You probably know someone affected

[diseminator]

An extremely cool result from a medical study in California.

Cannibinoids from THC in Marijuana has shown to be useful in reversing tumor growth of aggressive breast cancer.

Here are links to the Fox news blurb and the studyauthor.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html


http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/research/programs/science/sean.html

Politics should not be stopping researchers everywhere from investigating further use of Marijuana for medical good.

[Skater Boy]

Politics should not be stopping researchers everywhere from investigating further use of Marijuana for medical good.

I'm directly opposed to MARIJUANA being used for ANY purpose right now. If, however, the authorities see fit to harness any potentially active ingredients therein, test their usefulness adequately and then distrubute them throughout the proper pharmaceutical channels, THEN I might be inclined to sympathize with its use.

That said, I certainly see no harm in scientifically investigating what positive effects the active ingredients may cause.

[darkeyes]

Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:

[*foxy_roxy*]

I completely agree with the testing of that drug against aggresive breast cancer (especially as recently that has seriously affected my family). Any potential treatment for this cancer is a positive thing. It affects so many families across the globe, why shouldn't the government be allowed to test and prove if it can be used as a treatment?!

[Skater Boy]

Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:

lol... been there, done that, bought the t-shirt! There's nowt wrong with a little recreational use of certain drugs as long as you're fully in control and fully aware of the potential consequences. But personally, I try and limit ANY intake of mind-altering substances, if I can help it. If not out of safety, then just out of principle.

[ambi53mm]

Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:


Humm de dummm...don't bogart that joint my friend...pass it over to meee:stoned:

Right on..farout.and ............solid

Ambi:)

[jem_is_bi]

lol... been there, done that, bought the t-shirt! There's nowt wrong with a little recreational use of certain drugs as long as you're fully in control and fully aware of the potential consequences. But personally, I try and limit ANY intake of mind-altering substances, if I can help it. If not out of safety, then just out of principle.

I liked the recreational mind altering part but not the respiratory destruction part. So, none for me since long, long ago.

JEM

[Bluebiyou]

Yep, and Californee (already hot about state's-rights-over-federal issue) will unknowingly raise the confederate flag!

[DiamondDog]

I think that Cannabis should be legal for medicinal purposes since not everyone takes prescription medication that works for them, not everyone can afford prescription drugs, and the smoke from Cannabis is harmful, full of tars, and is carcinogenic but you can always vaporise it or eat it and avoid the negative aspects of it, or just not smoke it very often.

[the mage]

The facts are that there are no cancer causing agents in marijuana, smoked or otherwise used.

Do you really think that prestigious universities would be using it in ANTI cancer studies if there were any negative agents in it.

The "Tar" you speak of is a generic term for the resin issued from smoking.
The nicotine in the resin is the cancerous agent. There is none in weed. This is KNOWN.

In fact a study done years ago showed that a person who only smoked weed had a slightly less likely hood of developing lung cancer than a NON smoker,
Never mind a ciggy smoker, that is what led down the road to this current study.

Canadian doctors (and others) supervise the use of weed in the ill, they would not do so if it were cancerous.

Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challenge crap.

[FalconAngel]

While I am opposed to the recreational use of marijuana, I am all for the medicinal and other legal/legitimate (hemp rope, clothes, etc.) uses for it.

I am all for any medicines and responsibly managed research to further advance the medical profession.
There are cures out there for so many of the world's diseases and anything that unreasonably restricts access to these cures is a crime against humanity.

[DiamondDog]

The facts are that there are no cancer causing agents in marijuana, smoked or otherwise used.

Do you really think that prestigious universities would be using it in ANTI cancer studies if there were any negative agents in it.

The "Tar" you speak of is a generic term for the resin issued from smoking.
The nicotine in the resin is the cancerous agent. There is none in weed. This is KNOWN.

In fact a study done years ago showed that a person who only smoked weed had a slightly less likely hood of developing lung cancer than a NON smoker,
Never mind a ciggy smoker, that is what led down the road to this current study.

Canadian doctors (and others) supervise the use of weed in the ill, they would not do so if it were cancerous.

Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challenge crap.

Shouldn't you be perma banned paranoid troll?

You don't seem to understand how medical and scientific research is done.

Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challange crap. :rolleyes:

Just because a chemical/compound/drug is used in a research study or a medcinal study by doctors or scientists that does not mean that's 100% safe, free from harmful side effects, long term side effects, or that it's non-carcinogenic.

In studies done about the medicinal properties of Cannabis they will use isolated Cannabinoids, synthetic Cannabinoids like Marinol/other ones, vaporizers, or pot in food since these get rid of the carcinogens that are found in the smoke of cannabis.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your body's respitory system. The THC isn't bad for you but the smoke certainly is and that's a KNOWN fact.

Cannabis smoke has lots of tars, KNOWN carcinogens, and all smoked plant materials have this.

You don't need a scientific background to understand that.

The burning plant material and the smoke is what contains the tars/KNOWN carcinogens and like I've written before if you want to avoid that eat it, or use a vaporizer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15026328&dopt=AbstractPlus


Cannabinoids induce cancer cell proliferation via tumor necrosis factor alpha-converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-mediated transactivation of the epidermal growth factor receptor.

Hart S, Fischer OM, Ullrich A.

Department of Molecular Biology, Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18A, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany.

Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their endogenous counterparts were reported as useful analgetic agents to accompany primary cancer treatment by preventing nausea, vomiting, and pain and by stimulating appetite. Moreover, they have been shown to inhibit cell growth and to induce apoptosis in tumor cells. Here, we demonstrate that anandamide, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), HU-210, and Win55,212-2 promote mitogenic kinase signaling in cancer cells. Treatment of the glioblastoma cell line U373-MG and the lung carcinoma cell line NCI-H292 with nanomolar concentrations of THC led to accelerated cell proliferation that was completely dependent on metalloprotease and epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) activity. EGFR signal transactivation was identified as the mechanistic link between cannabinoid receptors and the activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 as well as prosurvival protein kinase B (Akt/PKB) signaling. Depending on the cellular context, signal cross-communication was mediated by shedding of proAmphiregulin (proAR) and/or proHeparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor (proHB-EGF) by tumor necrosis factor alpha converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17).

Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC comparable with those detected in the serum of patients after THC administration accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients.

[jem_is_bi]

Shouldn't you be perma banned paranoid troll?

You don't seem to understand how medical and scientific research is done.

Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challange crap. :rolleyes:

Just because a chemical/compound/drug is used in a research study or a medcinal study by doctors or scientists that does not mean that's 100% safe, free from harmful side effects, long term side effects, or that it's non-carcinogenic.

In studies done about the medicinal properties of Cannabis they will use isolated Cannabinoids, synthetic Cannabinoids like Marinol/other ones, vaporizers, or pot in food since these get rid of the carcinogens that are found in the smoke of cannabis.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your body's respitory system. The THC isn't bad for you but the smoke certainly is and that's a KNOWN fact.

Cannabis smoke has lots of tars, KNOWN carcinogens, and all smoked plant materials have this.

You don't need a scientific background to understand that.

The burning plant material and the smoke is what contains the tars/KNOWN carcinogens and like I've written before if you want to avoid that eat it, or use a vaporizer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15026328&dopt=AbstractPlus

I agree totally.
Reseach is done on all sorts of toxic and non-toxic stuff.

JEM

[darkeyes]

As an occasional user.. me knows like ne thin else we takes inta our body ther r dangers in 'avin lil recreational smokey... ther is no free ride .. an me dus it wiv the knowledge an accepted those dangers.. wy me wud neva dreama overusin.. few lil joints a month gud enuff for me...

Magie..as eva livin in cloud cuckoo land if e thinks ther is nowt in cannabis 2 do us harm.. its jus as bad 2 plead innocence asta ova dramatise as the anti brigade dus.

Now ere is a lil poser foryas... its ther..aint gonna go way.. jus as harder shit is ther an aint gonna go way long as recreational drugs 2 illegal// big money gonna b made by nasty crooked bastards rounnd the planet.. peeps r gonna take huge risks for the massive rewards wich producin runnin an supplyin heroin crack ecstacy etc etc etc.. criminal cartels an nasty bastards r gonna kill ne 1 who gets in ther way..pees r gonna get hooked by the million ..peeps r gonna die cosa ther addiction, an families r gonna suffer... otha formsa crime blossom so addicted users of hard drugs..an users of the softer variety such as cannibis... can finance ther fix... huge resources of almos every country on planet r diverted 2 fite or treat the consequences of hard drugs espesh..

Ere's me lil poser.. aint it time 2 bow 2 inevitable an acceptin that shit aint gonna disappear wile its so lucrative 2 the crim fraternity.. ainnit time 2 legalise, license an produce em so that they r more pure an hav legal safety standards an control as best we can ther distribution an supply thus eliminatin many of the worst effects of ther illegality, much in the same way as we do baccie an booze? R we not jus simply divertin badly needed resources in a battle gainst drugs wich can neva b won???

Am not a user of hard drugs an don eva intend 2 b.. but by bannin em wot purpose has it served cept 2 make loadsa nasty bastards very rich..an millions of poor sods very miserable..an very dead???

[Skater Boy]

Ere's me lil poser.. aint it time 2 bow 2 inevitable an acceptin that shit aint gonna disappear wile its so lucrative 2 the crim fraternity.. ainnit time 2 legalise, license an produce em so that they r more pure an hav legal safety standards an control as best we can ther distribution an supply thus eliminatin many of the worst effects of ther illegality, much in the same way as we do baccie an booze? R we not jus simply divertin badly needed resources in a battle gainst drugs wich can neva b won???

Am not a user of hard drugs an don eva intend 2 b.. but by bannin em wot purpose has it served cept 2 make loadsa nasty bastards very rich..an millions of poor sods very miserable..an very dead???

Ah, Frances Elliot... ever the idealist. The truth is that I just don't think that society is ready for "true freedom". Rules and regulations are sometimes there for our own benefit, whether we like them or not. We do have to consider whether legalising all drugs (and I'm particularly concerned with HARD drugs here) would be beneficial to everyone in the long-term. After all, tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, but look how widespread their use has become, and who knows the extent of the damage (physiological AND financial) that these two alone cause? On the other hand, if it is our aim to be a responsible society, perhaps we should legalise these drugs in order that society learns about them (initially the hard way, if necessary). But sadly, I suspect that the pitfalls of drug use could continue to be learned the hard way with each coming generation. and therefore I see little point in legalising them until we (as a society) have all developed beyond our current state. :2cents:

[the mage]

http://cannabinoidsociety.org/

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6376

http://www.rxmarihuana.com/exchange.htm


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/

* International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (IACM)
* Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
* Medical Marijuana Information
* Roseburg & Southern Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Certification
* Marijuana Uses
* Safe Access Now
* O'Shaughnessy's
* The International Cannabinoid Research Society
* MedicalMJ.org
* Health Canada - Information for the Patient - Marihuana (Cannabis)
* Health Canada - Applicant's Guide - Medical Use of Marihuana
* Health Canada - Application For Authorization To Possess Dried Marihuana
* Health Canada - Marihuana Medical Access Regulations - Daily Amount Fact Sheet (Dosage)
* Always the latest on medical marijuana research
* Medical Marijuana - Master Reference
* Drug War Facts on medical marijuana
* Medical marijuana on the vaults of erowid
* The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)
* Italian medical cannabis association
* Canada Medical Marihuana
* Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.
* Marijuana: the forbidden medice - by Dr. Grinspoon
* Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for Multiple Sclerosis

[the mage]

DD... you really need to park your ego and stop thinking everything references you.

[darkeyes]

Ah, Frances Elliot... ever the idealist. The truth is that I just don't think that society is ready for "true freedom". Rules and regulations are sometimes there for our own benefit, whether we like them or not. We do have to consider whether legalising all drugs (and I'm particularly concerned with HARD drugs here) would be beneficial to everyone in the long-term. After all, tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, but look how widespread their use has become, and who knows the extent of the damage (physiological AND financial) that these two alone cause? On the other hand, if it is our aim to be a responsible society, perhaps we should legalise these drugs in order that society learns about them (initially the hard way, if necessary). But sadly, I suspect that the pitfalls of drug use could continue to be learned the hard way with each coming generation. and therefore I see little point in legalising them until we (as a society) have all developed beyond our current state. :2cents:
Don think society is reddy yet eitha hun.. but it shud b discussin it an seriously too.... how many more lives havta b ruined..how many more peeps havta die.. how much more dus the shitbags who supply and deal in drugs havta make by providin dangerous badly cut shite, spliced wiv dangerous shit before we reely begin 2 get 2 grips wiv the problem. Them bein banned aint workin ...more an more kids..an more an more peeps r gettin hooked an killin themselves cos they r illegal... illegality aint workin cept for the bastards who flood the streets wiv crap... time 2 seriously consider the alternative..don like it ne more than u dus prob Skater...scares me an hates the thot..but not so scared as not 2 know the drug prob is gonna get much much worse, the bad guys r gonna get much much richer, more an more lives will b ruined and deaths caused cos society jus cant c the alternative is a much much lesser evil than the 1 we have now.

Mayb wen science develops a pill 2 get shotta addiction an prevent the kik of drugs, we can get ova it..but it aint..not for a long time ne way... till then we havta discuss the alternative of state run legalisation an control....

Not sayin it wud b gr8..but am sayin it hasta b betta than we hav now...

[the mage]

here my fact v/s your facts...
AS I said be your own judge...

http://www.medicalmarijuanainformation.com/precautions/longtermfx.php


for the non link jumpers this site debunks the cancer crap.

[Skater Boy]

Don think society is reddy yet eitha hun.. but it shud b discussin it an seriously too.... how many more lives havta b ruined..how many more peeps havta die.. how much more dus the shitbags who supply and deal in drugs havta make by providin dangerous badly cut shite, spliced wiv dangerous shit before we reely begin 2 get 2 grips wiv the problem. Them bein banned aint workin ...more an more kids..an more an more peeps r gettin hooked an killin themselves cos they r illegal... illegality aint workin cept for the bastards who flood the streets wiv crap... time 2 seriously consider the alternative..don like it ne more than u dus prob Skater...scares me an hates the thot..but not so scared as not 2 know the drug prob is gonna get much much worse, the bad guys r gonna get much much richer, more an more lives will b ruined and deaths caused cos society jus cant c the alternative is a much much lesser evil than the 1 we have now.

Mayb wen science develops a pill 2 get shotta addiction an prevent the kik of drugs, we can get ova it..but it aint..not for a long time ne way... till then we havta discuss the alternative of state run legalisation an control....

Not sayin it wud b gr8..but am sayin it hasta b betta than we hav now...

Wow, a society where Crystal Meth and Freebase Crack are legal to buy over the counter at your local liquor store... That DOES sounds scary to me!

And IMO the main change would be that instead of the current drug-dealers making the money, it would be some fat old guy in a suit... just like the owners of the tobacco and alcohol industries do at present. tbh I'm not sure there's much difference between the two, other than that one is more strictly governed by regulations... so I suppose if it means tighter regulation, then there might be some hope for improvement.

[darkeyes]

Skater hun..thinkin as me dus ere is as hard in sum ways for me as ne 1 else..cos me has a personal interest ere.. jus me c's the crackheads on the strets an gets bothad by em..c's the misery its caused..an the bastards that ecourage it tootle round as if they own the world...

Me partner is a heroin addict, clean tf for 7 years..an me gonna make sure she stays that way as best me can. But wen she talks 2 me bout er nitemare..an the nitemare of cleanin up er act..an wen me c's the misery an suffrin on the streets, an lissens 2 kids as young as 10 an 11 talkin bout wer they can get ther fix..summat gorra b dun.. way it is now jus is causin more misery than even me can imagine..me c's it but hav neva personally experienced it.. Kate has... an wot she has 2 say is a reel eye opener... an thats wy me c's no otha way than legalizin an grabbin control.. it aint the whole ansa..fuk knows wot is.. but its an ansa wich mite or mite not work...hasta b thot out rite..quality control hasta b rite.. supply hasta b regulated an as far as we can we havta ensure costs aint so frightenin asta fuk up peeps lives an force em inta the crime so many r forced inta now so they can feed ther habit.. ther so much 2 b considered, includin rehab.. an gettin it rite ant gonna b easy... but far as me can c..its betta off wiv havin supply legally controlled an regulated that the present mayhem wich exists now.

The world is shit wen it cums 2 drugs like so many otha things...keepin em illegal is jus exacerbatin the shite human beins r havin 2 endure... who mostly cops the long arm of the law?? the users...a few dealers..very very few of the big fat bastards who cause the misery...

[MarieDelta]

As long as there is something to be had off the kick, mankind will always find something (dangerous or not) to get the kick off off. Some of the things folks do to get high amazes me, but then I never liked that feeling of being out of control. I suppose the anxiety from being trans(raised in a conservative family) is part of that.

I say legalize , tax the hell out of, and use the taxes to treat the problems (which we already have) that will come from drug use. I know folks will get addicted and ruin their lives chasing drugs, but at least this way perhaps we can control it a bit better than we do now.



Employers can (and should in some cases) use drug tests to convince their employees not to use drugs. Its not good to be operating dangerous equipment while high, or drunk for that matter.

This is just my two cents..

Note: for most of the history drug use has been legal, its only the last few years that we have tried to curtail drug use.

[Skater Boy]

Wow, thanks for sharing that, Fran... I do hope Kate gave you permission to tell us all this about her. I hear what you're saying. But I still just have lil' bit of concern in my mind about the consequences of legalizing all drugs. But I can see your point, and I hope that you're right.

[DiamondDog]

here my fact v/s your facts...
AS I said be your own judge...

http://www.medicalmarijuanainformation.com/precautions/longtermfx.php


for the non link jumpers this site debunks the cancer crap.

I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.

[darkeyes]

If she wosnt open an honest bout it an sed it wos ok me wudn eva hav sed a word... me mite b a selfish lil cow but hope not 1 who betrays a confidence... an so can me c the consequences..an it aint that pretty..but can c the consequences of goin on like we r... an that even less pretty...

[Skater Boy]

I say legalize , tax the hell out of, and use the taxes to treat the problems (which we already have) that will come from drug use. I know folks will get addicted and ruin their lives chasing drugs, but at least this way perhaps we can control it a bit better than we do now.

If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.

I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.

Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.

[darkeyes]

I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.

Not jus the kick ya gets from usin it DD hun is it? Its how ya enjoy the way ya use it...me enjoys a joint ..an thats me preferred option... way me uses it (very sparingly an a few times a month) minimises the harm but dus accept don eliminate it.

[darkeyes]

If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.

I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.

Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.Wudn b as bad as black market we hav now hun... an me noticed ya pessimism..me not optimistic bout it..jus tryin 2 b realistic... tax levels wud havta b rite so as 2 minimise ne black market..stop it?? very questionable... even me knows that... but wot cud b worse than wot we hav now?

[the mage]

I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.


................... I use a vaporizer myself.. no smell!!

but heres the thing....the real world talking points are really straight forward.

Chewing tobacco causes cancer too.
Its the chemicals involved, not that its a plant material.

Think of all the "room air fresheners" that people buy to see the cute lil puff of smoke...

We are 30 years into the AIDS pandemic.
HIV sufferers are very susceptible to all forms of cancer.
HIV people are among the worlds heaviest users of weed, most is smoked.
HIV people who toke (NOT ciggies) are not dieing of lung cancer.
Real world stuff.

You just can't say that all smoked things are bad.
A.S.A. can be delivered thru smoke as can many drugs that are wanted to act fast. It will never happen due to obvious social issues about the "do this and not that" nature of it,.... but that is prohibition, that is what we have now.

[MarieDelta]

If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.

I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.

Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.

I'm not overly optimistic here either Skater, I have watched too many folks screw up their lives for a high. Burroughs , Ginsberg, and some other very fine folks all were users and addicts (none painted a real cheery picture of it btw).

The thing is unless we do something we are paying out on two fronts - police to stop usage, and care for addicts after they have screwed up their lives beyond recognition. We have all the problems we did before with none of the control.

FWIW I think we could put tobaco right in with these drugs, its dangerous, and addicting. Ever ask yourself why it's still legal?

Plus if we control the useage we will limit some of the exposure (not stop I am sure) of our youth.

But it would have to be controlled much better than Alcohol is currently IMO.

[Skater Boy]

but wot cud b worse than wot we hav now?

Well, at a rough guess, I would say that drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack are used by a very small minority. Partly due to the stigma associated with their illegality, and the anti-social methods by which one acquires them. But if you start allowing these drugs to be as readily available as, say, alcohol and tobacco, then that stigma is removed, and the the methods of obtaining them seem socially acceptable. This means that you open the drugs up to a whole new spectrum of potential users, who may not ordinarily have tried them, but now that that the option is there, they see that they have little to lose. Imbibing Alcohol has pretty much become an institution in Western society, and there are pubs, bars and liquor stores on virtually every corner, despite the high levels of tax associated with alcohol. go to Amsterdam, and you'll find "coffee shops" (misnomer!) on virtually every corner, with people sometimes travelling half-way around the world just to sample the goods legally. so I'm just concerned that by legalising all drugs, whilst we may cure a few ills, we may also create whole batch of new ones.

Anyway, I can see that we've reached a stand-off here, so I'll back down. I just hope that if Western society decides to legalize them, that we are as successful as you think we'll be.

[Skater Boy]

drugs, its dangerous, and addicting. Ever ask yourself why it's still legal?

Plus if we control the useage we will limit some of the exposure (not stop I am sure) of our youth.

But it would have to be controlled much better than Alcohol is currently IMO.


Yes, I agree with you there! Speaking from personal experience: If, when we were kids, and hanging around with little to do, drugs such as Crystal Meth and Crack had been available to purchase as readily as tobacco or alcohol, then I'd be 99.9% certain to have tried them both, and who knows where that might've led.

I guess thats part of the reason why I'm cautious about legalization.

[MarieDelta]

If, when we were kids, and hanging around with little to do, drugs such as Crystal Meth and Crack had been available to purchase as readily as tobacco or alcohol, then I'd be 99.9% certain to have tried them both, and who knows where that might've led.


That's exactly the case in many inner city areas today. Among the poor and disenfranchised, getting the drugs has never been that hard here in the USA.

[DiamondDog]

Well, at a rough guess, I would say that drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack are used by a very small minority. Partly due to the stigma associated with their illegality, and the anti-social methods by which one acquires them. But if you start allowing these drugs to be as readily available as, say, alcohol and tobacco, then that stigma is removed, and the the methods of obtaining them seem socially acceptable. This means that you open the drugs up to a whole new spectrum of potential users, who may not ordinarily have tried them, but now that that the option is there, they see that they have little to lose. Imbibing Alcohol has pretty much become an institution in Western society, and there are pubs, bars and liquor stores on virtually every corner, despite the high levels of tax associated with alcohol. go to Amsterdam, and you'll find "coffee shops" (misnomer!) on virtually every corner, with people sometimes travelling half-way around the world just to sample the goods legally. so I'm just concerned that by legalising all drugs, whilst we may cure a few ills, we may also create whole batch of new ones.

Anyway, I can see that we've reached a stand-off here, so I'll back down. I just hope that if Western society decides to legalize them, that we are as successful as you think we'll be.

I've been to Amsterdam and you don't find coffee houses on every single corner and it's just like any other large european city, it's not a Sodom and Gomorrah, like people like to think that it is. That being said if I were going to live in the Netherlands I wouldn't live there but that's for other reasons.

As far as meth and cocaine use goes, that's VERY common in different areas and with all types of different people and hell tons of people take prescription amphetamines. Especially highschool and college/university students, and even adults who have stressful jobs like I read an article about NYC Stockbrokers taking prescription amphetamines so they could stay alert, motivated, and work longer hours.

Also in many large cities there is a big problem with meth and bi/gay men abusing it.

[Azrael]

Also in many large cities there is a big problem with meth and bi/gay men abusing it.

It's also exploding in rural Florida, particularly Zephyrhills. It's like the second wave of crack.

[DiamondDog]

It's also exploding in rural Florida, particularly Zephyrhills. It's like the second wave of crack.

They have busted a few meth labs here even one that was in my friend's neighborhood.

They're lucky that they didn't blow up their house or cause a huge fire.

It sounds really weird but benzodiazepines like Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, and Xanax have a worse and more dangerous withdrawl than heroin/opiates and stimulants do.

[Azrael]

It sounds really weird but benzodiazepines like Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, and Xanax have a worse and more dangerous withdrawl than heroin/opiates and stimulants do.

Yeah, actually. I've come off heavy opiates and amphetamines. Nasty, but coming off Klonipin and Lexapro was the worst withdrawal I've ever experienced.
A lot of people don't realize that benzos are essentially mild anticonvulsants.
Thus, if you abruptly cut off a person, it can actually induce seizures. Same's true of Antidepressants. We crazy folk call it the 'brain shivers'. Seriously. This generally is more true of SSRI/SNRI drugs, but coming off benzos can give you SEVERE downswings, and even seizure type events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_shivers

[Skater Boy]

That's exactly the case in many inner city areas today. Among the poor and disenfranchised, getting the drugs has never been that hard here in the USA.

Really? They're harder to come by here. But the removal of legal penalties for purchasing and possessing them would've probably been the decider.

[CuddlyKate]

I do not wish anyone to go through the nightmare which I went through. The craving, the need, the paranoia. I do not wish people to have to steal, as I did, and from those I loved so they can obtain the money to pay for their habit. Nor do I wish anyone again to have to prostitute their body so that they can obtain a little relief from the desperation I felt during the years I used heroin. I do not wish to again be put in the position of holding a knife at the throat of a person so I do not suffer the insufferable. I never wish me, or anyone else to go through the living death of being an active user of hard drugs. I wish to spare those I love the pain and agony which I caused them, and the fear which my addiction caused people I did not know and did not care about. The addiction and need is life itself, and no human being should ever have to go through that hell, and the hell of withdrawal, or the weaning off, the use of methadone, and all the agonies that entails, which are as much a living hell as the continued use of the drug itself.

I dont know if Frances is right or not. Whether legalisation and state control and supply is right or wrong I have no answer. I do not know if it will improve or make things worse. I do know that something has to be done before we become more of a drug dependant society than we are now. Frances rails about international capital and she is right to do so. My aims are much more modest. To free humanity of hard drugs and have crushed without mercy those who produce and supply those drugs. Whether we have a system of capitalism or any other at least the abuses of human beings are those are those which, because of our ability as human beings to dig and get to the truth we have a chance of bringing corprorations to heel. Such is the secrecy of the drug cartels, and the drug barons ,and the fear they wrought on society it is almost impossible to truly eliminate and destroy them, for wherever that does happen, it isnt too long before they are replaced by very often more ruthless and evil men.

I do think the debate has to begin, and it is not something we should fear. It is certainly not something we should condemn, but open up the debate throughout society and try, please God, try and find a solution to stop the moral and physical destruction of millions, eliminate the barons and to ensure that as far as we can, no human being has to endure the degradation of a `16 year girl not so very long ago.

[Skater Boy]

Thanks for posting, Kate. I value your contribution to ths thread.

[CuddlyKate]

Really? They're harder to come by here. But the removal of legal penalties for purchasing and possessing them would've probably been the decider.

Are they really Skater Boy? I am a little unconvinced of that for I see no signs of any improvement and indeed if anything more of a detrioration. Forgive me if I treat that comment with a touch of scepticism.

[Skater Boy]

Are they really Skater Boy? I am a little unconvinced of that for I see no signs of any improvement and indeed if anything more of a detrioration. Forgive me if I treat that comment with a touch of scepticism.

Which statement are you referring to? 1. That drugs such as Crystal Meth and crack are less readily available in this country than in America? Or
2. that the removal of legal penalties for purchasing and possessing them would affect their social status?

1. I think some are... Crystal Meth, for example, is not that prevalent over here yet. Crack is certainly more common, I'll admit. BUT, I somehow doubt that the extent of their availability is comparable with the worst ghettos of America. At least from what I've seen and heard. I've been blatantly offered Cannabis frequently on the streets. But rarely offered Crystal Meth or even crack. I'm aware that there are specific places that are "hotspots" where the dealing of these drugs occurs, but again, I doubt that they are as common as in America. I'm not denying that they exist, I'm just suggesting that our situation is currently not as bad. And I also don't mean to belittle your own experiences in this area, as I'm aware you have first-hand experience. I grew up on a council estate, and also have some experience with drugs, so I'm certainly not suggesting that there is no problem there to be dealt with. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective.

2. impossible to answer with certainty. But I think I've already stated my views on this question.

Thanks again for your contributions so far.

[DiamondDog]

Which statement are you referring to? 1. That drugs such as Crystal Meth and crack are less readily available in this country than in America? Or
2. that the removal of legal penalties for purchasing and possessing them would affect their social status?

1. I think some are... Crystal Meth, for example, is not that prevalent over here yet. Crack is certainly more common, I'll admit. BUT, I somehow doubt that the extent of their availability is comparable with the worst ghettos of America. At least from what I've seen and heard. I've been blatantly offered Cannabis frequently on the streets. But rarely offered Crystal Meth or even crack. I'm aware that there are specific places that are "hotspots" where the dealing of these drugs occurs, but again, I doubt that they are as common as in America. I'm not denying that they exist, I'm just suggesting that our situation is currently not as bad. And I also don't mean to belittle your own experiences in this area, as I'm aware you have first-hand experience. I grew up on a council estate, and also have some experience with drugs, so I'm certainly not suggesting that there is no problem there to be dealt with. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective.

2. impossible to answer with certainty. But I think I've already stated my views on this question.

Thanks again for your contributions so far.

The UK has just as many hard drugs (drugs like crack/cocaine, amphetamines, meth, heroin, etc.) and hard drug users as the US does, you're probably not in the right areas if you don't get offered them or notice people who are addicted to them.

Also people hide their addictions VERY well. I've had friends who were coke addicts and addicted to speed or heroin and you wouldn't have known it unless they told you.

I don't use any illegal drugs at all but I have been offered soft drugs on the street of the city and other places where I've lived and if I did want hard drugs like PCP, crack/coke, heroin, or meth there are areas of the city where it's VERY easy to find people selling them in public, where people will blatantly offer them to you, and if you're white or of another race and rich the cops know that you're only there for one reason and it's to cop and not to visit your relatives or that you're just passing through to another part of the city.

Here's an article from Newsweek on meth in America and it's not a big secret at all.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72789


Dirty Little Secret
How addiction to crystal methamphetamine is threatening the gay community's long struggle to turn a corner on the AIDS epidemic.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:22 PM ET Nov 29, 2007

I really shouldn't be trusted. That's the problem with drug addicts like me. We've protected our addiction through a myriad of lies and manipulations for so long that being truly honest again is like learning a foreign language from scratch. So when, at long last, my recovery has convinced me that honesty is the only thing that can save my life, I shouldn't be surprised that my friends are reluctant to believe me.

Their skepticism is well founded. My drug addiction perverted every value I hold dear, and truthfulness was the first to be abandoned. But becoming a habitual liar was only the beginning.

As a gay man I worked tirelessly through the 1980s directing AIDS agencies and advocating HIV education. Despair was a daily companion, and I witnessed the death of friends in manners too gruesome to be described. When I became HIV positive during those early years, every loss of a friend, every visit to intensive care, was like watching my own morbid future.

But once my addiction to crystal methamphetamine took hold by the late 1990s, caring for my community or even myself had become unaffordable luxuries. The drug, a common presence on the dance floors I once enjoyed, had tightened its hold on me. I was no longer satisfied with occasional weekend use and pursued meth with a vigor unmatched by my devotion to AIDS causes.

This onetime HIV educator became a selfish addict who engaged in perilous drug deals and even riskier sex. The sad irony escaped me, however, as I continued down my destructive path, even contracting hepatitis C through needles and enduring chemotherapy to treat it. All the while, my addiction raged on.

My experience isn't unique and widespread meth abuse has been brewing in other populations for some time. But something about its peculiar grip on gay men feels all too familiar, like a dreadful echo of what we suffered a generation ago. And the implications have me worried.

Most of my peers remember what it was like in the early 1980s, when friends stopped calling or simply died over the weekend. The nightclubs were cloaked in sadness and had a vaguely sinister vibe. Empty desks at work meant someone was mysteriously sick again. During those years of "gay cancer," we were too petrified to acknowledge the coming storm.

Today those ominous signs have returned, along with the helpless wish that things will improve if only we don't speak too loudly about it. But rather than AIDS picking off my friends with random cruelty, meth addiction is the culprit. And this time, it is unlikely our community emergency will have ribbons and walkathons or attract research dollars. Society's sympathy for men dying from drugs is quantitatively less than dying of a sexually transmitted disease. This really is a plague of our own design.

Recovery centers are teeming with gay men battling meth addiction, and the drug has a very tight, culturally specific hold on them. It has surpassed other illegal substances as the drug of choice among gay users. There is something about the drug's mystique as a sexual liberator that appeals to men who are so often judged by their sexuality. Just as I once did, countless men are abandoning their relationships, their careers and their personal dignity in pursuit of the insidious thrill the drug promises and never delivers.

And meth appears to be mocking my community's long struggle to turn a corner on the AIDS epidemic. HIV-testing sites claim that meth users are five times more likely to test positive for the virus than nonusers.

How to combat the growing threat has this activist at a loss. Gay men know we had compelling prevention campaigns for HIV in the early days. They were called funerals. But changing an addict's behavior is a much more ambitious challenge than changing basic sexual practices.

It was my goal to bring attention to this crisis when I agreed to appear in a recent documentary about gay men and methamphetamine (Todd Ahlberg's startling "Meth"). In the film, I represent the voice of reason, the recovering addict remarking on what a sad scourge the drug has become. Only after the documentary was produced did I admit to anyone that I had relapsed prior to filming and had stopped using meth only hours before the camera crew arrived. Once again, my actions trumped my ideals.

It has been baffling to find myself literally saying one thing and doing another. The facts don't lie: I have been working toward recovery for five years, and my last relapse was only four months ago. The eight years I spend addicted to meth will leave scars. Thank God for the recovering addicts I have met along the way who have shown me that long-term success is possible if I will just "get honest" and hold myself accountable. My personal survival is the job at hand.

That's tough for a former community leader to accept. I want to sound the alarm, organize a response and join the growing chorus of gay men shedding light on our shameful secret.

But how can I urge others to practice honesty when it has eluded me again and again? And what did the AIDS crisis teach me, what did the promises to honor the lives of so many dead friends mean, when I rewarded my miraculous survival by sticking needles in my arm?

I better sit this one out. The preciousness of life itself, and my own in particular, is a lesson I should have learned while caring for my friends dying of AIDS. It has taken a battle with an equally cunning adversary for that lesson to finally sink in.

King lives in Atlanta. His Web site is www.MarkSKing.com .

[CuddlyKate]

Really? They're harder to come by here. But the removal of legal penalties for purchasing and possessing them would've probably been the decider.

I do not claim all hard drugs are as easy to come by as in the US inner cities. I do claim that they generally are. It is but a matter of time, no matter the drug, before this becomes a fact for anything you care to mention.

This city has an awful problem regarding drugs. If you have read the book "Trainspotting" by Irving Welsh, or seen the film, you would know this. Not for nothing was it referred to as Europes drug capital. If you want it, it can be found at a price realtively easily. And there were, and are many who have to pay whatever price is asked, and do whatever is needed to find the fee.The fact is the the problem here is much worse, infinitely more tragic than the book suggests. There are those who claim that things arent so bad in this city as was the case only a few years ago. To them I say that they do the city, themselves, its citizens, and most tragically its drug victims a grave disservice.

[darkeyes]

Jeez girl...me goes out for 1 evenin an c the trubble ya gets yasel inta!!! Muah!:bigrin:

[the mage]

The discussion has turned to hard, addicting, drugs which is always the case when medical weed is brought up. The propaganda and relationship making by the media works well does it not?

Please recognize this.

Addictive drugs preexist our society.
Despite massive prohibition and criminalization drugs are still available on every street, more so in poor areas (world wide).
Hard drugs are traded on open markets by corporate bodies.
Please recognize historical truth. It is an established fact that the CIA was for years the main pipeline of hard drugs to America's inner cities.
(Iran-contra scandal)
Who is telling the lies????????????????????????/

The "drug war" is a cultural war. Intended originally to suppress non white cultural activities in the US.

It is and should be a medical issue, but there is HUGE industry behind the war machine.

Our troops are "over there" right now killing off the Taliban because they despise capitalism and its defacto support of the international drug trade.
Our troops are protecting the BIGGEST POPPY HARVEST IN A GENERATION in Afghanistan right now.

The illegal drug trade in the US alone is a 100Billion a year industry. If that cash flow ceased there would be economic disaster.

Recognize the sickness of our societies treatment of the poor and you'll go a long way to understanding the "drugwar"

[Skater Boy]

I do not claim all hard drugs are as easy to come by as in the US inner cities. I do claim that they generally are. It is but a matter of time, no matter the drug, before this becomes a fact for anything you care to mention.

This city has an awful problem regarding drugs. If you have read the book "Trainspotting" by Irving Welsh, or seen the film, you would know this. Not for nothing was it referred to as Europes drug capital. If you want it, it can be found at a price realtively easily. And there were, and are many who have to pay whatever price is asked, and do whatever is needed to find the fee.The fact is the the problem here is much worse, infinitely more tragic than the book suggests. There are those who claim that things arent so bad in this city as was the case only a few years ago. To them I say that they do the city, themselves, its citizens, and most tragically its drug victims a grave disservice.

Well, for a start, I don't live in the same city as you, so I cannot comment on it. But I have hung around in plenty of London shit-holes in my time. As I said, the problem is definitely there- no doubting that. But I would still question whether the extent of it is as severe as the worst areas of America. That said, I'll discontinue my argument and bow to your insider knowledge on this subject. Thanks again for sharing your your views.

[CuddlyKate]

I am not quite clear the point you are trying to make Mage. I do agree with regarding most if not all of what you say. Throughout history addictive drugs have been a part of the culture of humanity. It is also true to say that the Taliban almost eliminated poppy growing in Afghanistan and it is arguable that the war there and the attack on the Taliban was for this reason and not anything to do with the hunt for Bin Laden. Bin Laden and 9/11 may have been the excuse the US was looking for. I am not privy to the deliberations of the American government so am unable to say, but it is interesting that poppy growing is once again flourishing relatively unhindered by allied forces.

Your point about the media and propaganda isnt too clear either. I accept the point that we should be suspicious of both, and am in no doubt that they substantially affect public opinion. That is what they were designed for. It doesnt matter too much however, for however the situation on the ground, whatever the state of our societies and whoever is to blame is only relevant if we do something to change it, and to do that we have to have a huge sea change in the way we think of and approach hard drugs. The US should have learned something from the prohibition era, as should the rest of the world. But they did not and have not. There are direct parallels between the prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of hard drugs, and the lessons which can be learned.

You are right in that the war against drugs is a cultural war, but it is not to pacify and suppress the non white community as you claim. It is much more broad ranging than that. It is more to do with distracting the wider populace, and pointing fingers to find scapegoats, scare people, and divide the people as a whole. It is to do with not finding answers, or more accurately not providing them, and to demoralise not just the non white poor, but rather the poor, full stop. It is to do with preventing the middle classses and well to do from asking serious questions about the drug "war", and allowing government to sail along fighting a "war" which by its very nature prevents it, as it wishes the case to be, from finding and delivering proper solutions.

I am not of the poor. I am a middle class woman (sorry lil Ms V) raised of a good family and raised in a very comfortable manner. But for a while a decade ago I fell into the pits of depravity and drug addiction, and did anything I could think of to obtain the drugs I so badly had to have. I became of the poor. So much of that time is a haze, and unclear in my mind, but what it has left me with is not a conviction of the wrongness of taking hard drugs, but an awareness throughe experience of the contempt that government has for the poor in genral and the addict in particular. It has left me with the knowledge that society, and the people who make up that society have in part because of deliberate government policy and its limited and self interested action, have contempt for the addict and absolutely no understanding of what he or she goes through.

I remember too little of the time I was a heroin user. But I remember the pain and suffering, the humiliating myself and the being humiliated by the kind and generous Britsh public. I remember the agonies of enforced cold turkey when there was no way I could get my fix. And I remember the ecstacy when finally I did. I remember how with each fix the buzz became less, and how to get the kick I needed, I used every larger doses to feed my habit. And I remember how I never had a truly satisfactory kick after that very first experience. We strive as addicts to get there, but we never do and so many of us overdosed and pay the ultimate price. I was lucky when my turn came. My parents by their love hauled me from that mire. I gave them much hell and abuse for it. Yet they stuck by me and finally I began to make my way to where I am today.

I have an 8 year old daughter. My little girl is an addict and yet she has never taken heroin in her life. Live with that if you can. It is a shame I carry around with me and will do so until my dying day. Not very long ago I had to tell her this, and the shock and horror in a little girls eyes, the momentary look of loathing and contempt for me shook me to the core. I am lucky to have a father and a partner who love us both, and were it not for them that little girl would probably hate me now. Not every addict has that love, for not every addict, clean or otherwise, has any love at all. Least of all for themselves.

Apportion blame by all means Mage. Thats fine. Establish who is or was or will be to blame. What is more important than blame is and has to be helping those who are addicted, and finding a solution to the whole problem. Wthout gathering the support of the general population we will never achieve that solution, and to gather that support certainly we must find those responsible, but equally they have to have some understanding of the problems of the addict, not just the problems the addict causes them.

[darkeyes]

I have an 8 year old daughter. My little girl is an addict and yet she has never taken heroin in her life. Live with that if you can. It is a shame I carry around with me and will do so until my dying day. Not very long ago I had to tell her this, and the shock and horror in a little girls eyes, the momentary look of loathing and contempt for me shook me to the core. I am lucky to have a father and a partner who love us both, and were it not for them that little girl would probably hate me now. Not every addict has that love, for not every addict, clean or otherwise, has any love at all. Least of all for themselves



The shame, my darling is not yours. The shame belongs to those who are responsible for the hard drug trade. I exempt from that blame at least in part, the farmer and grower, for mostly they are trying to scratch a meagre living and most do not understand the harm which their crops ultimately do. The shame is that of the powerful and evil people who run the trade, it belongs to the supplier and the dealer, and certainly to the bastard who knowing what a low ebb you were at the time, lied, cajoled and persuaded you to take it. In our teens we are at our most rebellious and defiant. We do many things which we shouldnt, Christ, I certainly did as you well know. But we are also at our most vulnerable, stressful and impressionable. We make mistakes because we do not know truly the ways of the world and think we know better. No Kate, the blame isnt yours, but of those in the world who do not value human life and feed off its misery. It is the blame of a society which is contemptuous of itself and more especially of its young and its most vulnerable.

That litle girl of which you speak understands what made you what you became. She understands why she is what she is. She loves and adores you now as much, no sweetheart, not as much, but more than ever, because she now knows the inhuman effort which you had to make to to become the person you are today. She understands and that is why she is not afraid to talk to you about so many things 8yo children would not dream of discussing with their mothers. It is a special bond Kate, and I am so priviliged to be a part of both your lives.

You may be a middle class toffee nosed tart... but you are my middle class toffee nosed tart.... and for that I will be eternally grateful...

[the mage]

The media /propaganda issue is only in the constant tie in of weed and addictive drugs always treated as 1 classification...we agree on that.
they are not 1.

Weed is a plant (peyote's too, and mushrooms) readily grown and natural, used by the producer under ideal circumstance. All the rest is manufactured by money makers


The cultural issue is the origin, born of ignorance and maintained the same way, to our shame, but it is now an entire industry of "lawmakers and enforcers".
The NOW is truly different as you so well point out. There is an invisible class war being waged. Unfortunately, very sucessfully.

I applaud your strength.

[Annika L]

Kate, I find it impressive that you've addressed this with your daughter so early...I would think there would be a strong temptation to delay that conversation. And you should rest assured that the love and respect that is there now will continue to grow as your daughter matures and learns to better understand the nature of what you went through. Gods, I can't imagine that horror, and I have only sympathy (not at all contempt) for those who endure it, and *immense* respect for those who have the strength to pull their lives together again.

But yes, as with so many problems, it is societal. And like so many societal problems the solution requires society at large to understand something they have never experienced...and humans in general (let alone en mass) are not good at this. The best we can do is try to educate, and continue trying. Progress has been made this way with many social issues (not solutions, mind you, but progress). Sadly, to my knowledge, no individual or group has yet come close to scratching the surface of educating the public about this particular issue.

[Skater Boy]

The shame, my darling is not yours. The shame belongs to those who are responsible for the hard drug trade.

I'll second that.

[jedinudist]

Pass the dutchie on the left 'and side!

:tong:

[CuddlyKate]

Kate, I find it impressive that you've addressed this with your daughter so early...I would think there would be a strong temptation to delay that conversation. And you should rest assured that the love and respect that is there now will continue to grow as your daughter matures and learns to better understand the nature of what you went through. Gods, I can't imagine that horror, and I have only sympathy (not at all contempt) for those who endure it, and *immense* respect for those who have the strength to pull their lives together again.

But yes, as with so many problems, it is societal. And like so many societal problems the solution requires society at large to understand something they have never experienced...and humans in general (let alone en mass) are not good at this. The best we can do is try to educate, and continue trying. Progress has been made this way with many social issues (not solutions, mind you, but progress). Sadly, to my knowledge, no individual or group has yet come close to scratching the surface of educating the public about this particular issue.


It isnt quite as impressive as it appears Annika. It was more of a self interested act and possibly selfish. In the normal way of things I had noticed her make comments as children do about "stupid crackheads" and "dopeheads" and how they should be swept from the streets and locked away and a few other disparaging comments. I ignored it at first but as they grew a little less pleasant and more frequent knew I couldnt ignore it any longer.

I had hoped to wait until she was older, but other events which occured, not directly relating to me forced me to realise that in the long term it was something which she should be informed of sooner than later. I discussed it with my father who, as my daughters legal guardian, and the man she has always known as Dad, agreed that it should be done post haste.

So it wasnt selfless entirely. Partly she had to be made aware of what she is, and why, and in part she should be educated about the evils of drugs anyway. But as much as anything, I felt that if I was to hold on to any respect and love she had for me, having listened to what she was saying about other addicts, the earllier she was told about me, and about herself, the better.

You are right Annika. No one has come close to scratching the surface of this issue. I dont normally broadcast to the world my innermost feelings, but the issue of addictive drugs is what Frances would call a passion, and felt that if my experience helps make one person aware of just how degrading and humiliating they are on the human spirit, and that we need to find real solutions it will have served its purpose. To do that we must discuss the issue and no alternative should be discarded without proper and informed debate.

[the mage]

Its never too early to discuss really important stuff to your kids.
You use appropriate wording at all age levels and comprehension levels.

I urge total openness to your kids.

They start doing things really young ...........they need facts too.

[the mage]

March 1, 2007 Marijuana as wonder drug The Boston Globe

by Lester Grinspoon

A NEW STUDY in the journal Neurology is being hailed as unassailable proof that marijuana is a valuable medicine. It is a sad commentary on the state of modern medicine - and US drug policy - that we still need "proof" of something that medicine has known for 5,000 years.

The study, from the University of California at San Francisco, found smoked marijuana to be effective at relieving the extreme pain of a debilitating condition known as peripheral neuropathy. It was a study of HIV patients, but a similar type of pain caused by damage to nerves afflicts people with many other illnesses including diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Neuropathic pain is notoriously resistant to treatment with conventional pain drugs. Even powerful and addictive narcotics like morphine and OxyContin often provide little relief. This study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain.

As all marijuana research in the United States must be, the new study was conducted with government-supplied marijuana of notoriously poor quality. So it probably underestimated the potential benefit.

This is all good news, but it should not be news at all. In the 40-odd years I have been studying the medicinal uses of marijuana, I have learned that the recorded history of this medicine goes back to ancient times and that in the 19th century it became a well- established Western medicine whose versatility and safety were unquestioned. From 1840 to 1900, American and European medical journals published over 100 papers on the therapeutic uses of marijuana, also known as cannabis.

Of course, our knowledge has advanced greatly over the years. Scientists have identified over 60 unique constituents in marijuana, called cannabinoids, and we have learned much about how they work. We have also learned that our own bodies produce similar chemicals, called endocannabinoids.

The mountain of accumulated anecdotal evidence that pointed the way to the present and other clinical studies also strongly suggests there are a number of other devastating disorders and symptoms for which marijuana has been used for centuries; they deserve the same kind of careful, methodologically sound research. While few such studies have so far been completed, all have lent weight to what medicine already knew but had largely forgotten or ignored: Marijuana is effective at relieving nausea and vomiting, spasticity, appetite loss, certain types of pain, and other debilitating symptoms. And it is extraordinarily safe - safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.

The pharmaceutical industry is scrambling to isolate cannabinoids and synthesize analogs, and to package them in non-smokable forms. In time, companies will almost certainly come up with products and delivery systems that are more useful and less expensive than herbal marijuana. However, the analogs they have produced so far are more expensive than herbal marijuana, and none has shown any improvement over the plant nature gave us to take orally or to smoke.

We live in an antismoking environment. But as a method of delivering certain medicinal compounds, smoking marijuana has some real advantages: The effect is almost instantaneous, allowing the patient, who after all is the best judge, to fine-tune his or her dose to get the needed relief without intoxication. Smoked marijuana has never been demonstrated to have serious pulmonary consequences, but in any case the technology to inhale these cannabinoids without smoking marijuana already exists as vaporizers that allow for smoke- free inhalation.

Hopefully the UCSF study will add to the pressure on the US government to rethink its irrational ban on the medicinal use of marijuana - and its destructive attacks on patients and caregivers in states that have chosen to allow such use. Rather than admit they have been mistaken all these years, federal officials can cite "important new data" and start revamping outdated and destructive policies. The new Congress could go far in establishing its bona fides as both reasonable and compassionate by immediately moving on this issue.

Such legislation would bring much-needed relief to millions of Americans suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and other debilitating illnesses.

Lester Grinspoon; an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School; is the coauthor of "Marijuana; the Forbidden Medicine."

[jamiehue]

works wonders for my friends that are on aids meds.

[jem_is_bi]

Inhalation is a very fast way to achieve therapeutic blood levels of a drug. However, for optimal medical use of marijuana, the need to burn and inhale plant material needs to be addressed as well as the “high” that can interfere with daily life. The purpose of medicine is not recreation.
However, I do not believe it is a good idea to make drug use a crime. Ultimately, unless you imprison people for life, you still must provide effective treatment and a chance for a decent life. Otherwise, your hoping they die abruptly while still young so they do not cause additional social harm or somehow get better without organized social support. Has prison worked well in the United States as a substitute for treatment and prevention?

JEM

[DiamondDog]

prepare for a lot of people digging as deep as they can to try and prove this article wrong and some all out blatant denial.

this is old news and very obvious, and it should be to anyone who's ever smoked pot before. Of course combustion and the smoking of any organic material has harmful byproducts. I'm not sure who really didn't know this already? It's not like this news will make people stop smoking pot. People know how harmful tobacco is yet continue to smoke it and use it in other forms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150274.stm


Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins'

Inhaled cannabis smoke has more harmful toxins than tobacco, scientists have discovered.

The Canadian government research found 20 times as much ammonia, a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said.

The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively.

But tobacco smoke contained more of a toxin linked to infertility. Experts said users must be aware of the risks.

About a quarter of the population in the UK smokes tobacco products, while a sixth of 15 to 34-year-olds have tried cannabis in the past year, making it the most commonly used drug.

Previous research has shown cannabis smoke is more harmful to lungs than tobacco as it is inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs for a longer period.

However, it has also been acknowledged that the average tobacco user smokes more than a cannabis user.

Researchers from Health Canada, the government's health research department, used a smoking machine to analyse the composition of the inhaled smoke for nearly 20 harmful chemicals.

They also looked at the sidestream smoke, given off from the burning tip of the product and responsible for 85% of the smoked inhaled through passive smoking.

Concentrations

In most cases, the comparison on sidestream smoke broadly mirrored that of inhaled smoke.

However, in the case of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the toxin linked to infertility, the researchers found concentrations were actually higher in cigarette smoke.

The study also showed little difference in the concentrations of a range of chemicals, including chromium, nickel, arsenic and selenium.

Lead researcher David Moir said: "The consumption of marijuana through smoking remains a reality and among the young seems to be increasing.

"The confirmation of the presence of known carcinogens and other chemical is important information for public health."

Dr Richard Russell, a specialist at the Windsor Chest Clinic, said: "The health impact of cannabis is often over-looked amid the legal debate.

"Evidence shows it is multiplied when it is cannabis compared to tobacco.

"Tobacco from manufacturers has been enhanced and cleaned whereas cannabis is relatively unprocessed and therefore is a much dirtier product.

"These findings do not surprise me. The toxins from cannabis smoke cause lung inflammation, lung damage and cancer."

Stephen Spiro, of the British Lung Foundation, added the findings were "a great worry".

The full text of the New Scientist article is unfortunately only available to subscribers, but you can see a preview here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19626354.200-inhaled-cannabis-is-more-toxic-than-tobacco-smoke.html)

The actual study, however, can be read in its entirety: A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions here (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/crtoec/asap/html/tx700275p.html)

[the mage]

So when you actually read the study it openly admits to cross contamination of product with tobacco as well as their being lousy growers and doing it hydroponic. They did not flush the fertilizer out of the plants after growth and pretty much say so in lab speak. That is the source of the huge chemical numbers.

The point not even mentioned is that they use smoked ciggies as a standard not taking into account the chemicals created by the burned ciggy papers and the glue on it.

Users in the know use bongs and vaporizers anyway;)

Enjoy your life its the only one you get.

[DiamondDog]

So when you actually read the study it openly admits to cross contamination of product with tobacco as well as their being lousy growers and doing it hydroponic. They did not flush the fertilizer out of the plants after growth and pretty much say so in lab speak. That is the source of the huge chemical numbers.

The point not even mentioned is that they use smoked ciggies as a standard not taking into account the chemicals created by the burned ciggy papers and the glue on it.

Users in the know use bongs and vaporizers anyway;)

Enjoy your life its the only one you get.

Hey whatever. Deny it all you want but smoking anything isn't good for your body, and produces harmful byproducts and carcinogens. I wish the smoke from pot didn't have carcinogens and harmful chemical byproducts in it but it does.

They probably used tobacco mixed in with pot because of the way many Canadians, europeans, and other non-Americans smoke pot/hash which is with tobacco mixed in with the plant material. Also don't forget how popular blunts are. If they used it with tobacco they also used it plain without tobacco, and did it with just tobacco too.

[Falke]

*Shurg*

Let em smoke. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot do with thier bodies, beneficial or not.

[the mage]

My basic argument with any comparison is that tobacco is government supervised and profited from mass addiction to a known cancer causing agent, Nicotine.

Weed is a non addictive psycho-active drug with many benefits which if allowed into the social framework would calm people down without costing them huge cash or jail time.
The drug war is intended only to keep the cost high, nothing more.

[DiamondDog]

*Shurg*

Let em smoke. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot do with thier bodies, beneficial or not.

That's true.

In many south american and central American cultures smoking pot is viewed as being something low class and akin to sniffing petrol or huffing a solvent!

[Skater Boy]

In many south american and central American cultures smoking pot is viewed as being something low class and akin to sniffing petrol or huffing a solvent!

Maybe its just my locality and social class speaking here, but there are still many even within WESTERN society (ie. Europe, and in particular England) who think along very similar lines. For some people, at least, an illegal drug is an illegal drug, and is therefore essentially a faux pas. Although I do agree that these people are generally decreasing in numbers.

[Herbwoman39]

I'm going to be really unpopular in a minute. I feel that the war on drugs is a waste of taxpayers money. I feel that all illegal substances should be legalized. People who are doing the drugs are getting them anyway. Those who are arrested are a drain on those of us who pay the bills for people who are just going to re-offend when they get out anyway. OR they will have someone smuggle the substances in for them. Drug use is rampant in prisons.

Treat people like adults. If adults want to use the stuff, LET them. BUT let employers have the right to immediately fire anyone who tests positive for any of these substances. There will still be penalties for use but they will be more personal. For instance, you use, you lose your job. You can't pay the bills, so you either straighten out or deal with the inevitable, logical consequences.

Let people learn to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The government is not a babysitter and shouldn't be. People should police themselves and those who can't, should live with the consequences until they learn to to be responsible for their actions.

[DiamondDog]

I'm going to be really unpopular in a minute. I feel that the war on drugs is a waste of taxpayers money. I feel that all illegal substances should be legalized. People who are doing the drugs are getting them anyway. Those who are arrested are a drain on those of us who pay the bills for people who are just going to re-offend when they get out anyway. OR they will have someone smuggle the substances in for them. Drug use is rampant in prisons.

Treat people like adults. If adults want to use the stuff, LET them. BUT let employers have the right to immediately fire anyone who tests positive for any of these substances. There will still be penalties for use but they will be more personal. For instance, you use, you lose your job. You can't pay the bills, so you either straighten out or deal with the inevitable, logical consequences.

Let people learn to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The government is not a babysitter and shouldn't be. People should police themselves and those who can't, should live with the consequences until they learn to to be responsible for their actions.

I agree with you.

I think that everything should be legalized but if you drive intoxicated at all you should get your driver's lisence taken away.

It's dangerous and irresponsible to drive intoxicated and you're putting yourself and other people in danger.

[Azrael]

I'm going to be really unpopular in a minute.


Nah ;)

[Uneedhands]

Legalize it. For the sake of the environment, medical... Other than that I couldn't care less if it was legalised. I'll never beg for my freedom, and I'll never let anyone take it. When they legalise it you know they will only control it and drive the prices way up. I am insulted whenever the law allows me the freedom to do something anyway. OH thank you master! Im not worthy master! ...not this chump.

Fuck the law if they say I can't smoke it. I'm going to do it anyway, just like every other stupid law I break. When they do make it legal you know multitudes of the bitches who go around saying "Im against smoking pot" will jump the fence. It's fine to have your stupid beleifs, but when those stupid beleifs infringe on my personal freedom or that of my loved ones, or anyone for that matter, I get frustrated, recalcitrant and violent. Well ...I might be like that most of the time anyway but ...THATS WHY I SMOKE POT! This world Pisses me off!