old haunts, resume taking cannabis and relapse. Maybe in an attempt to be diplomatic, Professor Murray declines to criticise the fact that no psychosis experts were members of either the Home Affairs Select Committee or the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, both of which played a crucial role in advising the government on re-classifying cannabis. This is because at the time, he says, no-one thought any such experts were needed. The professor is being far too kind. The omission of such expertise was a disgrace. There has been a welter of evidence, some of it going back more than two decades, suggesting alarming links between cannabis and mental illness. While this did not conclusively prove cannabis was the cause, it certainly indicated strongly that this was so. In particular, a study of Swedish army conscripts in 1987 reported that those who had used cannabis on more than 50 occasions were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who hadn’t used the drug at all. Another Dutch study of heavy cannabis users revealed a sevenfold likelihood of psychotic symptoms within three years. In 1998, the National Institute of Public Health in Sweden warned that cannabis was one of the most toxic of all narcotics. ‘Compared with heroin abuse’, it said, ‘cannabis smoking — in addition to the strong grip with which dependence develops — is associated with far more serious risks regarding the development of mental disorders of various kinds.’ It listed these as ‘delirium, cannabis psychosis, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, depersonalisation syndrome, depression and suicide tendency, antimotivational behaviour and impulsive violence’. In other words, there was enough evidence even then to ring the loudest of alarm bells over cannabis and mental health. But the government simply ignored it. Since then, further studies to which Professor Murray referred have reinforced this research and produced yet further alarming evidence of the link with mental illness. In New Zealand, young people who had used cannabis three times or more at age 15 or 18 were more likely to exhibit schizophrenic symptoms by age 26. Still other studies in America and Australia show cannabis users have a fourfold risk of depression. In November 2002, these new studies were revealed in the British Medical Journal. The government ignored these, too. Instead, it ploughed on with its reclassification in the apparent belief not only that cannabis doesn’t do much harm to users, but that it doesn’t harm other people. But this is not true either. The changes it causes in the brain can have profound effects on others, ranging from relationship difficulties to violence. Jamie Lee Osbourne, jailed for life last month for murdering a stranger at random, changed under the influence of cannabis from a church-going teenager to a savage killer. His barrister told the court that cannabis had diminished his inhibitions and given him ‘delusional fantasies’. Anne-Marie Pyle bludgeoned her father to death before setting fire to his house, after cannabis gave her psychotic delusions. Phillip Caswell, who strangled his sleeping girlfriend and then stabbed her repeatedly with a kitchen knife, blamed the attack on his prolonged cannabis use. And so on, and appallingly on. The Government has ignored all this, too. Instead, it has issued dangerously mixed messages about cannabis which can only encourage its use. On ‘Frank’, the Home Office drug information website, it has actually downplayed its dangers. ‘Cannabis psychosis’, it says, ‘is rare but happens when someone’s smoked themselves into oblivion. It can continue for some time but is treatable… Once stoned, users can find hidden depths in daytime television/ the most unlikely song lyrics’. Despite his own evidence, Professor Murray refuses to condemn the government for downgrading cannabis from class B to class C because it does not cause psychosis in most people who use it. This is surely extraordinarily naïve. This reclassification sends out a totally misleading signal that cannabis is not dangerous. As a result, more young people are going to use it. As a result of that, the toll of mental illness he so chillingly describes is going to get worse. And while most users may not go mad, its effects are not confined to psychosis but also include dependency, demotivation and loss of memory and the ability to think, not to mention physical effects such as an increased cancer risk or infertility. Given all this, there is surely a case for reclassifying cannabis upwards to a class A drug. The dangers it poses to both individuals and to society are insupportable. To put it on the same level as painkillers is quite grotesque. The Government’s reckless drug policy has already caused enormous damage, and this is set to accelerate. Ministers have simply shut their ears to those experts who have tried to warn them about the true dangers of cannabis. Instead, it has listened only to two kinds of people. The result is a criminal and public health menace which is now spiralling out of control, pulling the government behind it.
Posted by melanie at January 8, 2004
Comments
madam,i am not a criminal,i am a fifty seven year old grandfather,with four wonderful children and a loving wife.i was alway's brought up to beleive drugs were harmful/dangerous,until alcohol nearly took everything away from me i actually believed this false perception,"marijuna saved my life",my g/p had me on librium,vallium,and another "safe drug",which i cannot recall,these things were driving me crazy,my g/p now knows i use marijuana,and agrees with it,please do not write about a god given plant you obviously know absolutely 0,yours r christian Posted by: r christian at January 8, 2004 09:10 PMI am 53 years old.For the past 30 years my memory, which in my teens was almost encyclopaedic, has been deficient.This has not been a gradual thing, it happened over 2 years in my early 20's,when I was almost permanently stoned.Along with several others at that time [in the early 70's ]I was living a hippy lifestyle,claiming social security,up all night smoking and sleeping most of the day. When I finally "got my head straight" I resolved to stop smoking as it was making me paranoic and I could recognise that if I continued I would probably have needed treatment. But my memory never recovered,and along with it I lost a little bit of my coherence when thinking.I would start sentences and then forget what I was meaning to say.I reckon that if I were ever to start smoking again the same feelings of paranoia and lack of motivation would return,and my memory which I have managed to partially restore by hard work would regress quite quickly. As I understand it the cannabis available now is a lot stronger than in my day.If that is so I would fear for our young people if it is legalised and becomes as acceptable as alcohol. Don't believe anyone who tells you it is harmless.It is not .I accept that I abused it all those years ago ,but if it really is so much stronger now,a much lower level of use will be liable to have the same effect. Posted by: ex smoker at January 8, 2004 10:35 PMr christian Your posting is all the proof we need that cannabis can damage the brain. What a perfect first response. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 9, 2004 02:49 AMEven though there seems to be some horrific accounts of murder etc,which have been blamed on cannabis,would it be too far from the mark to suggest that these people drank alcohol too ? I think we need to get this into perspective.If an individual abuses any drug,alcohol,tobacco,or cannibis,then they must expect their health to suffer.Moderation must be the answer. On the subject of cannibis causing mental illness,i belive that cannibis acts as a catalist in certain individuals.As there are many millions of long term cannibis users who do not suffer any mental illness as a result of using cannibis. If any drug induces madness,then look to the terraces of the nations football grounds, for some alcohol fueled bedlam. In summary,how can we justify treating a plant with proven medicinal properties with prohibition,when something like alcohol,which costs the tax payers millions every year is consumed in fast amounts quite legally every day ? Posted by: M. at January 9, 2004 09:17 AMR Christian - Frank Pulley took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for the vivid illustration! Ms M - as we suspected, a prescriptive left-winger - says: "I think we need to get this into perspective." I would suggest that "we" already have it in perspective and that you don't agree with us does not mean that we are wrong. The people I knew who smoked pot in the late 70s seldom drank very much at the same time. A few glasses of red wine over an entire evening. Alcohol and marijuana work differently on the brain and one militates against the other. I've never, for example, seen anyone having a whisky and soda and smoking pot at the same time! The effects of heavy marijuana use seem to linger much longer than the effects of moderate alcohol consumption. As in, years. People have flashbacks. They also have unbidden hallucinations. I am not up on the dangerous aspects of the drug, but I can say without a doubt that it acts as a great demotivator. People high on pot do not see the point in going to work or keeping appointments. Sitting around giggling is what they mainly do, in my experience. (Although they do manage to make it to the bank to deposit their welfare cheques.) I will also say that even mild marijuana use makes for very dangerous driving because of the hallucinations. Posted by: Caroline at January 9, 2004 10:54 AMEx Smoker- it would seem the problem you suffered was not due to smoking cannabis, but that you abused the drug. If you were 'permanently stoned' then even allowing for exaggeration you were using it more than is good for you. If you'd abused alcohol to the same degree you could well be as bad off now as George Best, cigarettes, you could be facing lung cancer or one of the various nasty diseases that those can cause. All your story shows is that when you were young you didn't take the appropriate care of your body. That is your fault, not that of whatever substance you decided to abuse. Posted by: Loz at January 9, 2004 01:18 PMCaroline, Quote : "People have flashbacks. They also have unbidden hallucinations. I am not up on the dangerous aspects of the drug." As you say,you clearly have no idea what so ever,of the effects that cannibis has on the human body,if you did you would realise that flashbacks and hallucinations, are not associated with cannibis use in any way. Quote:"Ms M - as we suspected, a prescriptive left-winger " I am a male,and what do my political opinions have to do with this subject ?
Loz Your point is relevant and well made. I've often thought that my experience with cannabis can be explained in almost exactly the way you describe. Our pattern of smoking, for about 15 months out of the 2 years,involved about 6 people sharing one joint every 2/3 hours for around 12/14 hours a day.Round about 5/6 joints a day between 6 people.That equates to 1 joint per day per person.That was enough to keep all of us more or less permanently stoned . My understanding and I may well be wrong, is that today's cannabis can be up to 10 times as strong as back then. Work it out for yourself,but if anyone is smoking just one joint every 10 days[or every 5 days if it's only 5 times as strong etc.etc.]then they are abusing their body just as much as I did then. But I stopped completely after 2 years. Posted by: ex smoker at January 9, 2004 02:36 PMEx Smoker, Your experiences are very illuminating. I have never tried it and have never smoked cigarettes either. The government's policy is all over the place on how to deal with addictive substances coherently and logically. Not quite as contradictory as the European Commission, however, where one Directorate-General (DG) has successfully pushed through restrictions EU-wide on the advertising of tobacco whilst another DG continues to subsidise tobacco growers in Greece. Unbelievble. Whereas I was aware of the mental damage that smoking pot can do I was not aware of the knock-on effect in terms of violent crime. Thanks for sharing your experiences with us and I hope you are fit and well. Posted by: David at January 9, 2004 03:10 PMMelanie; Fair points all round but I feel that the majority of the general public here have (and are basing their views on) information which I class as "propaganda". IE “facts” which are one sided, irrelevant and basically misconceptions. An example of this you said yourself here Melanie: ""People have flashbacks. They also have unbidden hallucinations. I am not up on the dangerous aspects of the drug."" I think you have been misinformed as these types of experiences are related to LSD use, not cannabis. Who was your source for this information ?? Another quote from your good self Melanie: “And while most users may not go mad, its effects are not confined to psychosis but also include dependency, de-motivation and loss of memory and the ability to think, not to mention physical effects such as an increased cancer risk or infertility.” All of these traits are freely available to people already in the form of alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. The only reason that there is a big fuss is because cannabis is currently illegal. Here is another “common misconception” “My understanding and I may well be wrong, is that today's cannabis can be up to 10 times as strong as back then.” Did you know that the majority of cannabis sold in the UK is actually of lower quality than it used to be ? On the other hand you have cannabis flowers which have indeed increased in potency. Increase in potency means you need less to achieve the same effect. It also means you smoke less and in the long run spend less money as it lasts longer. However not many kids can pay £40 for a quarter ounce of flowers and buy solids instead; which has a reduced quality as well as all the mixers thrown into it. As for people having psychotic episodes and killing others (Jamie Lee Osbourne, Phillip Caswell As another poster stated above I also believe that it is possible for cannabis to act as a catalyst for mental disorders; if the individual was prone to disorders in the first place. Same as alcohol and many pharmasutical drugs which are legal. As cannabis user of over 10 years I can safely say I am not and have not experienced similar symptoms to what you describe. Loss of general motivation is the only thing I have suffered from using cannabis. I am a respectable person in a respectable position earning 18k a year. Does this sound like some one with a problem ? Regards - Kafka Posted by: Kafka at January 9, 2004 04:11 PMM - You're a male? Blimey, that was quick! Here's what you wrote yesterday: Incidentally, I am a 'she', not a 'he'. Posted by: M at January 8, 2004 06:32 PM Well, either way, one thing that is not in any doubt is your hard left take on life. When someone puts forward an argument you can't answer, start a slanging match. OK, but before I take the gloves off, can I just point out, as you seem to be steeped in the academic tradition, that Chablis is spelled thus, not 'chablet'. Unless, of course, you're thinking of another wine? Also, the plural does not take an apostrophe. So, to put it correctly, as incorrect grammar gives rise to misunderstandings, you should have written: ... had one too many glasses of Chablis this afternoon". I do think these tiny points are so important for those who wish to propose "radical solutions" to the ills of society, don't you? One should be able to put forth one's position succinctly and in a manner which doesn't leave the reader baffled and adrift. I seldom drink Chablis - not that I do not like it, although to be candid, I prefer an Australian Chardonnay, lightly oaked. Actually, no Victor/Victoria M, I haven't had a drink today, although the sun, were it out, would be just about over the yard arm now, so I shall be pouring in just a few minutes. 1. You say that because I have never seen a whisky and soda drinker smoking a toke, that does not mean it hasn't happened. That is indisputable. But my experience of life tells me that drinkers of whiskies and sodas, martinis, silver bullets and the like, are people who like the jolt that hard liquor delivers and have little interest in being mellowed out. Also, they dress better. 2. You say,flashbacks and hallucinations are no part of the marijuana experience. O-o-o-kaaay. If you say so. This contradicts what medical people, as opposed to students of the Humanities, say, but who am I to say otherwise? So tonight, when you mellow out, you won't have a flashback remembering what it was like to be a girl? Posted by: Caroline at January 9, 2004 04:37 PM Caroline, I fail to see any scientifically based argument to have a slanging match about. For one who considers the "tiny points" to be of such importance,it astounds me that you know so little of the subject matter.I find myself asking how such an articulate and intelligent person could be victim to such misinformation.Please before you form an opinion take the time to research it properly.At least then the opinion will be your own. I am however indebted to you for the correct way to spell chablis,so hopefully we have both learned something ? Oh, so there are two people called M posting? You - Ms or Mr - write: "So hopefully we have both learned something?" No, we have not had a Kumbaya moment. You have learned to spell Chablis (capital C, by the way)but I have learned nothing because your protests are unsupported by evidence. Melanie's reputation for research and the drawing of conclusions based on it, articulated with clarity, stands by itself. You come with no such provenance. Address her points with objections supported by evidence and we will all be interested. Posted by: Caroline at January 9, 2004 06:32 PMCaroline: I once coined a phrase to respond to shitheads (now that dates me) who always try to deflect the arguments away from maintaining strictures on the use of cannabis by pointing out the dangers of alchohol. "In vino veritas, in ganja gobbledegook." You have proved my motto once again. A couple of glasses of cabernet sauvignon never made me feel that I was more artistic, more literate, more musical or that I had seen Christ on the Cross. Neither did it make me conjoin with millions of other wine drinkers to form one of the most irritating and influential political alliances and pressure groups in the world. Nor did it make me wander wild-eyed into the streets hallucinating and muttering imprecations, which seems to be the fate of so many hardened cannabis users. Neither did it turn me into a scruffy, lazy, pseudo intellectual, smelly mind-numbing bore, as I find most pot smokers are. Some would say I innately possess many of those traits without the help of either cannabis or cabernet sauvignon and that may be true, but why enslave oneself to Hashish? Particularly when for very good reasons of crime prevention and health risk, it is illegal to possess it? For those that don't already know, the word Hashish has the same derivation as Assassin. That should tell you something. But this is all superficial stuff. The medical evidence that cannabis is a dangerous drug that has very dire effects on regular users is overwhelming. Melanie has pointed that out in profoundly logical terms with deeply researched data over a long period of time. There are others whom I trust implicitly who support her stance. Empirical experience as a police officer and working later in the NHS convinces me that she and others like her are right. Reclassifying cannabis is an iniquitous political ploy and we are all picking up the bill both financially and in terms of human misery and it will get much worse. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 9, 2004 06:39 PMhttp://eddie.gn.apc.org/ One more point,having never smoked a joint,or taken a "hit" on a bong in my life,the only reason for my research was as a conscientious parent,who was scared whitless by the media hype.When i found the truth however,and read what Eddie Ellison has to say on the subject,i soon realised my fears,though not totally unfounded,found their origins in the world of the narrow minded,misinformed,shitheads. Posted by: M at January 9, 2004 08:30 PMFrank Pully Quote:” I once coined a phrase to respond to shitheads (now that dates me) who always try to deflect the arguments away from maintaining strictures on the use of cannabis by pointing out the dangers of alchohol.
Would you say that medicinal users of cannabis are all incorrect in their use of the drug ? Even though they have tried and tested every drug available to them and only found cannabis to be of any use ? Would you say that Cannabis can not aid with sleeping disorders ? Would you say that Cannabis can not help alleviate menstrual cramps ? Would you say that Cannabis can not bring back your appetite ? Hemp (from an economic point of view) is a valuable resource. It can be used to make many many things. Slightly off topic I agree with this one.
“A couple of glasses of cabernet sauvignon never made me feel that I was more artistic, more literate, more musical or that I had seen Christ on the Cross. Neither did it make me conjoin with millions of other wine drinkers to form one of the most irritating and influential political alliances and pressure groups in the world. Nor did it make me wander wild-eyed into the streets hallucinating and muttering imprecations, which seems to be the fate of so many hardened cannabis users. Neither did it turn me into a scruffy, lazy, pseudo intellectual, smelly mind-numbing bore, as I find most pot smokers are. “ Ever heard of the chat show host Montel Williams ? Have a look at the link here. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n046/a05.html Like 99.9% of cannabis users (of which there are tens of millions world wide) Montel doesn’t display any of these symptoms. He’s a good man and I wish him the best. You have to ask yourself : Can that many people be wrong ? It would seem that your “knowledge” on cannabis use and the culture behind it has been fed to you by the media. Judging by your attitude and willingness to listen to the media on this topic. So please; wipe your mouth; your talking sh!te. Both your replies added nothing of interest or merit to this topic. Regards - Kafka may i raise sum important figures: Alcohol is estimated to cause 28,000 excess deaths per year in England and Wales.(181) 2,000,000 deaths per year worldwide. compared to: Official statistics record two deaths involving cannabis (and no other drug) in 1993, two in 1994 and one in 1995 but these were due to inhalation of vomit. Posted by: Oli at January 9, 2004 09:17 PMAh the usual rightwing anti drug propaganda. I thought journalism was about open minded reporting of the facts not narrow minded mis-information, but it seems corruption truely is spreading like wild fire through our society. Firstly I would like to point out, as already stated by several others, You seem to be mixing up the effects of cannabis with those of LSD. Hopefully we will see an article apologising to those you have fed with lies and enlighten them with the actual facts. I have been smoking Cannabis for over 10 years now, I am in my mid twenties, have been to college and have a quite reasonably paid job, with company car and own my own home, not bad for a 25 year old stoner eh! Sure I suffer from some slight absent mindedness from time to time, but I know the risks and they are my risks to take. Infact if the current government had the slightest clue about what they were doing they would come right out and legalise cannabis tomorrow. I hope you will at least take the time to consider the points I have made and possibly even open your mind a little. Apologies for this being such a lenghty response, it would seem cannabis also make me quite chatty. Peace and love to all Pip Posted by: pip at January 9, 2004 09:58 PMSince the case against the use and abuse of cannabis has been so elequently made, what can be done to stop our parliamentarians from making it socially more acceptable. re frank pulley's comment's,these i regard as typical "establishment" misinformation. FRANK PULLEY open your ears,i'm 57 years of age[yes i've seen a bit of life]i battled alcohol for three years,i had g/p's counsellor's, shrink's,the PRIORY,[4 weeks= £12000],and alcoholic's anonymous, then one of my sons suggested i try a joint,that was 5 years ago,do you get the point [ex police officer frank pulley].i had all my life been teaching my children about the evil drug scene,and they come along and introduce me to cannabis,i now grow my own,and i avoid dealers who are selling a load of rubbish,my grandchildren will be taught the dangers of life,and the biggest drug danger they will encounter is alcohol,cannabis i even rate lower than the "prescription" drugs they were giving me,i/e vallium,librium,i have now been using cannabis for 5 years,and i'm certainly not lying around like a drunken moron anymore..ALCOHOL KILLS r christian Posted by: r christian at January 9, 2004 10:32 PMfunny - i've never seen people stoned out on a few joints fighting in lumps in Leeds city centre on a Friday night, but i've seen plenty of people doing this who've been out for a few legal drinks. Posted by: ab at January 13, 2004 04:48 PMAs you saw fit to delete this post Melanie,i have decided to repost it, in the name of freedom of speech.
However: Cannabis use is at an all time high (no pun...) Cannabis enforcement is significantly more lax in most European countires than it was 10 years ago. Cannabis production in the UK has increased 10-fold in 10 years. Medical cannabis plant extract will be approved by the medicine regulatory body (MHRA) in the UK in the next few weeks and will be available on the NHS in a few months. Rest of EU will follow within 90 days. In about two weeks you will be able to travel freely in the England and Wales with Cannabis and not have to worry about getting arrested (although you could potentially be arrested and of course you would be breaking the law.) The tide she turneth, Cannabis is becoming socially acceptable for the above reasons and many more. You're going to have your work cut out for you Melanie if you want to make a significant impact on the Cannabis wave of acceptance. I have no doubt you'll give it your best though. Happy New Year Doob Posted by: M at January 14, 2004 07:49 AMThe reason Ms. Murray is being ignored is because she and this author are wrong. They are misrepresenting the conclusions of researchers on schizophrenia and marijuana use. The link I have given is for one of these studies, and it outlines aclearly that marijuana does not appear to cause schizophrenia: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7423/1070-c#40671 Schizophrenia rates per capita have been flat for over a century as marijuana use comes into the Western societal mainstream. But, that fact does not appear to phase witch hunters. The bottom line is that every single drug policy study ever done in a century recommends decriminalization, most legalization of cannabis possession. All of them, and I invite the reader to peruse them: Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy More Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Senate of Canada: 37th Parliament, 1st Session Canadian Commons/Parliament Report on Drug Policy circa 2002: In fact, while we are at it, WebMD - Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer Here is the largest study ever done on mortality and cannabis use: Sidney et al., 1997, Marijuana Use and Mortality, Kaiser Permanente, Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons Under 65 Years of Age, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Vol. 149, No.9 pages 794-800, 1999 One of the interesting conclusions of the drug policy report Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse circa 1973, was that the real drug problem was not heroin, cocaine, or marijuana, but the ignorance of our public officials who have never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject. That goes for all who would advocate arresting, prosecuting, and caging a marijuana user with violent felons. "Everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look Funny country that reduces cannabis to the level of regulation on sleeping pills and steroids, but wants to ban smoking cigarettes in public places.....presumably the tar content being higher in cannabis makes it healthier ? Either smoking is a bad thing in line with Richard Doll's work, or it is not, a little clarity from HMG would be useful......perhaps it is Mary Ann Sieghart and the rest of the metropolitan Labour set who pushed for this change, after all the New Labour machine is nothing if not responsive to certain pressure-groups within defined postcodes within London. Funny how Labour issues a 'block grant' to the NHS and then expects it to treat all-comers with an ever decreasing average-cost, forgetting in its ignorance that the marginal-cost of each patient is rising steadily............ There was once a Mr ACL Blair who promised 'joined-up government' but for a man who cannot even string a sentence together, and whose deputy utters malapropisms ad infinitum; it seems unlikely that rational thought and second order consequences are even likely to clutter their chaotic and impulsive minds. Posted by: Romulus at January 22, 2004 08:00 AMCannabis is banned in all public-places in Liverpool Posted by: Romulus at January 23, 2004 01:14 PMAs regards Ms. Murray and her delusional commentary on the Runciman Commission (one just has to wonder how many lies for Jesus some people will say as regards cannabis): Pubdate: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 CANNABIS AND MENTAL ILLNESS Sir, The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ( ACMD ) considered in some depth possible links between cannabis and mental illness ( report, January 21 ) and concluded that there is little significant evidence of a causal link, particularly with schizophrenia, although cannabis use can unquestionably worsen a mental illness which already exists. Most of Professor Robin Murray's research was known to the advisory council at the time it was producing its cannabis report. The council is of the view that any new evidence produced since does not affect the overall weight of evidence, or its conclusions about health risks. You quote Professor Murray saying: Unfortunately there were no experts in psychosis on the committee that advised the Government,implying that our report was not a comprehensive study. ACMD members are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and areas of expertise. Both the sub-committee meetings of the ACMD, and the full council meetings at the time of the discussion on cannabis reclassification, were well attended by representatives from the fields of psychiatry and psychopharmacology. As far as I am aware, the BMA has not taken an official position on reclassification. However it has raised concerns over the public perception of the health effects of cannabis. The classification system for drugs does not mean that any of these substances are harmless. If they were, they would not be included in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Yours faithfully, MICHAEL RAWLINS, ( Chair ), Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, SW1H 9AT. January 21. Posted by: Richard Wallens at January 31, 2004 12:54 AMhi, If you already havent (and there cant be many left that havent heard it yet *hehe*) It took me quite a long time to stop laughing about this. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 1, 2004 05:15 AMhi, If you already havent (and there cant be many left that havent heard it yet *hehe*) It took me quite a long time to stop laughing about this. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 1, 2004 05:15 AMHi, you can now also download it in mp3 format here: http://www.ukcia.org/mp3s/moral_maze_cannabis_28_01-04.mp3 Posted by: Andrew at February 2, 2004 03:57 AMI hope nobody make cannabis legal!! My friends would be mad at me. Posted by: George Bush at February 2, 2004 08:51 AMMiss Phillips, Mel has proven herself to be biast on the subject. Mel you are without doubt making very serious accusasions about something you clearly know very little (if anything) about! No one is denying that the risk of cannabis may need further investigation, but you are making comments that simply arnt backed by any real evidence. Again, you proved this on the radio. I thought you came accross a bag of hot wind, who was quickly deflated. I hope all this teaches you a valuable lesson. Regards. JM Posted by: Jm at February 4, 2004 06:22 PM |
