Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Talking About Cannabis ... Time to bring 'em down

riot act | 19.03.2008 10:24 | Health | Social Struggles | World

Talking about cannabis want to:

Introduce drug testing in schools
Reclassify cannabis as class B
End harm minimisation drugs education

Talking about cannabis (1) is run by Debra Bell and has links to prohibitionists EURAD (Europe Against Drugs) who campaign for, amongst other things, the scrapping of free needle exchanges.

They are also supported by the NDPA who are funded by Drug Free America, the creaters of the infamous and abusive Straight Inc (2) rehab programme.

The information given about cannabis by TAC is entirely dishonest and without scientific merit, however they are supported by charities including Addaction, SANE and Kids Company.

Some background:

Talking (bollocks) About Cannabis (3)
Talking (even more bollocks) About Cannabis (4)
Yet More Bollocks About Cannabis (5)
National Drug Prevention Alliance Funded by Child Abusers (6)

How you can help:

Contact Debra Bell at  debra@talkingaboutcannabis.com and let her know what you think (you are unlikely to receive a reply, Debra doesn't do debate).

Even better write to one of the charities supporting her, please keep letters polite and to the point if possible.

Addaction's press office can be contacted at
 c.mcneil@addaction.org.uk

SANE can be contacted at  sanemail@sane.org.uk or join their forum here

Kids Company press office can be reached at  anna@kidsco.org.uk

TAC have 4 MPs on their list of supporters (all tories natch)

They can be contacted at

Christopher Chope MP
 office@christchurchconservatives.com
Telephone: 01202 474949

Graham Brady MP Altrincham and Sale West Constituency Office Thatcher House Green Lane Timperley Altrincham WA15 8QW  office@altsaletory.demon.co.uk

Tim Loughton MP East Worthing Constituency
01903 235168
 http://www.timloughton.com/gettingintouch/email.htm

Edward Garniere Harborough constituency
 garniere@parliament.uk 01858 464146

Many thanks, this organisation have the ear of government and represent a huge step backwards in the battle for a more tolerant drug policy, please help if you can.

And come and make friends at myspace (7)

(1)  http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/
(2)  http://www.theagitator.com/drug-war-casualties/
(3)  http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/talking-bollocks-about-cannabis/
(4)  http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/talking-even-more-bollocks-about-cannabis/
(5)  http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/yet-more-bollocks-about-cannabis/
(6)  http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/national-drug-prevention-alliance-funded-by-child-abusers/
(7)  http://www.myspace.com/talkingcrapaboutcannabis

and meanwhile read about the so called facts from their drugs 'expert' Mary Brett:

Mary Brett … a cause for concern.



Well it’s been some time coming but now feels about the right time to look at some of the ’scientific’ information that talking about cannabis plan to distribute to schools and parents.On the Talking About Cannabis website parents and children are invited to download a document written by one Mary Brett, spokesperson for Europe Against Drugs (EURAD … and we’re getting round to them).

Unfortunately facts seem in fairly short supply in this document. You really can’t blame poor old Brett, no matter how often she dishonestly refers to herself as a biologist her lowly BSc and career in an all boys Grammar School clearly marks her down as a teacher … and if her ability to construct a legible sentence is anything to go by then perhaps not a very good one.

Brett’s trick is to trawl through scientific studies of varying legitamacy and then present as fact results which even the original researchers ackowledge are as yet unproven.

Any studies which disagree with Brett’s opinion are studiously ignored, which is a shame for her because most studies do tend to disagree with Brett’s biased conculsions.

Let’s start with a quote from the Lancet (real scientists) who in an editorial in 1995 said:

The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.”

Whilst the possibility that cannabis may have some link to psychosis remains an, as yet unproven concern, the scientific consensus regarding the physical risks of cannabis remain much the same as stated in the above editorial.

That doesn’t stop Brett though who claims:

“Just one joint per week will ensure a permanent presence of THC. Functioning of all the other neurotransmitters is affected New nerve connections cannot be made
Concentration, learning and memory are all badly affected.

There is now strong suggestive evidence from animal experiments and brain scans of humans that some of these cells may die. “

So let’s have the facts. The myth that cannabis kills brain cells is largely down to one study in the 1970’s in which three Rhesus monkeys were heavily dosed with cannabis and structural changes (not cell death) in the brain were observed.

This study was heavily criticised at the time and has never been replicate. Much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research (1) and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International(2) failed to any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of cannabis for up to a year.

Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica also found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology (3).

So Brett’s claim that cannabis causes:

“permanent brain damage – slow, subtle, insidious and cumulative.”

and that

“Few children, using cannabis even occasionally, will achieve their full potential.”

have no actual basis in fact whatsoever. Anyone would think she had an agenda.

Brett also gets her knicker’s in a twist over the fact that THC is fat soluble (like many substances) and therefore tends to hang about in the body for some time. Brett claims:

“Airline pilots on flight simulators could not ‘land’ their planes properly even 24 hours and more after a joint”

As ever the truth is far less dramatic. Presumably Brett is referring to a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on a flight simulator performance up to 24 hours after using cannabis. (4)

Whilst the study did find some impact on pilot’s performance Leirer himself said the effects were “very subtle” and “very marginal,” and were less than those noted due to pilots ages.

A later flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours after using cannabis. (5)

So once again Brett has twisted the facts to suit her own agenda.

Onto the issue of whether cannabis is addictive Brett claims:

“More young people treated in the USA for marijuana than alcohol dependence”

What Brett fails to mention is that at least half of all young people in the US are in treatment programme for cannabis due to court orders. It should also be noted that many parents and schools who listen to the hysterical ramblings of the likes of Brett may refer their children into treatment regardless of whether they have a problem.

Brett claims that physical dependance to cannabis is not as severe as heroin addiction because THC stored in the body reduces the severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Which frankly, is fucking nonsense.

There is no compulsive scientific evidence that cannabis can cause physical dependance. The study “Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence,” concluded that:

“When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating.

The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome’s relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations.” (6)

Evidence has also been presented that suggests when humans are allowed to control consumption even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.(7)

Meanwhile national epidemiological surveys in the US show that the large majority of people who use cannabis do not become regular users.

In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. (8)

So once again Brett’s scare-mongering fails to match up to the scientific evidence.

The effect of cannabis on mental health is too large an issue for the scope of this document. We will note that the debate is not helped by Brett’s claim that:

“Cannabis increases the amount of the neurotransmitter, dopamine in the brain.
Too much dopamine causes schizophrenia.”

The dopamine theory of schizophrenia is just that, a theory - not a fact. It has largely been discredited as far too simplistic an approach and in any event the idea that cannabis causes an increase of dopamine in the brain has not been established beyond doubt.

Sex, shopping and chocolate all cause an increase of dopamine in the brain.

As for Brett’s comment that:

“Even on one joint per month or six weeks, a cannabis personality emerges. ”

Which presumably is something that she just made up ‘cos it sounded good, long live the Brett school of science.

And finally Brett chucks in a few hand-grenades at the end claiming that cannabis causes head and neck cancers, the immune system is damaged and that babies born to cannabis using mothers are smaller, hyperactive and have behaviour and learning problems .

With regard to her claim that young people who smoke are developing head and neck cancers, the truth of this unfounded allegation can be found on EURAD’s own website:

“in a cohort study with 8 years of follow-up, marijuana use was not associated with increased risks of all cancers or smoking-related cancers. Further epidemiological
studies are necessary to confirm the association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and to examine marijuana smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer. ” (9)

The research which has been carried out suggesting cannabis may damage the immune system has typically involved lab animals being given huge doses of THC. According to a review on the subject by Dr. Leo Hollister(10):

“The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence.”

Once again Brett produces scant evidence as scientific fact.

And as to a risk to unborn babies, once again the evidence is far from conclusive with one study suggesting that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.(11)

Another further study of Jamaican women who had used cannabis throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at 30 days, whilst experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length. (12)

Finally Brett seeks to simplify and discredit medical cannabis with the dramatic claim that cannabis contains over 400 chemicals.

Brewed coffee contains around 800.

The rest of Brett’s leaflet contains brief details on the effects of other drugs, which although in some cases are not entirely accurate, they are not covered in anywhere near the same detail as cannabis.

Brett and her cohorts may wish to consider what the kids will make of this info after being subjected to a diatribe of dishonest and unscientific drivel on the subject of cannabis.

And those MP’s and charities which have offered Talking About Cannabis support may wish to consider whether they really support lying to young people about drugs.

Net-savvy teenagers can easily find all of the information presented above.

Are they likely to believe anything they are told about drugs at all if this kind of malicious propaganda becomes the norm in schools?

(1) William Slikker et al., Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).
(2) Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys, International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.
(3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7.
(4) V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, “Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991); Yesavage, Leirer, et al., “Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report,” American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985).
(5) Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, “Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989).
(6) Jones, R.T. et al, “Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:221-39 (1976).
(7) Stefanis. C. et al, “Experimental Observations of a 3-Day Hashish Abstinence Period and Reintroduction of Use,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:113-20 (1976); Cohen, S. et al, “The 94-Day Study,” pp 621-26 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), The Pharmacology of Marijuana, New York: Raven Press (1976).
(8) Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1994).
(9) Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2002;42:103S-107S
(10) Dr. Leo Hollister, Marijuana and Immunity, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20(1): 3-8 (Jan/Mar 1988).
(11) Nancy Day et al., Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992).
(12) Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women, Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).

riot act
- Homepage: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

time for a sensible argument

19.03.2008 11:29


I think both sides of the argument need to be taken into account here. On the one hand, cannabis needs to be de-criminalised and readily avaidable. On the other hand, many pro-cannabis campaigners are the most blinkered people in the debate, claiming the drug is only a force for good, no harm can come from it etc etc (including a friend of mine who claims drink driving is stupid, then gets stoned as fuck and drives!!!)
Cannabis is getting stronger, and i would now say it is pretty dangerous - the differences in smaell and appearance of weed from when i used to smoke to when i see/smaell some now are obvious. I really wouldnt be suprised if this stuff was causing serious damage to people.
That being said, I am very much pro-legalisation so that people can grow their own, return to weaker strains and control their own supply. Lets not forget that dealers are one of the nastier parts of the capitalist economy, most of whom, like all other ruthless capitalists dont care about your health, so long as they get money from you. To stand up for them and the shit they peddle is to stand up for all companies/individuals who push unhealthy shit on an ususpecting/too addicyed to care public.
Simply put, people are not smoking the same stuff now that was being smoked in the 60s, or even the 90s - it is much stronger and much more dangerous. Time for both sides to wake up and take a realistic approach to the situation. Yes, skunk is dangerous, no the solution is not further criminalisation, it is small scale, self sufficient production. Incidentally, the same solution to many of the worlds problems.

(A) Sab


Increasing strength...

19.03.2008 16:45

We simply cannot say for certain that the strength of cannabis strains has increased over the years as there has never been a standardised methodology.

There have always been strong strains available that compare with what gets described as "super skunk" today and the actual variations in THC content generally range from around 4% to 20%.

To put that in context, alcoholic drinks range in strength from around 4% to 40% and above. Kind of puts the whole "super strength" claim in perspective.

MonkeyBot 5000


I despair. I really just despair....

19.03.2008 18:35

"Introduce drug testing in schools
Reclassify cannabis as class B
End harm minimisation drugs education"

How can any supposedly rational person support such proven failed policies? Just what are these people on?

I thought it was people who TOOK drugs who couldn't handle reality. Obviously not.

Gregory Beetle


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech