Get Some
General => General Chat => Topic started by: dirtyape on April 13, 2012, 01:29:50 pm
-
Just read a article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-the-us-legalize-hard-drugs/2012/04/11/gIQAX95QBT_story.html) about the decriminalisation of Marijuana in the US.
I believe that managing the social problems that will arise from decriminalisation or legalisation will likely be easier and cheaper than managing the prohibition. Plus I don't think there is any real reason to have it banned in the first place. Chances are if you want to smoke it then you are already, and therefore prohibition has failed.
Lets put it to the vote.
For those not understanding the difference see below
Decriminalising would make possession a bit like no wearing a seatbelt - a small infringement offence (say $100 fine), with no conviction. Not legal, but not a crime either.
Legalising would make it like tobacco or alcohol or caffeine.
-
Decriminalisation could potentially take away the 'cool' factor that has some insecure teens reaching for it.
Bosses daughter (15) will on occasion show off that she smokes the dope.
So incredibly sad.
-
There is definitely too much money spent on controlling this, and really, alcohol is infinitely worse for the consumer and society as a whole.
-
A new stream of tax income for the government.
Less money spent on incarceration for weed offenses.
Less money spent on drug control.
Potentially taking away a major revenue stream for criminals (assuming legit sellers could out compete them).
-
Decriminalize not legalize.
There's a major moral objection to the state being involved in the drug business any way, which it would be if you could sell it.
It's one of the main reasons that the tobacco business is so disgusting.
Grow your own if you're that keen.
-
Lagalise that shit.
Allowing alcohol and tobacco while banning dope is utterly retarded.
-
^ What he said.
-
Lagalise that shit.
Allowing alcohol and tobacco while banning dope is utterly retarded.
Answer my objections ffs.
-
It's a political issue rather than a health or science one.
The government is increasingly punitive on Alcohol and Tobacco, it would go against the trend of minimizing access and availability of these sorts of substances if they were to decriminalize marijuana.
I am not satisfied by traditional stoner arguments that weed should be decriminalized or legalized on the residual notion that 'we have legal tobacco and alcohol and they're as bad or worse', because all it really argues for is the compounding of more problematic factors.
-
I believe in decriminalinzg/legalising and taxing the everloving fuck out of all "illegal substances"
-
Which would lead to tax evasion...
Implementing an effective tax system for marijuana in particular would be hopeless if not impossible.
-
Decriminalise, have state-wide seller depots, tax the fuck outta it. If I could buy a traditional fifty bag for say, $60 or even $70, all because A) it's grown, sold and distributed legally and I won't get pinged for it, I'd sure as fuck buy it, as would all my other mates who have done it.
Used to love having a cone or 10 and just talking for several hours about what we would do with the current penalty system for all those substances.
It really is great stuff. I enjoyed the shit outta it a few years back. Just sort of moved on, havent had any on me for over a year now (sound like some sort of addict lol). But compare that to how many beers or bottles of bevo's you have sitting in your chiller right now, makes you think.
-
Which would lead to tax evasion...
Implementing an effective tax system for marijuana in particular would be hopeless if not impossible.
Tax evasion is easier to prosecute than trying to infiltrate a gang, collect enough evidence and then make a bust... (case in point, Tax evasion was how they eventually caught Al Capone)
and I disagree that a tax system for Marijuana would be hopeless - allow a personal concession (a few pants) tax free for personal use, then implement a tiered Tax system, with the aim of getting the Growing, distribution and sale of Marijuana out of the hands of criminals, into the hands of law abiding citizens - everyone wins all around
-
If it's currently economically viable to grow and distribute marijuana on the blackmarket (with all the risk of jail etc), then how does legalisation/taxation and the inevitable increase in price reduce those illicit distributors?
If the tax is anything like cigarettes, it'd be an increase of around 75% in price + GST, plenty of consumers will switch to the blackmarket. And while you could have something similar to prescription medication bottles, there's no real way of identifying the origin of the product once it's in the consumers pocket or zigzags.
Legalise & Tax could work as a way of reducing the costs of drug enforcement, but I don't see how it could actually work to help line the treasury purse, as 'taxing the fuck outta them' might suggest.
-
If it's currently economically viable to grow and distribute marijuana on the blackmarket (with all the risk of jail etc), then how does legalisation/taxation and the inevitable increase in price reduce those illicit distributors?
If the tax is anything like cigarettes, it'd be an increase of around 75% in price + GST, plenty of consumers will switch to the blackmarket. And while you could have something similar to prescription medication bottles, there's no real way of identifying the origin of the product once it's in the consumers pocket or zigzags.
Because people don't want to get do something thats illegal - the cost would be passed onto the consumer and so those that are making money from the Growth, distribution and sale would Still make money, except they would be doing it legally without the risk of prosecution/
As for your arguement that lots of people will switch the Black market:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3641330/Black-market-will-grow-tobacco-companies
in 2010 about 31 million ciggarettes were smoked from the black market - but that only comprises of about 3% total consumption - if we extrapolate that out to Marijuana then assuming that it is double or even triple the black market interest compared to Tobacco - that is still less than 10% of total consumption.
again - if I can do something Legally, for $10-$20 extra as opposed to something illegally for less - I am going to pay the little extra and I dare say that most of your casual pot smokers would be in the same boat, paying a little extra to enjoy a cone at the end of a hard day/week is preferable to taking an unnecesary risk
-
Decriminalise cheese. That shit is expensive.
-
I would like to see it decriminalized but not legalized for various reasons already mentioned.
-
But how would you know if it was illegal or not? If police came to your house and found a coffee jar of green in it, are they going to trace it back to where it was bought from?
Wether it is legal or not, people will smoke it regardless.
What I find absolute bullshit is responses like Australia's PM Julia Gillard who comes out and says something like 'I will not legalise drugs because they destroy families'.
That's like saying all animals are deadly simply because a shark can kill you.
-
Because people don't want to get do something thats illegal - the cost would be passed onto the consumer and so those that are making money from the Growth, distribution and sale would Still make money, except they would be doing it legally without the risk of prosecution/
As for your arguement that lots of people will switch the Black market:
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3641330/Black-market-will-grow-tobacco-companies[/url]
in 2010 about 31 million ciggarettes were smoked from the black market - but that only comprises of about 3% total consumption - if we extrapolate that out to Marijuana then assuming that it is double or even triple the black market interest compared to Tobacco - that is still less than 10% of total consumption.
again - if I can do something Legally, for $10-$20 extra as opposed to something illegally for less - I am going to pay the little extra and I dare say that most of your casual pot smokers would be in the same boat, paying a little extra to enjoy a cone at the end of a hard day/week is preferable to taking an unnecesary risk
Possibly, but the difference between cigarettes (the example used) and marijuana is that weed is illegal already. So the transition to criminal activity doesn't really occur, it already has.
On another note, tobacco isn't a easily grown and cigarettes not easily produced in black market conditions in New Zealand, weed is. If there was a larger supply of readily available illegal cigarettes, I have no doubt that more consumers would buy black market.
But how would you know if it was illegal or not? If police came to your house and found a coffee jar of green in it, are they going to trace it back to where it was bought from?
This.
The logistics of enforcing a tax system for weed bemuses me with its pragmatic voids and the implausibility of its implementation relative to the costs that it would bring.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing marijuana laws being similar to alcohol laws.
What interests me most is that in Amsterdam it used to be a tourist attraction until it became illegal to sell to foreigners/tourists (I didn't check this officially, pretty much heard it in a few different places, it never interested me that much until now, so correct me if I'm wrong); if NZ was to legalize it, would it be legal for tourists to buy it?
If so, the money gained through tourism, tax, and what not, compared to the money lost through enforcing criminalization, is a huge profit gain, no?
Then of course there's the medical uses, even just stress release if used in moderation. OTOH people who blatantly abuse it in excess become a little bit....... slower. And it's their own fault. I've also noticed people who sit around smoking weed all day never had a decent bit of motivation to get anywhere in life to begin with.
-
I've also noticed people who sit around smoking weed all day never had a decent bit of motivation to get anywhere in life to begin with.
Agree with all of the above.
I've seen people who sit around, drink and smoke all day and they are more than slow, they are fucking grozzzzz.
At least weed just makes them dull numbats instead of raging arseholes, detrimental to everyone around them :)
-
To legalize pot / drugs in NZ being a rather small country I find would be a grave misjudgement in the way our society would react. Look at the epidemic of Herbs (BZP) aka cow wormer agent. They made available a mind altering drug which is used for drenching livestock. This all of a sudden opens the minds to a bucket load of grad / uni students who otherwise never would have had opportunity of this type of scenario in the 1st place. Then they became illegal and all of a sudden those who have had Pandora’s box opened are now forced to find alternate ways of achieving such highs as were once legal.
Maybe for much larger countries systems like this would work, but what is it like for those countries in the 1st place to take such extreme measures to achieve simplistic reward?
Anyways just my 5 cents as I watch the clock roll down to 5:30 and as always be gentle if my post makes no sense lol. To many thoughts this conversation brings up.
See this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
Roll on 5:30 woop
-
It's not quite that simple, it's actually more political than a lot of people realise.
New Zealand is a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs_of_1961), which pretty much says what we can and cannot legalise.
Cannabis is firmly on the 'cannot' list, although there have been high-profile calls for a bit of a rethink on drug policy (a la Portugal, already mentioned), given the current tactics in the 'War on Drugs' appear to not be curbing drug use and abuse (e.g. this one (http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf) from the Global Commission on Drug Policy from June 2011).
It's a bit unfortunate, because it could be argued that the current legislation causes a host of societal ills, a lot of which have already been mentioned. Just under half of New Zealanders have used cannabis, and often people are exposed to criminal activity in acquiring the drug, and these criminal elements can often supply harder, genuinely harmful, drugs. It's that sort of 'gateway effect' thing.
Not to mention that it probably causes a bit of mistrust in the classification of other substances, given that a relatively innocuous drug like cannabis is bundled in with coke and morphine.
-
Since when did UN declarations mean anything? We routinely breach our commitments to Human Rights, youth and indigenous peoples declarations.
-
Not officially.
-
If I were King, you would have all substances assessed based on medical evidence (which need not be definitive proof - but it must be credible medical evidence) and categorised appropriately. It would look something like this (although the place of individual substances is just based on my views, and as King I would take the wise counsel of scientists and medical professionals):
- Unregulated (no evidence of harm, just usual food labeling rules if in food or beverage)
- Regulated but untaxed (for drugs / non-prescription medicines / food ingredients that are not harmful to the general population when used as intended, but need dosage restrictions & some warning labeling eg caffeine, artificial sugars)
- Regulated and controlled (prescription medicines which need a physician to ensure they are properly used)
- Regulated but taxed (harms are moderate or less, such that personal choice & medical treatment are more appropriate eg cannabis, tobbacco, alcohol, possibly e & most party drugs)
- Criminalised (drugs which are highly addictive and/or very harmful to users and/or can cause major harm to others eg heroin, methamphetamine, possibly cocaine, GHB because of it's date rape use)
But I'm not King. So in the meantime:
- Cannabis isn't harmful enough to justify the status quo.
- Decriminalisation is better, basically you only chase commercial drug dealers and users can grow/possess their own up to a limit (say 2 plants & 50g).
- It's still a political compromise not good evidence-based policy. But we have to live with that sometimes.
EDIT: Also, re the UN treaty, the Netherlands and Australia are parties so there is definitely scope to be an international-law-abiding-citizen and do something about drug reform.
-
Another problem is that we can talk all we want, but especially for Australia and quite likely for NZ, government is way too conservative and will not change the laws. It's shit, but it's true.
(http://i.imgur.com/6hIqc.jpg)
-
Another problem is that we can talk all we want, but especially for Australia and quite likely for NZ, government is way too conservative and will not change the laws. It's shit, but it's true.
True.Look at what happened to Don Brash when he raised the issue.
-
watch a documentary called What if Cannabis cured cancer then discuss..
not made by stoners 25 year long study by top medical professors from various parts of the world.
-
Decrim not leagz.
Tax it.
Tax also from it's income.
max. 2 plants.
???
Cuntry not so fucked in depression.
True.Look at what happened to Don Brash when he raised the issue.
Yeh, but isn't he an ACT member? Like, one of the most conservitive parties ever?
Of course that shit made waves.
Don knows what's good for the country's bank balance (see above). On other things... well... yeah.
-
I've read a bit of literature on it. I still feel like I need to read more on it.
In regards to a lot of those using the fact alcohol is legal and its worse. Imo you're argument is flawed. I don't disagree that alcohol is terrible but using it as a reason to legalise/decriminalise something is a bit dumb...
-
What exactly is the difference between decrim and legalizing?
-
Pretty sure there's a Streets song for every topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0or9-xYdU0k
-
What exactly is the difference between decrim and legalizing?
Decriminalising would make possession a bit like no wearing a seatbelt - a small infringement offence (say $100 fine), with no conviction. Not legal, but not a crime either.
Legalising would make it like tobacco or alcohol or caffeine.
-
This might be interesting to make some comparisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country
Fairy, I've been meaning to watch that doco and will do before I enter discussion. An objective opinion is required.
-
Decriminalize not legalize.
There's a major moral objection to the state being involved in the drug business any way, which it would be if you could sell it.
It's one of the main reasons that the tobacco business is so disgusting.
Grow your own if you're that keen.
is there? pharmacy drugs make up a big part of the illegal scene. Doesn't the government have a 2020? goal of banning tobacco, doesn't removing one substance, while promoting another with similar risk factors to health make the govt look pretty silly? Yeayea freedom of choice for the individual blah blah, wheres your freedom when cigarettes could be sold for 50 cents tax free, and the 'evil tobacco' companies would make the same profits. The govt takes the $12 or so, whose really evil here ?
-
is there? pharmacy drugs make up a big part of the illegal scene. Doesn't the government have a 2020? goal of banning tobacco, doesn't removing one substance, while promoting another with similar risk factors to health make the govt look pretty silly? Yeayea freedom of choice for the individual blah blah, wheres your freedom when cigarettes could be sold for 50 cents tax free, and the 'evil tobacco' companies would make the same profits. The govt takes the $12 or so, whose really evil here ?
So right.
The more you look at drug prohibition the more moral holes you find.
-
Cigarettes are pretty cheap in China, or are on the face of it.
Only now after 20 years of cheap tobacco, are lung cancer rates going through the roof.
Tobacco is such an expensive drug in so many ways that trying to justify it's legality is pretty dumb.
It's out on it's own in terms of the health downside.
The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.
I've worked in the transport industry all my life and they're a pain in the arse really.
-
I've worked in the transport industry all my life
Drug trafficker Zarkov?
-
The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.
We only have to look at our use of alcohol to know that legalising pot would add to social problems of our youth. Decriminalise and license for your own use over twenty years of age and bump up the sentences for those dealing to minors might be worth some thought.
-
Cigarettes are pretty cheap in China, or are on the face of it.
Only now after 20 years of cheap tobacco, are lung cancer rates going through the roof.
Tobacco is such an expensive drug in so many ways that trying to justify it's legality is pretty dumb.
It's out on it's own in terms of the health downside.
The trouble with all forms of recreational drugs, is that's not how a lot of people use them.
I've worked in the transport industry all my life and they're a pain in the arse really.
I'm not trying to justify tobacco. I'm saying working towards a ban of tobacco, while lessening the restrictions of marijuana that potentially has the same health risks for cancer, and more for mental health (linked to paranoid schizophrenia) is insanity. At least the tobacco taxes pay the health bills they incur.
-
I'm not trying to justify tobacco. I'm saying working towards a ban of tobacco, while lessening the restrictions of marijuana that potentially has the same health risks for cancer, and more for mental health (linked to paranoid schizophrenia) is insanity. At least the tobacco taxes pay the health bills they incur.
It can be eaten. It is THC itself which is illegal. Paranoid schizophrenia is a problem. Excessive alcohol use is linked to liver failure. Any excessive use of an intoxicant will have a detrimental effect. Excessive use of butter will kill more people than marijuana. Figures are needed.
(http://www.impawards.com/1942/posters/devils_harvest.jpg) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157533/)
Unrelated: Hitler was addicted to amphetamines, they were used widely in WW2.
-
The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia is quite complex, and a similar effect exists for both alcohol and nicotine.
-
It doesn't produce physical dependency, and it doesn't produce overdose deaths. But lets face facts here. The prohibition has failed. It costs a lot of money and that is essentially money wasted. Instead of spending that money on enforcing the prohibition, that money could be spent on the management of the social issues that arise due to marijuana use. And that use will continue regardless of whether it is prohibited or not.
Are the legal side effects more harmful than the drug itself?
-
In 2006, about 1% of cannabis users were prosecuted for their use. So depends on how unlucky you are.
-
Police could just stop ? Despite the argument the police can't pick and choose what laws to enforce, when was the last time you saw them stop a cyclist without a helmet? fine someone for littering? police could easily tone down their 'proactive' searching in forests by helicopter, etc. and just react when given information, or having stopped suspicious vehicles/individuals. Changing the law to be more lenient, with the justification of "other substances are worse social problems" isn't really that smart. Hey we have all these problems, lets just add one and see what happens. :/
-
Errr, so it's better to have the lawmaking in the hands of police?
-
There are quite a few prisoners in jail who used marijuana to control their anger issues and no longer have access to it, regular usage of marijuana can completely alleviate a lot of these issues.
When a psychiatrist (or a GP, god forbid, long story...) prescribes an anti-psychotic to a patient there are known side effects that can range from mild restlessness, to tardive dyskinesia (do.not.want.) or even temporary / permanent brain damage. The medication is repetitively assessed regularly during the first initial period for warning signs of side effects (if they havent happened already) and then a decision is made by the patient and involving the doctor, as to whether the illness that is treated is worse than the side effects of the medication, or if the side effects are worse, and if no alternatives exist or are preferable, whether to continue on the medication or not.
I don't see why marijuana should be treated any differently - it has side effects just like a lot of medication, and in many many many cases isn't near as damaging, particularly when compared to some of the (regularly used, even) medication out there. It lets people with anger issues live a relatively normal life, gives people a way away from depression and anxiety, and these illnesses are things I have used as examples to support what I'm saying, it doesn't end there.
I saw a documentary (or more like, walked past the TV when it was on and it caught my attention), not sure which country it was from, but marijuana was being used in large doses to treat people with fatal illness so they didn't have to suffer.
-
The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia is quite complex, and a similar effect exists for both alcohol and nicotine.
It's really not 'complex'. In fact it's not even completely 100% true. But it still has some merit to it.
Schizophrenia and Psychosis are illnesses that can be caused by a lot of things, they are extremely severe cases of dysfunction of the brain that results in less than desirable effects, for lack of better words. In fact the thought that something as weak as cannabis can cause either of those is... beyond absurd.
The reason I say it still has some merit to it is because said illnesses are triggered by damage to the brain, and I can see how smoking it would be destructive to someone who is being traumatized by whatever events surround them.
If that doesn't make sense, then this is what I'm ultimately saying:
Cannabis can trigger the process towards becoming schizophrenic of psychotic, or it can become involved in the degenerative process. Cannabis on it's own wont give anyone schizophrenia or psychosis. It's far, far, far, far too weak.
As for the paranoia induced by marijuana being reported to resemble psychotic symptoms... The person smoking weed would never smoke it again. Not much more to say about that.
Also here's something interesting; weed was regularly used in the 1960s and 1970s but the rate of schizophrenia flat lined, even declined a little. The media's taking made up unproven figures to back up criminalization of weed.
Double posting for unrelated topics.
TLDR: If cannabis gave you schizophrenia or psychosis you would of probably gotten it either way, but good job speeding it up - but not even that is proven. That said, it could potentially worsen it in people who already suffer from it.
-
From what i've recently heard is that the "link" is that those who suffer schizophrenia or precursor schizophrenia actually use cannabis as a way to manage the disorder. CBD is one of the 60 odd cannabinoids in cannabis and it has antisphychotic effects. The documentary that i just watched, What if cannabis cured cancer, posits that those who are fledgeling schizophrenics tend to use the drug as a form of self medication - whether they realise it or not - and that it actually benefits them.
The documentary was not very objective however as it mentioned none of the drugs negative side effects, and it does have some. I doubt that paranoid schizophrenia is one of them, and i'd be interested in any studies that say otherwise, if they are credible.
According to a the documentary, there is growing scientific evidence that cannabis also has an anti-cancer effect. It does this be emulating the bodies own endocannabanoids. Cannabis has about 60 cannabinoids. CBD is one of them which is a documented antipsychotic. CBC is thought to have anti-depressant effects. There is a growing list of medical research, but it is difficult to do so for several reasons.
The main one is that pharmaceutical companies do not want it, it would be their worst nightmare if people could manufacture their own medicine. Another is that it is a controlled substance. Another is that their is a paranoia within society relating to the substance stemming back to the 1930's.
I think it is hard to find objective research on this subject as most documentaries tend towards the positive. I am yet to see anything that portrays the negative aspects of the drug. We all know that it does have negative side effects. Lack of motivation and stupidity are two things that I believe the drug causes, this is through observation of a guy who was perhaps the most gifted in school to becomming someone who picks apples for a living while he was smoking. Not that there is anything wrong with that, i picked apples and loved it, but he could have been so much more. Youth are high risk. Unfortunately the media display the drug as something desirable for those starting off in life eager to experience things. That is a real problem.
Regarding cancer reducing effects, there should be statistics available in countries that will confirm if cannabis smokers have a lower rate of cancer or not. You cannot argue with statistics over a sufficient amount of time.
*additional* It is quite possibly a drug that reduces your productive potential, but at the same time it may increase you creative potential, so I guess it would come down to a sufficiently educated person to decide if it suited there choice of career. If people do not have a career, then chances are it is not going to matter.
-
...
I kind of attacked the whole 'cannabis causes schizophrenia / psychosis' argument, because it makes me somewhat angry or annoyed, and ignored the one where it helps with it.
And honestly it can't be said for a fact either way. I think it might help some people with it, even if it's just to relax and calm down and put your thoughts in perspective, it kind of slows the rate of incoming active thought circulation (there's a psychological term for when you think a negative thought, and that is followed by another, and they build on each other until you're severely depressed, sometimes even leading to suicide as a worst-case-scenario) allowing you to deal with them and separate them out before they 'collide'. That said, you can still function and think while under the effects of cannabis but your mind 'talks' less (hence italicizing the word 'active' for lack of a proper term). If anything it stops you being distracted!
Helps with depression for sure, anxiety too. But the actual positive psychotic or schizophrenic symptoms may not be helped at all, I couldn't really tell you.
-
It has some positive effects, but that doesn't mean it should be prescribed as a treatment for such ailments. I'm more saying that in leiu of any other alternative people tend to use it, probably with no idea of it's positive, and negative effects. But, those people that are affected by such ailments probably already were so it is not the drug causing it which is the point. It cannot be used as a reason for the drug to be illegal. So why is it illegal?
-
So why is it illegal?
Ignorance, in a nut shell.
I wouldn't smoke it even if it was legal for my own reasons, but legalizing it, imo, would help a lot of people. And like I said previously, the people who'd abuse it in excess, are people who'd generally never get anywhere to begin with.
Another reason is fear, I suppose; I mean as long as it's criminalized any potential unknown side effects stay somewhat in-check, if as many people smoked marijuana as those who used alcohol or cigarettes and for some reason an unidentified side effect came into play virtually everyone would be affected. That's something I'd imagine OTHER people thinking, not myself - because it's illogical, but people have shown no end to the ability of allowing illogical thoughts to terrify them.
-
personally, i think legalising it or decriminalising it at best would highlight its true social impact. Despite the minority claims of being actually beneficial, I feel the reality would be vastly different.
-
Too much bullshit, not enough fact.
-
If cannabis use doesn't increase as a result of decriminalisation, then presumably the health or social impact of cannabis use stops being an argument against decriminalisation?
Given three Australian states have decriminalised cannabis in the past 25 years (SA, NT & ACT), it would not be hard to study what (if any) changes occurred over time as a result. NSW, Vic, Qld & WA can be used as controls. Given the similarities between NZ and Australia, it's probably as close a model as you could get for what might happen in NZ.
Lo and behold, a google appears and delivers a copy of an article from the Journal of Public Health Policy in 2000:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/single-e.htm
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/single-e.htm)
The key finding is probably this one:
Impacts on patterns of cannabis use: The potential impact of the introduction of the [decriminalisation] upon levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia has been assessed in several drug use surveys, with each analysis adding more recent data to the picture (eg, 11, 18, 19). None of the studies have found an increase in cannabis use in the South Australian community which is attributable to [decriminalisation]. Lifetime use of cannabis did increase significantly in South Australia from 26% in 1985 to 36% in 1995, but similar increases were observed over the same period in jurisdictions with a total prohibition approach to cannabis, such as Victoria and Tasmania.
-
Aww yea, SAs all up in this shit.
Can have i think two ounces, or possibly three, before you get charged.
-
That's a lot of mull bru
-
Too much bullshit, not enough fact.
Care to elaborate on your mostly pointless comment?
-
Care to elaborate on your mostly pointless comment?
Well I kinda get what he's saying [?] I think..
There really aren't many conclusive studies as to the effects of cannabis - sure there are studies but a lot are either utter bullshit or an 'idea' of a possibility. Saying it causes schizophrenia is one of those things that seems like grasping at straws for reasons to keep it criminalized; it's very very likely that it accelerates the damage that schizophrenia develops from but it's near impossible for it to actually cause it, and that's only one example of an area of uncertainty.
Then there's the whole psychosis paranoia when you're high which is nothing more than a lie and complete bullshit, but there's really no proof towards that unless you have first hand experience - and that only proves it to yourself. Then again it's also kind of logical, if you had truly psychotic symptoms you'd never take it again... if you hadn't killed yourself during them; my reasoning for saying that is experiencing the paranoia symptoms without the illness building up to that point, as in, you're hit with it all in one go, just out of nowhere, there'd be a high chance of suicide and as a result it'd be either more, or just as illegal as heroin... But you can't exactly prove that either, a PhD psychiatrist for example might know how to treat it, what his patients have said they go through, and develop understanding over the years, but the reality is that not even they can comprehend what it's actually like to experience it. Nor is it evidence.
Even if his comment is 'mostly pointless' it made a fair bit of sense to me, but perhaps he intended it in a different way.
-
It's really not 'complex'. In fact it's not even completely 100% true. But it still has some merit to it.
Schizophrenia and Psychosis are illnesses that can be caused by a lot of things, they are extremely severe cases of dysfunction of the brain that results in less than desirable effects, for lack of better words. In fact the thought that something as weak as cannabis can cause either of those is... beyond absurd.
The reason I say it still has some merit to it is because said illnesses are triggered by damage to the brain, and I can see how smoking it would be destructive to someone who is being traumatized by whatever events surround them.
If that doesn't make sense, then this is what I'm ultimately saying:
Cannabis can trigger the process towards becoming schizophrenic of psychotic, or it can become involved in the degenerative process. Cannabis on it's own wont give anyone schizophrenia or psychosis. It's far, far, far, far too weak.
As for the paranoia induced by marijuana being reported to resemble psychotic symptoms... The person smoking weed would never smoke it again. Not much more to say about that.
Also here's something interesting; weed was regularly used in the 1960s and 1970s but the rate of schizophrenia flat lined, even declined a little. The media's taking made up unproven figures to back up criminalization of weed.
Double posting for unrelated topics.
TLDR: If cannabis gave you schizophrenia or psychosis you would of probably gotten it either way, but good job speeding it up - but not even that is proven. That said, it could potentially worsen it in people who already suffer from it.
Sorry m80, my dissertation was on the link between cannabis and schizophrenia. I do know a little about it.
It is reasonably well established that cannabis use can be a causal factor in later development of psychoses. It is, however, considered a 'constellation cause' - one which needs other factors (genetic predilection, early onset of use) to develop into psychosis.
-
I am not satisfied by traditional stoner arguments that weed should be decriminalized or legalized on the residual notion that 'we have legal tobacco and alcohol and they're as bad or worse', because all it really argues for is the compounding of more problematic factors.
No it doesn't- For the most part, what you would see is substitution towards less harmful substances (i.e. instead of people drinking, the would move to more benign substances...and that includes other less harmful substances which are currently illegal such as Ecstasy.
-
Ah, one of these threads. Again.
Well, hell I may as well say my peace.
I've been a pretty regular user for nearly 10 years.
I started regular in my last year of college. I left college half way through my last year to pursue an apprenticeship in Plumbing and Gasfitting with the largest and best company in the lower north island. I have finished my apprenticeship in both fields and become qualified in both. High marks the whole time. I have had a daughter who is the light of my life. She is fun, smart and well mannered. She doesn't know I do it (she is 5, but somewhat besides the point) and never will. I have never and will never use in front of her, or while she is in my care. That is irresponsible. I have also taught myself everything I know about computers. Building them, using them, problem solving them. Same applying to photography. I don't claim to be any good, but everything I know is self taught. I never miss a day of work, I never neglect my child.
It is what you make of it at the end of the day. Abuse alcohol, and you will probably end up dead. Abuse pot and the same could very well happen I suppose.
This thread though, is pretty much this...
(http://bwoodin.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/merry_go_round_by_aurelia24.jpg)
-
Legalize so we can finally grow and use hemp based products.
And those who like to come home and smoke a joint should be able to do so without fear of prosecution that was based on a lie back in the 1930's.
It's time to wake up and see this little plant isn't just about drugs, but the amount of uses for it is amazing.
-
Legalize so we can finally grow and use hemp based products.
And those who like to come home and smoke a joint should be able to do so without fear of prosecution that was based on a lie back in the 1930's.
It's time to wake up and see this little plant isn't just about drugs, but the amount of uses for it is amazing.
Hemp (Cannibat Sativa with low THC Content) IS grown commercially and used for pretty much everything you can do with pot apart from smoking it.. The strain of pot that gets you high is pretty much only good for getting you high, it's not a good strain for industrial use.
-
And what a good use that is.
-
making suits for tando nacho the green party politician that will never be as useful as hemp
-
This might be interesting to make some comparisons: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country[/url]
Fairy, I've been meaning to watch that doco and will do before I enter discussion. An objective opinion is required.
now everyone knows im so pro 420 in isnt even funny however i did approach this doco with an open mind, watched it with my mother in law who is anti cannabis and after watching it she was impressed; no longer anti weed. the thing i liked about it was it wasnt made by stoners or actors - its a well compiled with research done by various heads of medicine across the world and it all points to one thing.
decri/legalising will never happen due to money - pharmaceuticals who rely on your hundreds of dollars to "cure" your illness will fold - who would pay for their chemical bs when something you can grow for free at home can cure so many illnesses in particular illnesses that plague so many. cannabinoids and endo cannibinoids working together to kill off cancer cells etc. watch it its pure win
it covers everything you have raised here - from "side effects" etc - and you will be suprised to hear HOW MANY of these head scientists blow the hole schizophrenia induced by cannabis out of the water. so many years of the media and pharmaceuticals telling you why its bad - youve been fed a lot of lies.
What if Cannabis Cured Cancer explains how we are all born with a form of marijuana already in our bodies, and when pot is consumed, the endocannabinoids inside us, along with any cannabinoids we ingest, fit together like a key in a lock.
Thereby promoting the death of cancer cells without harming the body’s healthy cells.
small clip
http://youtu.be/pnP8IugJCHM
-
Sorry m80, my dissertation was on the link between cannabis and schizophrenia. I do know a little about it.
It is reasonably well established that cannabis use can be a causal factor in later development of psychoses. It is, however, considered a 'constellation cause' - one which needs other factors (genetic predilection, early onset of use) to develop into psychosis.
Out of curiosity - what did you study? and could you post any points/sections from your Dissertation that would be relevent here?
-
Sorry m80, my dissertation was on the link between cannabis and schizophrenia. I do know a little about it.
It is reasonably well established that cannabis use can be a causal factor in later development of psychoses. It is, however, considered a 'constellation cause' - one which needs other factors (genetic predilection, early onset of use) to develop into psychosis.
Your wordings a bit weird, so to clarify you're saying that taking cannabis can cause you to later develop psychosis?? It only accelerates it if you were already going to get it. Cannabis isn't anywhere near potent enough to do the damage necessary to develop psychosis or schizophrenia.
-
Your wordings a bit weird, so to clarify you're saying that taking cannabis can cause you to later develop psychosis?? It only accelerates it if you were already going to get it. Cannabis isn't anywhere near potent enough to do the damage necessary to develop psychosis or schizophrenia.
What do you mean his wording is weird?
made perfect sense to me....
-
Well it was only a two semester honours thingy (in psychology), so I wouldn't draw any strong conclusions from it here, except for that a majority of 100-level psyc students have used cannabis.
People who have ever used cannabis are about 1.5 times more likely to develop psychosis (though it's obviously quite difficult to establish causality). This effect is dose-dependent; people who have used more than 50 times are about 2.9 times more likely to develop schizophrenia.
More relevant studies include this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC135493/) (using a NZ cohort, no less), where it was found that, controlling for psychotic symptoms at age 11, cannabis use still predicted increased psychotic outcomes.
Also this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11606002) (can't find a free link unfortunately), where it was found that cannabis use interacted with genetic liability for schizophrenia, disproportionately affecting those at high-risk for psychosis (defined as having two or more first- or second-degree relatives with schizophrenia) compared to typical controls. These high-risk individuals were 6-7 times more likely to develop psychosis (compare with the numbers for general population).
Of course, schizophrenia is very uncommon (lifetime prevalence ~0.5%), so none of this means that these individuals become likely to develop schizophrenia. The chances are very small regardless.
Take home points are:
- There is an established link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, and that it almost certainly goes cannabis -> schizophrenia.
- Differences between individuals moderate the relationship, elevated risk occurs where an individual starts using during adolescence, or when they have a family history of psychosis.
So liek look at how smart I am or whatever.
-
Your wordings a bit weird, so to clarify you're saying that taking cannabis can cause you to later develop psychosis?? It only accelerates it if you were already going to get it. Cannabis isn't anywhere near potent enough to do the damage necessary to develop psychosis or schizophrenia.
My apologies. Please tell me more.
-
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mattnz again.
-
We are all a little crazy and most people have smokem de peace pipe at some stage in their life. Good luck with the thread, if it was legal I would grow a few plants for personal viewing and smelling, not smoking.
-
So why is it so difficult to get your hands on hemp based food products?
[h=2]Hemp seed oil is the only legal hemp product in New Zealand[/h] Under the Food (Safety) Regulations, it is not legal to sell any hemp-derived product other than hemp seed oil as a food or added to a food. Hemp related products that cannot be sold for food or added to food products in New Zealand include:
- whole hemp seed
- hemp seed nut
- hemp seed protein
-
Take home points are:
- There is an established link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, and that it almost certainly goes cannabis -> schizophrenia.
Repeating myself, but cannabis isn't strong enough to cause schizophrenia or psychosis, and you're phrasing it as if it is. It only adds to the process of developing it if you were already going to end up with it.
You're right in saying it has a more significant effect on younger people.
-
Repeating myself, but cannabis isn't strong enough to cause schizophrenia or psychosis, and you're phrasing it as if it is.
Do you have a reputable study backing this? If so I'd genuinely quite like to read it. The later of your statement; I do believe that so have excluded it from the quotation.
-
To begin with, there are zero 'reputable', as you call them, studies that prove cannabis can act as a cause (or anything more than an acceleration) of psychosis. So even claiming that to begin with is either a lot of guess work, assumption, supposed logical probability, or a lie that is (frequently) used by the media to scare people and certain people choose to believe- Hah reminds me of christianity.
There is however, the fact that during the cannabis epidemic period (1960-1970) in the West the rate of schizophrenia flat lined or even declined.
The first time I smoked marijuana was white rhino with a lung. Since then I've smoked some bad stuff, and some really really good stuff. Nothing induced by any quantity of marijuana will even resemble paranoia experienced by sufferers of psychosis.
And even that white rhino in a lung isn't one tenth powerful enough to damage the brain into a state of permanent psychosis. Smoking it regularly, that way, every day, wont give you psychosis. Not that I'd ever advise it. You'd fuck yourself really bad, but you wouldn't develop psychosis.
-
To begin with, there are zero 'reputable', as you call them, studies that prove cannabis can act as a cause (or anything more than an acceleration) of psychosis. So even claiming that to begin with is either a lot of guess work, assumption, supposed logical probability, or a lie that is (frequently) used by the media to scare people and certain people choose to believe- Hah reminds me of christianity.
There is however, the fact that during the cannabis epidemic period (1960-1970) in the West the rate of schizophrenia flat lined or even declined.
The first time I smoked marijuana was white rhino with a lung. Since then I've smoked some bad stuff, and some really really good stuff. Nothing induced by any quantity of marijuana will even resemble paranoia experienced by sufferers of psychosis.
And even that white rhino in a lung isn't one tenth powerful enough to damage the brain into a state of permanent psychosis. Smoking it regularly, that way, every day, wont give you psychosis. Not that I'd ever advise it. You'd fuck yourself really bad, but you wouldn't develop psychosis.
Links to Studies/Experiments/facts Plz
-
Links to Studies/Experiments/facts Plz
http://www.fuckimstoned.com/
-
To begin with, there are zero 'reputable', as you call them, studies that prove cannabis can act as a cause (or anything more than an acceleration) of psychosis. So even claiming that to begin with is either a lot of guess work, assumption, supposed logical probability, or a lie that is (frequently) used by the media to scare people and certain people choose to believe- Hah reminds me of christianity.
There is however, the fact that during the cannabis epidemic period (1960-1970) in the West the rate of schizophrenia flat lined or even declined.
The first time I smoked marijuana was white rhino with a lung. Since then I've smoked some bad stuff, and some really really good stuff. Nothing induced by any quantity of marijuana will even resemble paranoia experienced by sufferers of psychosis.
And even that white rhino in a lung isn't one tenth powerful enough to damage the brain into a state of permanent psychosis. Smoking it regularly, that way, every day, wont give you psychosis. Not that I'd ever advise it. You'd fuck yourself really bad, but you wouldn't develop psychosis.
Wow, stop the fuckin press, virt has some subjective evidence from personal experience.
Spoiler alert: You do not know more about this subject than me. Continuing to believe that you do is incredibly arrogant.
We're not even talking about acute cannabis induced psychosis here, so I don't know why you're jumping on that. Cannabis use is a psychosis risk factor that accumulates in a dose-dependent fashion over many years. There is some anecdotal evidence of acute psychosis induced by cannabis, but the state is generally transitory, and regardless it is a very difficult phenomenon to observe ethically.
-
I've smoked a cigarette and am yet to get cancer, therefore nobody gets cancer from smoking. /oddball logic.
-
I've smoked a cigarette and am yet to get cancer, therefore nobody gets cancer from smoking. /oddball logic.
I saw Boobies once and didn't get an Erection, therefore I must be ga...
Wait, What?
-
To begin with, there are zero 'reputable', as you call them, studies that prove cannabis can act as a cause (or anything more than an acceleration) of psychosis. So even claiming that to begin with is either a lot of guess work, assumption, supposed logical probability, or a lie that is (frequently) used by the media to scare people and certain people choose to believe- Hah reminds me of christianity.
You don't know my definition of reputable in this context, so using that as an argument is invalid. To make it easier for you; Link ANYTHING to support your previous statements. I don't care if its a comic, I would quite like to have a look at it.
There is however, the fact that during the cannabis epidemic period (1960-1970) in the West the rate of schizophrenia flat lined or even declined.
Footnote plz?
-
edit: missed replies
-
People who have ever used cannabis are about 1.5 times more likely to develop psychosis (though it's obviously quite difficult to establish causality). This effect is dose-dependent; people who have used more than 50 times are about 2.9 times more likely to develop schizophrenia.
I think it is widely accepted that cannabis use in adolescents can attribute to psychosis. The brain is developing, it is hardly familiar with reality at that stage so it is fair to assume that distorting reality with psychoactive substances is going to have a detrimental effect. I think you'll probably find that this is true any psychoactive substance that is used in adolescence.
I find this to be a weak argument against decriminalisation. And to counter with another weak argument, minors are prohibited to use alcohol and tobacco. One could assume that if cannabis was decriminalised or legalised then the regulations that are put in place to restrict access to cannabis would be equally as effective as those for tobacco or alcohol.
I think that if you are going to ban a substance because a small percentage of the users, who are already genetically predisposed to psychosis, suffer a disproportionate onset of psychosis when compared to non-users then you are pandering to the minority. I'm sure there are people that are genetically predisposed to liver failure as well.
Mind you, people with liver failure don't go postal. Hmmm...
Spoiler alert: You do not know more about this subject than me. Continuing to believe that you do is incredibly arrogant.
That works both ways you know.
I saw Boobies once and didn't get an Erection, therefore I must be ga...
Wait, What?
No it means you're impotent :-P
-
Wow, stop the fuckin press, virt has some subjective evidence from personal experience.
Spoiler alert: You do not know more about this subject than me. Continuing to believe that you do is incredibly arrogant.
We're not even talking about acute cannabis induced psychosis here, so I don't know why you're jumping on that. Cannabis use is a psychosis risk factor that accumulates in a dose-dependent fashion over many years. There is some anecdotal evidence of acute psychosis induced by cannabis, but the state is generally transitory, and regardless it is a very difficult phenomenon to observe ethically.
Ok, first of all, you have no idea what I know, but I know what you know because you've told us your so called 'education' into it, which as far as I'm concerned, doesn't even give you the right to comment on what psychosis IS, let alone any cause of it. The fact is you don't have the education or experience to know anything actually useful to anyone about it. And if you knew how strong psychosis is, you wouldn't even entertain the idea that something as weak as weed can cause it. For all you know I could have full blown psychosis or a fucking phd. Or both!
You can't ask me to provide evidence that cannabis doesn't cause psychosis when no proven evidence exists that it does. You're the one trying to say it does, so prove it - if you can. There are fake studies out there, I'm sure you'll try and link them. If I tell you there's a clown hiding in the moon, I'd have to provide evidence, not the other way around - and people seem to want it 'the other way around'.
-
Except for the fact you've made reference to the fact you've devoted your attentions to design / photography in other threads, and the trends across a few years of posting in here would suggest you don't have a PHD in psychology.
As far as psychosis goes, there's good evidence you might suffer from it, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a very good understanding of its causes. If anything, it suggests to me that you're probably the worst person to listen to about this subject.
Mattnz has a reputation for abrasive, informative and empirical posts - in addition to the provision of citations and some referencing, his opinion weighs in here a bit better than yours.
Come back with some evidence and someone might be foolish enough to take you srsly bra.
-
Ok, first of all, you have no idea what I know, but I know what you know because you've told us your so called 'education' into it, which as far as I'm concerned, doesn't even give you the right to comment on what psychosis IS, let alone any cause of it. The fact is you don't have the education or experience to know anything actually useful to anyone about it. And if you knew how strong psychosis is, you wouldn't even entertain the idea that something as weak as weed can cause it. For all you know I could have full blown psychosis or a fucking phd. Or both!
You can't ask me to provide evidence that cannabis doesn't cause psychosis when no proven evidence exists that it does. You're the one trying to say it does, so prove it - if you can. There are fake studies out there, I'm sure you'll try and link them. If I tell you there's a clown hiding in the moon, I'd have to provide evidence, not the other way around - and people seem to want it 'the other way around'.
"That which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without Evidence"
Seems to be what you are saying, however there were 2 links that were presented indicating that cannabis can be a factor in Psychosis if other factors are present (or at least if I read it correctly thats what I got)
ie it could be dumbed down that cannabis is the straw that broke the camels back as opposed to the sole cause.
so far, I haven't seen you post a link to any study, any reference, any facts, any statistics - Anything in fact that would help back up your claims - all I do see is you saying 'You don't know ...." and "I know... " which unfortunately doesn't hold a lot of Weight.
So:
Link up or Shut Up
-
For all you know I could have full blown psychosis or a fucking phd. Or both!
You would be NZ's youngest recipient of a PHd if that were the case.
Alas you are not. I know this because a good friend of mine holds that title.
-
How old is you're friend?
-
How old is you're friend?
Don't listen to me. I got that wrong. I mixed up PHd and doctorate.
Have deleted post.
-
Ok, first of all, you have no idea what I know, but I know what you know because you've told us your so called 'education' into it, which as far as I'm concerned, doesn't even give you the right to comment on what psychosis IS, let alone any cause of it. The fact is you don't have the education or experience to know anything actually useful to anyone about it. And if you knew how strong psychosis is, you wouldn't even entertain the idea that something as weak as weed can cause it. For all you know I could have full blown psychosis or a fucking phd. Or both!
You can't ask me to provide evidence that cannabis doesn't cause psychosis when no proven evidence exists that it does. You're the one trying to say it does, so prove it - if you can. There are fake studies out there, I'm sure you'll try and link them. If I tell you there's a clown hiding in the moon, I'd have to provide evidence, not the other way around - and people seem to want it 'the other way around'.
Oh fuck. Really? Is that how science works? Thanks for the info.
Not to mention that I did present you with sound scientific evidence from reputable publications, and you seem convinced that you have successfully disproved my view by talking out your arse about what you think has happened to you.
And so sorry, I forgot you know everything.
Just for extra irony points:
Hah reminds me of christianity.
-
Not worth it mattnz, he can never back anything up, always treats it as a 'win-lose' competiton, will start calling everyone idiots and think you are fighting him.
Actually, carry on please I need a laugh ;)
-
(http://justgiving.typepad.com/justgivings_blog/images/fish.jpg)
-
Don't listen to me. I got that wrong. I mixed up PHd and doctorate.
Have deleted post.
PhD is a Doctorate
-
Play nice children.
Oddball, all you offer is opinion. You should realise this. Your experience is not infallible. And neither is your opinion. So you don't have to be so offended if someone contradicts it. Blanket statements about there not being any credible evidence regarding this subject is just silly.
Matt, studies have been wrong. But being science you realise this.
Growler, are you cyber stalking again?
-
PhD is a Doctorate
It is?
You learn something everyday.
-
I stole all you bacons.
-
I stole all you bacons.
I don't think you did.
A man stealing another man's bacon is frowned upon.
GO MUCH ON A CELERY STICK YOU QUIVERING COCK-HOLSTER.
-
can't, eating bacon.
-
Bacon is always the right answer.
You pass.
-
Play nice children.
Oddball, all you offer is opinion. You should realise this. Your experience is not infallible. And neither is your opinion. So you don't have to be so offended if someone contradicts it. Blanket statements about there not being any credible evidence regarding this subject is just silly.
Matt, studies have been wrong. But being science you realise this.
Growler, are you cyber stalking again?
This is true, and I have no problem being convinced by other well-conducted studies.
This area of research is relatively young, and the variables being investigated are so hazy, it is actually not that hard to come up with reasoned arguments (and perhaps even a few papers) that go against what I'm saying.
@oddball Sorry for assuming that I know more about it than you, it's just that in my opinion you come across as reasonably uninformed (from a scientific perspective). Surely you can see why my argument is a whole lot stronger than yours?
-
@oddball Sorry for assuming that I know more about it than you, it's just that in my opinion you come across as reasonably uninformed (from a scientific perspective). Surely you can see why my argument is a whole lot stronger than yours?
Think he'll go with reasoning?
(http://us13.memecdn.com/bitch-please_o_112189.jpg)
inb4 attack
-
Anyone want a cone?
DISCLAIMER: MAY INDUCE EXTREME INSTANTANEOUS IRREVERSIBLE PSYCHOSIS
-
Just a little one for me, I like my insanity mild
-
Spots.Go hard or go home, or pass out, or fetal position in the corner, or hit the pantry ,or crack yourself up ,or go to bed ,or talk to god ,or......
-
post on GetSome ?
-
Everybody thinks I'm strange.
I'm so alone.
Pretty sure that shit was laced.
-
Try mowing your lawns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxee1uO3hTE
-
and the variables being investigated are so hazy,
(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/24/128773320621554837.jpg)
-
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/250/007/672.jpg)
-
According to this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/05/07/151936266/wired-to-run-runners-high-may-have-been-evolutionary-advantage?sc=ipad&f=1001) exercise releases natural cannabinoids. Not that it would actually condone the use of artificial cannabinoid stimulants any more than heroine is condoned by the bodies natural ability to release opiates during periods of extreme trauma.
-
How long until governments outlaw exercise?
-
How long until governments outlaw exercise?
Well if you look at America, it looks like they already have :D :D
-
(http://iforce.co.nz/i/xwqendo2.ggp.png )
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKgY5eOlhEc
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92vLlOSoBQ&feature=related
-
This is a bit shocking, although I'd have to hear the other side of the story as well. Seems like slavery.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html
-
Add one more data point to the decades-old debate over marijuana legalization: A new study concludes that casual pot smoking - up to one joint per day - does not affect the functioning of your lungs.
The study, published in the Jan. 11 edition of Journal of the American Medical Association, also offered up a nugget that likely will surprise many: Evidence points to slight increases in lung airflow rates and increases in lung volume from occasional marijuana use.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57356548/study-no-lung-danger-from-casual-pot-smoking/
-
Is that including the smoke which goes along with the joint? Just curious as I would think that any amount of smoking would be bad for you.
-
Yes.
The results are a bit strange though. Might be an issue with sampling or operationalisation of drug use.
-
Is that including the smoke which goes along with the joint? Just curious as I would think that any amount of smoking would be bad for you.
I would imagine this is true also, but when comparing smoking and toking it is a safe assumption that the later will involve consuming a lesser volume of smoke. I also imagine performing any accurate study on this would be difficult considering small sample sizes.
-
True, but as I said, any smoke is bad smoke. I am not at all saying that smoking a bit of ye ole kush is a bad thing, apart from the smoke I've heard that it only does good things for you, as long as you aren't a psycho to begin with. I have heard that you can ingest marijuana through a vaporizer, which is obviously a lot healthier anyway, and gets you a lot higher. If I ever did want to smoke marijuana then that is the way I would go, I've even heard that there are 'vapes' as small as your hand, which you can charge up and carry around with you.
-
Yes inhaling via a vaporiser would be better, i imagine this would be similar to a e-cigarette with a THC compound suspended in glycol. You could also ingest, i'm sure there are hundreds of recipes using it. But then I imagine that smoking it would be the generally preferred method because a) little preparation and b) its a social and cultural thing as well - sharing a joint, giving a shotty, or whatever.
-
(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh59/kilabee_photo/4152532_460s.jpg)
-
I have heard that you can ingest marijuana through a vaporizer, which is obviously a lot healthier anyway, and gets you a lot higher. If I ever did want to smoke marijuana then that is the way I would go, I've even heard that there are 'vapes' as small as your hand, which you can charge up and carry around with you.
The smoke also smells like pop corn / garlic. (My brother had one)
my 2c
-
The problem with the smoke smelling like popcorn is that it makes munchies necessary a lot quicker.
-
mmmmmmmmm popcorn
-
Is that including the smoke which goes along with the joint? Just curious as I would think that any amount of smoking would be bad for you.
Yes it does. We certainly have a notion that 'any form of smoking is bad' from the chemicals present in tobacco, and smoking anything certainly isn't 'good' for your health. However what seems to be the case is that the chemicals in Cannabis have a protecting effect on tissue, even if the smoke itself (and burnt plant matter carried in it) causes irritation.
The study was very large (~5000 subjects) and over a period of 20 years so the findings are very robust. It should be stressed that the results were for 'casual' smoking as opposed to heavy, chronic smoking which can lead a range of other issues (i.e. if you're stoned all day everyday, your life is hardly going to be very productive and you may suffer health problems)
This just goes to re-enforce the idea that it is better to say there 'problem patterns of use' rather 'problem substances' par se- You drink too much? Not good, You eat too much? Not good. You smoke too much? Not good.
-
Everything in moderation.
Except for alcohol, in this country.
-
Everything in moderation.
Except for alcohol, in this country.
There are certainly things that we could do better to reduce the harms associated with Alcohol over-use. However, one of those things isn't criminalising people that drink, people that sell it or people that manufacturer it (as is currently the case with Cannabis).
-
There are certainly things that we could do better to reduce the harms associated with Alcohol over-use. However, one of those things isn't criminalising people that drink, people that sell it or people that manufacturer it (as is currently the case with Cannabis).
You mean that we should let the general public self-regulate themselves in terms of their drug habits?!?
THERE WILL BE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS I SAY! ANARCHY!!!
-
You mean that we should let the general public self-regulate themselves in terms of their drug habits?!?
THERE WILL BE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS I SAY! ANARCHY!!!
Nah he's saying that the current regulations for two substances with similar negative properties are inconsistent.
-
inconsistent.
Goes hand in hand with the words Government and politicians.
-
Goes hand in hand with the words Government and politicians.
That's some cutting-edge political commentary.
-
You're not a political commentator, bro.
-
Hmmm, I'm not sure where I said I was....
-
The truest definition of an idiot is someone who is ignorant to the point of incapable of participating in civic and political affairs.
-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8292ebd3/article/brown-at-least-50-percent-of-nfl-players-smoke-pot?module=HP11_headline_stack
In Brown's eyes, this is actually an improvement. Brown claims up to 90 percent of players league-wide smoked marijuana when he began his career with the Lions in 1985.
-
So if Marijuana is a "gateway drug" then what are cigarettes and alcohol? The front door?
-
Milk is the real menace in our societies....think of the children!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGoMGIkhRpw&feature=youtu.be
-
(http://i.imgur.com/yY60y.jpg)
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/jon-stewart-tries-to-figure-out-what-he-s-allowed-to-put-in-his-mouth?xrs=eml_tds
looks like New York is going to have a bill that decriminalises pot - up to 25 grams
-
This is us!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815874
-
Fucking dam straight son, puff puff give :P lol
-
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/jon-stewart-tries-to-figure-out-what-he-s-allowed-to-put-in-his-mouth?xrs=eml_tds[/url]
looks like New York is going to have a bill that decriminalises pot - up to 25 grams
Gosh he did that so well.
-
long time no see peeps!
so last friday arvo over work drinks this very topic came up, i sat back and listened to the opinions and judgements being laid out and in particular paid spectacular attention to one colleague who was saying pot smokers were useless etc you know the typical rant.. so i let her finish and pipe up with the whole - hey mate, i have smoked weed every day for 20 years now, i am a functioning stoner who has successfully climbed up the corporate ladder, i am well educated etc etc, she was so horrified at my honesty and even more so when i said Head of IT at work - stoner; Operations Manager - Stoner; National Sales Manager - stoner. It was quite priceless really seeing her jaw drop at being shown that these stoner stories portrayed so badly by the media weren't completely true. I think i may have just changed her mind
@munchie: hemp and cannabis are two different things so irrespective of whether cannabis is legalized or decriminalized there is opportunity for the hemp industry to boom.
-
Depends on the person too, I've mates holding down good jobs that puff it, and others that smoke it and can't hold down a job or do anything productive.
-
Depends on the person too, I've mates holding down good jobs that puff it, and others that smoke it and hold down a job or do anything productive.
I read this and conclude you're a stoner.
-
(http://i.minus.com/iPdo51IZZ2Z2P.gif)
-
So this new law brought in by Peter Dunn works like this right- Only substances that are proven 'safe' are legal. Therefore, legal substances are proven safe.
Since Alcohol meets the criteria for being 'safe' (since it's legal) and other substances more safe than this are legal or if not legal, have a strong case for being made legal.
So who wants to put Cannabis in a fancy wrapper and get it approved? Ecstasy? LSD? Magic mushrooms etc?.....all drugs which are safer than the drug Alcohol
-
i cant believe im gonna say this but i tried that fake shit the other day - far out never again. was just curious didnt like it at all. i have smoked a lot of weed over the years but i have never felt so sick and not in control. fuck that ill stick with the natural shit.
-
Yea, I've never tried it before, but everything I have heard of it has said that its 100x worse than the good urb.
-
Weed is for stoners.
-
So this new law brought in by Peter Dunn works like this right- Only substances that are proven 'safe' are legal. Therefore, legal substances are proven safe.
Since Alcohol meets the criteria for being 'safe' (since it's legal) and other substances more safe than this are legal or if not legal, have a strong case for being made legal.
So who wants to put Cannabis in a fancy wrapper and get it approved? Ecstasy? LSD? Magic mushrooms etc?.....all drugs which are safer than the drug Alcohol
Just because you say it's safer doesn't mean it is.
Now go and find all those studies which claim that Cannabis is safer then Alcohol.
-
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/abstract
-
Just because you say it's safer doesn't mean it is.
Now go and find all those studies which claim that Cannabis is safer then Alcohol.
You are correct, just because I say it's safer does not mean it is.....but, it is.
-
lets all live in sterile bubbles!
-
lets all smoke in sterile bubbles!
fixed.
-
fixed.
What are we Cavemen?!? Vaporizers :eagerness:
-
All I know is that many of my mates back from highschool were talented, social, exciting - Had everything going for them
They found weed and now all they do is fuck around all day, no job, have very little going for them and have next to no motivation of changing.
For me that is enough to stay away from it and it's enough for me to support not making it legal.
No scientific link and I'm in no way qualified to back up my opinion but there's no way I want people getting easier access to it.
I'm in no way saying that all stoners are low lifes who have no job etc etc. These mates of mine could have turned out the same way for all I know.
I think I'm just still mad that they invaded my fucking pantry.
-
I think I'm just still mad that they invaded my fucking pantry.
This is the biggest risk of smoking the urb.
-
Alongside an increased propensity to say things like 'urb' and generally sound like an imbecile.
-
All I know is that many of my mates back from highschool were talented, social, exciting - Had everything going for them
They found weed and now all they do is $#@! around all day, no job, have very little going for them and have next to no motivation of changing.
Anecdotally speaking, all of my friends who used marijuana (myself included) have done very well. Regardless, we shouldn't look at the anecdotal opinions but rather at the current scientific evidence which currently points to marijuana being a relatively safe and low-risk substance. The big question I find myself asking is why isn't our drug policies based on the findings of such research? Then I remember we have a government who prefer to ignore scientific evidence and choose instead to follow ideology. Sigh... :dispirited:
-
All I know is that many of my mates back from highschool were talented, social, exciting - Had everything going for them
They found weed and now all they do is fuck around all day, no job, have very little going for them and have next to no motivation of changing.
For me that is enough to stay away from it and it's enough for me to support not making it legal.
No scientific link and I'm in no way qualified to back up my opinion but there's no way I want people getting easier access to it.
I'm in no way saying that all stoners are low lifes who have no job etc etc. These mates of mine could have turned out the same way for all I know.
I think I'm just still mad that they invaded my fucking pantry.
I know what you mean - I had a couple of mates from Highschool exactly the same but on the flip side, I also know people that smoke socially/responsibly and have turned out to be completely awesome people, with careers and drive in life.
Does the Drug make the person change - maybe. is it a particular personality trait/type that makes some people pre-disposed to sedantry when they discover weed - maybe. but I don't feel that is an arguement against responsible use.
-
What Demon said is very true - at least in my opinion, some people are more likely to bum out if they smoke too much of it, but I don't see why 'idiots' should define the law.
-
Spork's situation is different because he's an Australian, but domestically I don't see the law as being defined by idiots, so much as acting as a preventative measure to stymie proliferation of cannabis usage (namely, by idiots).
It's evident New Zealand has heavy cannabis use, by criminalizing it, people are forced to be subtle with it or suffer the consequences.
The main reason I'm not a proponent of reform in this area (despite having historically indulged in cannabis use) is that it simply isn't required for sensible users.
There are those who would be annoyed with the idea that they should have to flout the laws to enjoy what is considered a relatively benign drug - but most people are criminals in one sense or another.
The justice / cost-of-enforcement side of things is a bit trickier, but this doesn't necessarily require a legislative change so much as a diversion of policy direction within the police - and I think they're best equipped to decide whether or not this needs to happen and when.
The fact is, in New Zealand, you have to be very careless / stupid or particularly unlucky to be charged with possession. For those who enjoy cannabis in a responsible manner, at home, it is almost impossible to get caught (unless there's per-mitigating circumstances).
I would hazard a guess that where people are going to court with a Possession charge, they're also up on other charges. I would also guess that a POC conviction in isolation is not particularly damaging to someone who uses cannabis - other than the travel restrictions which may be imposed thereafter, but this is the risk you take when you decide to indulge.
-
the 2 main reasons I am in favour of a law change is this:
if I were to buy my Marijuana fix - I would like to go to a reputable business and buy good quality product. Its one of the things that always annoyed me - if you want to buy, you would have to associated with the lower rungs of society and there was never any guarantees about quality.
even though I would enjoy it responsibly either at my home or in a social context - there is still a risk (albeit very small) of getting caught. admitedly it would be unlikely to come to anything other than a lecture and confiscation but it is more a case that this is a hassle I don't want to deal with.
I hear your arguement about the police diverting attention away from it rather than changing the law - the problem with this is that atm with NZ and its drug structure - Cannabis is often sold and manufactured by people who have ties to other substances. Generally it is used as a way of limiting the distribution of harder drugs by taking out participants on an easy to prove charge rather than spending the time and effort to go for the bigger fish.
-
Fair points, but again the conservative in me is, as yet, unconvinced that reform is required. The status quo has served me well enough over the years that I've not been prompted to seek change.
If I had bothered to check the facts, this would probably change. But in my experience, there's nothing too fucked about our law in this area.
-
Fair points, but again the conservative in me is, as yet, unconvinced that reform is required. The status quo has served me well enough over the years that I've not been prompted to seek change.
If I had bothered to check the facts, this would probably change. But in my experience, there's nothing too $#@!ed about our law in this area.
I disagree. Reform IS required as currently if you are charged with possession/use of marijuana it can result in seriously damage your career and future career prospects. I support legalization, but would happily settle for decriminalization of marijuana use/possession/growing. I believe it should be viewed as a health issue rather than a justice issue, as punitive measures means everyone ultimately loses. For all I care they could keep small 'token' fines for people caught with it as long as there are no long-term repercussions: Read criminal record.
This is the silliest thing about it all.
-
Hori would you be happy to have alcohol made illegal? I see a massive reason for change based on your views.
Government views on this are backwards and hypocritical! Why one substance is illegal and a more problematic drug is not? And what winds me up more is peoples perception towards it, purely on the fact that it is illegal. As far as I'm concerned it is ridiculous to have one over others for no logical reason aside from profit, what do you think would happen if alcohol was illegal? The gangs would be the ones pushing that too, and also I think most criminals consume alcohol!
What makes an alcohol drinker any better than a pot smoker? Absolutely nothing! They are both mind altering depressants. If you were to look at the statistics of alcohol related incidents compared to cannabis, only logic would prevail, and I don't mean charges of cannabis use, possession and sale, I mean the incidents under influence such as assaults, deaths, injuries, drink driving causing death or injury,etc.
The status quo is a joke and makes no sense!
-
Hori would you be happy to have alcohol made illegal? I see a massive reason for change based on your views.
Government views on this are backwards and hypocritical! Why one substance is illegal and a more problematic drug is not? And what winds me up more is peoples perception towards it, purely on the fact that it is illegal. As far as I'm concerned it is ridiculous to have one over others for no logical reason aside from profit, what do you think would happen if alcohol was illegal? The gangs would be the ones pushing that too, and also I think most criminals consume alcohol!
What makes an alcohol drinker any better than a pot smoker? Absolutely nothing! They are both mind altering depressants. If you were to look at the statistics of alcohol related incidents compared to cannabis, only logic would prevail, and I don't mean charges of cannabis use, possession and sale, I mean the incidents under influence such as assaults, deaths, injuries, drink driving causing death or injury,etc.
The status quo is a joke and makes no sense!
I think you underestimate my radicalism toward alcohol.
I don't think either substance is better than the other, mind you. What I'm saying, is that there is a convention in place - and as yet there is not (in my mind) an overwhelming stack of reasons to overturn this convention (I'd prefer some alteration - i.e. the policy direction I mentioned in previous post).
I don't think it makes sense to say 'alcohol is more benign than cannabis and that is why it is legal (vice versa)', but rather 'both aren't something the state should encourage use of, we already dropped the ball with alcohol, we shouldn't extend our shortcomings in paternalism to cannabis also'.
This isn't a wholely authoritarian view, because as I mentioned earlier, the individual can still use cannabis quite easily if they do so in a manner which isn't obtuse.
What criminalization of cannabis has done, I would argue, is not stain every user with a criminal conviction - but rather, it has set a standard for society which says 'we do not tolerate this drug being used openly and publicly.... however if you're subtle about it you're sweet'.
I would be willing to change my mind depending on the statistics for POC charges and convictions, but I've a feeling my gut instinct isn't too far off.
The caveat of this idea is that it leaves a lot of discretion with the Police - which can be dangerous.
EDIT:
Just to be clear, this is an explanation as to why I'm not marching in the street for cannabis law reform. It's not a comprehensive approach to reform itself, it's simply my understanding and feeling towards the current framework. If I could redesign the policy from scratch, I'd probably take a pragmatic approach rather than a paternalistic one. But as I've said, I'm just not that outraged about how things are currently (and this is coming from someone who has used cannabis). If I get arrested, charged and convicted of POC while using it in my backyard, then I'll be prompted to act.
-
Just because you say it's safer doesn't mean it is.
Now go and find all those studies which claim that Cannabis is safer then Alcohol.
*Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.
*People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year
*Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and violent behavior. Marijuana use does not. Studies have repeatedly shown that alcohol, unlike marijuana, contributes to the likelihood of aggessive and violent behavior. An article published in the Journal of Addictive Behaviors reported that "alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship," whereas "cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication
* Clinical trials conducted by the American Marijuana Policy Project, have shown the efficacy of cannabis as a treatment for cancer and AIDS patients, who often suffer from clinical depression, and from nausea and resulting weight loss due to chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments
*Glaucoma, a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight, can be treated with medical marijuana to decrease this intraocular pressure
*Medical cannabis is also used for analgesia, or pain relief. It is also reported to be beneficial for treating certain neurological illnesses such as epilepsy, and bipolar disorder. Case reports have found that Cannabis can relieve tics in people with obsessive compulsive disorder and Tourette syndrome. Patients treated with tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive chemical found in Cannabis, reported a significant decrease in both motor and vocal tics, some of 50% or more. Some decrease in obsessive-compulsive behavior was also found. A recent study has also concluded that cannabinoids found in Cannabis might have the ability to prevent Alzheimer's disease.THC has been shown to reduce arterial blockages
*Cannabis is frequently reported to reduce the muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis; this has been acknowledged by the Institute of Medicine.
*Jack Herer, a sativa-dominant strain, is effective in relieving anxiety, nervousness, stress and depression. It is also viewed as a motivational medicine, stimulating energy, creativity and concentration
*Cannabis is one of the 50 "fundamental" herbs of traditional Chinese medicine
*Research done by the Scripps Research Institute in California shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, prevents the formation of deposits in the brain associated with Alzheimer's disease. THC was found to prevent an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase from accelerating the formation of "Alzheimer plaques" in the brain more effectively than commercially marketed drugs
*According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body
All I know is that many of my mates back from highschool were talented, social, exciting - Had everything going for them
They found weed and now all they do is fuck around all day, no job, have very little going for them and have next to no motivation of changing.
For me that is enough to stay away from it and it's enough for me to support not making it legal.
No scientific link and I'm in no way qualified to back up my opinion but there's no way I want people getting easier access to it.
I'm in no way saying that all stoners are low lifes who have no job etc etc. These mates of mine could have turned out the same way for all I know.
I think I'm just still mad that they invaded my fucking pantry.
Me too - for most its just a phase but there are some that get trapped into the smoking on hay lifestyle - its what the wannabe gangstas etc show you stoners are. I hope they grow out of it soon.
Seriously Watch What if Cannabis Cured Cancer then continue this conversation - it really is a great watch
-
Me too - for most its just a phase but there are some that get trapped into the smoking on hay lifestyle - its what the wannabe gangstas etc show you stoners are. I hope they grow out of it soon.
Seriously Watch What if Cannabis Cured Cancer then continue this conversation - it really is a great watch
A lot of conjecture aka 'Guess work', but quite an interesting watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMt83_IWkE
-
Nobody dies from marijuana use.
That's quite a bold statement, it's possible that some deaths have had either cannabis involved as a factor or cause but were attributed to something else. E.g. Impaired driving through heavy cannabis usage before/while driving. Cause of death may still be certified as Motor Vehicle Crash.
Where did this information come from fairy?
However, there's no denying that alcohol abuse costs us a hellova lot.
Such as here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7334460/Twins-birthday-bash-turns-to-chaos/
(I lol'd at the quote "My mate's missus got shot with rubber bullets." Where do you think you are? Northern Ireland?)
-
Alcohol has major social issues.
However, I don't agree with emphasing the negatives of one substance in order to make another one look better by comparison. This doesn't really achieve anything useful.
Cannabis has medical benefits, those are what need to be promoted.
-
That's quite a bold statement, it's possible that some deaths have had either cannabis involved as a factor or cause but were attributed to something else. E.g. Impaired driving through heavy cannabis usage before/while driving. Cause of death may still be certified as Motor Vehicle Crash.
Where did this information come from fairy?
However, there's no denying that alcohol abuse costs us a hellova lot.
Such as here:
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7334460/Twins-birthday-bash-turns-to-chaos/[/url]
(I lol'd at the quote "My mate's missus got shot with rubber bullets." Where do you think you are? Northern Ireland?)
I think she probably means nobody has died directly, whereas people die from alcohol overdose/withdrawal relatively frequently.
-
Absolute low of the low NZ Police. Really low. Really super sh*tty low. Entrap this guy who was genuinely trying to help this douche of a police man posing as someone with an ailment he didn't have...and then bust them.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7622721/Judge-dismisses-drug-plea
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7622721/Judge-dismisses-drug-plea
Boo hoo, if you want it to be legal, start the process!
Write to your MP, have folks sign petitions, crying about an undercover cop doing his job ain't gonna help except make you look whiney.
-
You have to admit, police whine about their workload & wasted resources in dealing with weed, but undercover officers for a small time 1 man bust. It's like getting the armed offenders squad to bust kids for graffitti.
-
Patients piping up about the chronic illnesses ruining their buzz. Doctors blazing new trails in medicinal marijuana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLlhQmDLazs
-
I have to admit. I found this article quite funny
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/9824183/Fewer-stoned-at-work (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/9824183/Fewer-stoned-at-work)
A lower percentage of New Zealanders tested at work last year were found with traces of illegal drugs in their system.
Private drug testing company New Zealand Drug Detection Agency (NZDDA) conducted 81,410 tests for drugs in New Zealand workplaces during 2013, with 5.5 per cent returning a non-negative test.
This was down on 6.4 per cent in 2012 when 68,346 tests were done.
A non-negative test means a drug was found in the person's urine and still had to be confirmed by an accredited laboratory for confirmation testing.
The most commonly detected drug was cannabis, with 71 per cent of all non-negative tests indicating its presence.
NZDDA chief executive Chris Hilson said it was pleasing to see a drop in the number of non-negative results.
"We believe this can be attributed to a number of factors including an increase in employee awareness regarding the dangers of drug and alcohol use in the workplace, and also understanding the potential for serious or fatal accidents," Hilson said.
"Also more random testing is a major deterrent factor within the workplace."
Cannabis was detected most frequently in "traditional" cannabis-growing areas such as Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and the North Island's East Cape, Hilson said.
Synthetic cannabis was tested for, for the first time this year.
They should randomly drug test Parliament staff, and by 'random' I mean 'continually. We may have our own Rob Ford hiding in the Beehive somewhere
-
There is some interesting information about the subject of Drug taking and Legal Drugs on the Legal Highs NZ webpage. Yeah, I didnt know such a thing existed either
http://www.legalhighs.co.nz/synthetic-cannabis/when-should-i-stop-smoking-legal-highs/2014 (http://www.legalhighs.co.nz/synthetic-cannabis/when-should-i-stop-smoking-legal-highs/2014)
So, how much is too much when it comes to smoking synthetic cannabis or taking legal highs?
Well the answer is pretty simple, if you are smoking EVERY DAY then you must question WHY?
What are your reasons for smoking every day?
If you answer YES to any of these questions below, it’s time to seek assistance or take a break from any drugs.
Do you take drugs including legal weed every day to feel normal?
Do you take drugs including legal weed every day to help you sleep?
Do you take drugs including legal weed every day to help you feel happy?
If you have answered YES to ANY of those three questions, then you MUST reassess your usage patterns.
-
I have to admit. I found this article quite funny
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/9824183/Fewer-stoned-at-work[/url] ([url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/9824183/Fewer-stoned-at-work[/url])
A lower percentage of New Zealanders tested at work last year were found with traces of illegal drugs in their system.
Private drug testing company New Zealand Drug Detection Agency (NZDDA) conducted 81,410 tests for drugs in New Zealand workplaces during 2013, with 5.5 per cent returning a non-negative test.
This was down on 6.4 per cent in 2012 when 68,346 tests were done.
A non-negative test means a drug was found in the person's urine and still had to be confirmed by an accredited laboratory for confirmation testing.
The most commonly detected drug was cannabis, with 71 per cent of all non-negative tests indicating its presence.
NZDDA chief executive Chris Hilson said it was pleasing to see a drop in the number of non-negative results.
"We believe this can be attributed to a number of factors including an increase in employee awareness regarding the dangers of drug and alcohol use in the workplace, and also understanding the potential for serious or fatal accidents," Hilson said.
"Also more random testing is a major deterrent factor within the workplace."
Cannabis was detected most frequently in "traditional" cannabis-growing areas such as Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and the North Island's East Cape, Hilson said.
Synthetic cannabis was tested for, for the first time this year.
They should randomly drug test Parliament staff, and by 'random' I mean 'continually. We may have our own Rob Ford hiding in the Beehive somewhere
Something to do with eating should be added to the list, or to feel "fine", in regards to being sick.
So many people take these and become addicted, then when they try to stop, their body makes them throw up and they lose all sense of hunger.
The idea of synthetic cannabanoids is great. You can't get drug tested, to have a nights worth of fun, which you can act responsibly, and by the end of the night, That's the end of it.
But synthetics, as they are, are nothing like that. While most feel fine on them, I for one, felt extremely sick (panic attacks, vomiting, major paranoia) after my 3rd time on them. And yes, that was just an experience that i've had, but I chose not to do them. The people that continued to do them, realised that enough was never enough. From doing a small hit on the first night, to going through a bag a night (2 grams for 20$), to smoking more than 2 grams/bags... I think the stuff would be fine in SERIOUS moderation, but as I see hundreds of people buying this stuff every week, I just know that no one does do it in moderation.
I don't even have a point to make, I'm just drunk and throwing my shit down, yo.
-
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/why-medias-fearmongering-marijuana-effects-brain-faulty (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/why-medias-fearmongering-marijuana-effects-brain-faulty)
Why the Media's Fearmongering on Marijuana Effects on the Brain Is Faulty
The mainstream media launched into a reefer mad frenzy this week after researchers from Harvard University in Boston and Northwestern University in Chicago published the results of a neuroimaging study assessing the brains of a small cohort of regular marijuana smokers and non-users. The brain scans identified various differences between the two groups in three aspects of brain morphometry: gray matter density, volume, and shape. These differences triggered dozens of high-profile media outlets to lose their collective minds. Here’s just a sample of the screaming headlines:
CNN: Casual marijuana use may damage your brain; Science Daily: More joints equal more damage; Financial Post: Study proves occasional marijuana use is mind altering; Time: Recreational pot use harmful to young people’s brains; Smoking cannabis will change you. That’s not a risk, its a certainty.
-
Shit study. Of course, half the problem is that while any jackass can get enough weed to blaze up, scientists have had to jump through so many hoops it's not been practical to run studies like this. And fuck anything interesting with anything harder than weed (unless it has military applications of course). Hopefully over time enough studies will be run that there will be some with half decent methadologies and then we can get some fucking shit did.
-
So it looks like the sale of synthetic cannabis will soon be illegal. It is amazing that $2 of fake electric puha can turn into $20, like magic
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/legal-high-makers-turned-1000-profit-5958399 (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/legal-high-makers-turned-1000-profit-5958399)
The legal-high industry made massive multimillion-dollar profits during the Government's brief fling with regulation.
In a rare insight into the legal-high industry, the Ministry of Health estimates the industry was making a 1000% profit on every packet of synthetic cannabis sold.
Chemicals were imported in bulk from China, processed into synthetic cannabis for about $2 a packet and sold for $20.
Since the Government set up the regulated market in July last year, it is estimated that 3.5 million packets of synthetic cannabis were sold in New Zealand.
Ministry officials have said the sheer scale of the industry caught them by surprise. With estimated sales of about $140m a year, it dwarfed the BZP party pill craze at its height a decade ago.
As of a minute past midnight this morning, interim licences for all legal highs were revoked, making it illegal to possess, supply or manufacture the drugs.
The amendment passed on Tuesday night marks a U-turn for Parliament, which voted only last year to set up a regulated market for the drugs, licensing the industry and giving health authorities the power to pull unsafe products.
The U-turn was praised in many communities affected by synthetic cannabis, but others have condemned it as a knee-jerk political reaction in an election year.
However I was more interested in this statistic they mentioned:
Even the Ministry of Health has warned that banning legal highs outright will push the products underground into the unregulated black market. It has estimated between 150 and 200 people are now so addicted to synthetic cannabis that they would need medical help to withdraw. "People who use these products are expected to stockpile them for their own personal use and the black market is assumed to stockpile to supply future demand," ministry officials said.
150 people * $20 = $3000
Im in the wrong business. Exploiting people is where its at
-
Stores were selling legal highs at 5$ a pack in bulk, or 8 in a slightly smaller bulk.
Something like 400$ for 50packs or 500$ for 100packs.
People are crazy addicted to synthetics and it's going to be interesting to see if there is a rise in violent crimes in the next week or two.
I'd also like to know, the people that are addicted, will they bother trying to cut back? Everyone builds up a tolerance to synthetic highs quite fast, which also gives some misconception to the whole "he smokes a pack (synthetic) a day".
-
Guy calls bullshit on the police report claiming Cannabis was causing 2000 hospital admissions a year costing more than $30 million. Turns out to be bullshit.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78486729/how-an-unemployed-westie-discredited-a-key-police-report-on-cannabis (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78486729/how-an-unemployed-westie-discredited-a-key-police-report-on-cannabis)
How an unemployed Westie discredited a key police report on cannabis
Its author, NDIB strategic drug analyst Les Maxwell, painted a grim picture of New Zealand's most popular drug: cannabis was an "increasing threat" because it was getting stronger and was a "gateway" drug for young people.
But it was the number of people who were ending up in hospital, according to the report, that caught the media's eye.
"Perhaps surprisingly," Maxwell wrote, "cannabis related hospital admissions between 2001 and 2005 exceeded admissions for opiates, amphetamines and cocaine combined", with about 2000 people a year ending up in hospital because of the drug.
The report put cannabis admissions into two categories: primary and secondary diagnosis. Primary diagnosis cases had tracked between 210 and 250 a year, while secondary cases ranged between 1799 and 2012 a year.
I wish I was a strategic drug analyst. That sounds like a primo job.