Cannabis Research

[iamnotacop]

I agree Freddie, well put.

 

Why does everyone seem to dislike NDARC? Maybe if we responded to more of their surveys they would begin to see the full picture. Also for those that think that their main job is to demonise Cannabis and it's users, here is a list of other projects they are working on at this time. You will notice alcohol is being studied as well.

 

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/0/D7F402DFAE8DFA24CA2573060016CDBA?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...C6?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...AB?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...9D?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...Project%20HERON

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...6D?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...sis%20Proneness

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...B6?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...28?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...D7?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...7C?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...20?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...1E?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...3B?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...reatment%20PTSD

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...CA?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...8A?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...A2?OpenDocument

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...CC?OpenDocument

http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...ch.current.cp17

http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/...ch.current.cp39

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/...t%20T23%20AATOM

 

http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/page/Current

 

 

What if maybe, just maybe, they are actually trying to help the people that do have problems with Cannabis, and lets face it, there are people that have problems with any drug. Just because we may not, lets think about the less fortunate than us, they need help and these guys are trying to figure out better ways of treating them. I am one of the most cynical people you could meet, but it doesnt hurt filling out a few questions.

 

<edit>

but the one we are discussing here is totally aimed at a manufactured negative side of mj and has a heavy bias towards all stoners being addicted losers.

Then why do they ask such questions as to "have you ever needed help/treatment" and also they distinguish between seeking help for alcohol and cannabis. I was glad about that because I have had problems with alcohol, but not with Cannabis, and my answers get to include that distinction. Also when you said earlier that anyone from outside Sydney would not be included, I cant remember giving them my address or if they even asked for my location, but maybe I am wrong.

Edited November 24, 2007 by iamnotacop

[Tom]

Well, maybe they should have posted some of those here as well then rather than something that was certain to be derided in as this one has? You also seem to be taking all this a lot more seriously than would normally be the case, are you in any way involved in this survey, the people running it or connected to NDARC?

 

Also when you said earlier that anyone from outside Sydney would not be included, I cant remember giving them my address or if they even asked for my location, but maybe I am wrong.

Then if you are not living in the area stated in the first post you have corrupted their survey just by answering it.

 

[SukonmiSkunk]

my god the whole country has turned to shit..

 

i smoke pot on a daily basis.. pretty much all day...

 

and i vote...

[iamnotacop]

You also seem to be taking all this a lot more seriously than would normally be the case, are you in any way involved in this survey, the people running it or connected to NDARC?

 

I felt personally attacked/ridiculed by Frazzle, and I tend to overreact to things, and take things too personal. One of my many personal flaws. But I am human, so I can live with it. I live in a small counrty town in Tasmania, and have never even been to Sydney, so no I am not involved with NDARC or anyone who is. I would love the opportunity to be involved with these kind of people/institutions, I feel that I may have some things to offer, but I don't think that they would want me, because I would only want to tell the truth, not misguided opinion.

 

 

Then if you are not living in the area stated in the first post you have corrupted their survey just by answering it.

 

 

We also have a confidential online survey for people who are concerned about the cannabis use of a friend or family member, or are unable to complete the interview face-to-face but still want to have a say.

 

Maybe I misinterpreted this sentence, or maybe I didn't. One could assume that they are only after Sydneysiders, or, that if you don't live in Sydney you can do the online form. Either way, if they think that I have corrupted the survey, they should throw it away and start again, with some better questions.

[Tom]

I live in a small counrty town in Tasmania

I lived in Tas (Burnie and West Coast) until a few years back, I'm glad to be out of the cold.

I felt personally attacked/ridiculed by Frazzle, and I tend to overreact to things, and take things too personal.

If you feel that way in future just PM the member concerned and ask for clarification, we are all stoners here which means we sometimes have difficulty saying things the way we mean them or miss a double meaning. If you are not happy with the response then bring it up with a moderator or admin, again via PM, and you can count on it being dealt with fairly and without favour in a way that will not upset the harmony of the site.

 

[Frazz]

I felt personally attacked/ridiculed by Frazzle

 

OK , i apologise for my abrasive manner , no offence was intended , also i retract the inferrence to iamnotacop that he may indeed be a cop , but thats what you get with such a name, dangle that infront of me an i'll bite every time, sorry Tassie dude

I hate cops with a nasty bitter passion and not without good reason ... subject closed.

 

Now back to this infernal survey of NDARC ... taking a closer look at NDARC we see that ndarc is funded by the

Federal Australian Government as part of the National Drug Strategy (with the catch cry of 'Tough on Drugs') ...

 

Bankrolled by the hoWARd Government to the tune of about 1 billion$ and counting, the aims of the National Drug Strategy are ;

1. Reduce the availability, supply and demand of illicit drugs.

2. Research into the prevention and treatment of illicit drugs.

3. The development and dissemination of cannabis cessation strategies for adults and adolescents.

 

as taken from the Fed. Governments National Drug Strategy ..

Now it seems to me on other historical events handled by this Government that government funded institutions refrain from telling their masters in Government the real truth on certain matters that do not fit in with the present Government policy which is 'War on Drugs"

 

What im saying in short is that NDARC has no independence from Government policy therefore this survey has been 'cooked up' to arrive at a pre-determined result .

[iamnotacop]

What im saying in short is that NDARC has no independence from Government policy therefore this survey has been 'cooked up' to arrive at a pre-determined result .

 

I cant remember if it was Alex Wodak, Wayne Hall or David Castles who called this "Soviet Science".

 

"When it comes to the marijuana debate, science and rationality have very little to do with it: the truth about marijuana has been lost in the smoke of political rhetoric" - David Castles

 

"It's hard to get the real message out because the debate is so polarised. If it is perceived to be harmful, people want to go to war and lock up every user; If it is perceived to be harmless, they want to legalize it completely. The truth is that Cannabis is a drug like any other - some people will experience difficulty." - Wayne Hall

 

"Howard can't lose on this. If he wins he will be wrapped in the Australian flag as protecting the youth of the future. If he loses, then the States [who are his political enemies] get labeled 'soft on drugs' " - Alex Wodak

 

 

As I have said before, I respect your opinions about the psuedoscience at play, but surely we have to try to get our side of the story heard? And once again, if we don't reply to these surveys and get our side across, then who will?

 

<edit>

Found it, It was from Peter Cohen who was the Director of the Centre for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam.

"There's a fashion now to determine the cause of mental health problems; they want the research that shows the harms of marijuana. I call it Soviet Science - science geared to produce a political point." - Peter Cohen

Edited November 24, 2007 by iamnotacop

[mull]

Every time any researcher comes on this site asking for input they are met with the same suspicion and non co-operation. Yet again the cannabis community (if such a thing exists) allows others to control its fate. There are some bloody good researchers in this country with some great harm minimisation views. I'm not saying NDARC is one of them but they would all read each others research.

 

Nothing will change because the attitude is to bury ourselves in a tiny corner of the internet and bitch about the fact that no one understands our way of life. Then when some one comes on here with a survey that asks the wrong questions we refuse to co-operate because they must automatically be out to cause us more grief. The survey allows comment. Cannbisresearcher provided an e-mail address. Why not tell them what you think they should be studying.

 

 

Hey Freddie and iamnotacop, scuse not to circle you guys out, but, just finished reading the National Cannabis Strategy 2006-2009

It can be found here.

http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/int...nnabis-strategy

 

Forget the surveys.

 

Some quotes -

 

"The following four Priority Areas have been determined as the focal points for the National

Cannabis Strategy 2006–2009:

• Priority Area 1: Community understanding of cannabis

• Priority Area 2: Preventing the use of cannabis

• Priority Area 3: Preventing problems associated with cannabis

• Priority Area 4: Responding to problems associated with cannabis "

 

So if they were to truly tackle priority 1, there would be no other priority ff..s

 

 

"There is a strong perception that many people in the community view cannabis as

a relatively harmless drug, even though recent media coverage has emphasised that there are

harms associated with cannabis use. It was argued that there is confusion about the risks of

cannabis use and that there is a need to have clear and accurate information available to

the community."

 

 

"It is important to provide the community with consistent,

evidence-based messages about cannabis (such as legal status, harms, signs of dependence,

treatment options, etc.) so that people are aware of the risks associated with cannabis use and

can seek advice or help when required. "

 

"It would be wrong to focus only on young people (or any other

population sub-group, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or only those with

mental health problems), as harmful cannabis use is experienced by all age groups and sectors

of society. "

 

"• Encourage the real estate industry, local government, electricity and other utility providers,

as a part of a police intelligence process, to provide information regarding suspected

cannabis production and trafficking."

 

 

"• Assess the feasibility of the regulation of the sale of hydroponic equipment, similar to

regulation of the liquor and second-hand dealer industries, at a national level whereby:

businesses selling hydroponic equipment need to register on a police-controlled database;

business owners must be judged to be of good character; and the identification details of

purchasers need to be recorded. Evaluate the impact of these increased regulatory controls.

• Ensure penalties consistent with the penalties contained in the Model Criminal Code

(Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, 1998) for drug offences, which provide an

appropriate deterrent to production and trafficking of commercial quantities of cannabis."

 

 

"

• For those jurisdictions that allow the sale of cannabis smoking equipment, the feasibility of

regulating the sale of these products should be investigated.

- For example, consider preventing the public display of such equipment, on the basis

that it detracts from educational messages about the illicit nature of cannabis and

its harms.

- Regulation could also require retailers selling smoking paraphernalia to adhere to a set

of minimum requirements including the display of a health warning about cannabis

use, provision of information on the harms associated with cannabis use, and the

prohibition of selling equipment to minors.

- Include harm reduction messages in the information offered to those buying smoking

equipment, such as:

v use of cannabis with tobacco may lead to tobacco dependence;"

 

 

 

"

• Improve knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving through research assessing the

involvement of cannabis and other drugs and polydrug use in fatal and non-fatal accidents,

to more rigorously evaluate the relationship between cannabis use and other drug use and

risk of road trauma, taking into account other factors such as risk-taking behaviour.

"

 

Thats improving propaganda, not knowledge!

 

"4.5 Monitoring and evaluation

Consistent with the process of the National Alcohol Strategy 2006–2009, jurisdictions

will continue to share best practice examples of programs and strategies consistent with

the priority areas of this Strategy. The National Cannabis Strategy should be evaluated

by determining the extent to which each of the responses have been worked towards or

undertaken. Changes in drug use, and particularly the incidence and prevalence of cannabis

problems, may take longer to alter than the life of this Strategy, so that reliance on them

may not be helpful in evaluating the extent to which the Strategy has been successfully

implemented. However, indicators of cannabis use and associated problems should be assessed

over time to contribute to the Strategy monitoring process.

A second National Cannabis Strategy should be considered in five years time and should

include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the first National Cannabis Strategy. This

Strategy was developed within the existing legislative framework, and, as such, issues

surrounding drug law reform and the uses of cannabis for medicinal purposes are not

addressed in the Strategy. Future iterations of the National Cannabis Strategy may wish to

consider including medicinal uses of cannabis and cannabinoids, the best legal model for

sanctions against personal cannabis use, and development of a harmonised national approach

that minimises the net harm to individuals and the community."

 

Translation - for grants for more

[freddie]

Thanks for the National cannabis strategy link, mullaway. Some of it is pretty depressing reading and those quotes show a complete misunderstanding of some of the issues. Most of it comes as no real surprise and there are actually a couple of positives. I was struck by how many of the perceived problems associated with cannabis use are actually due to prohibition. If the new government is going to be "evidence based" then I guess legalisation is the next step. Then these so called problems can be tackled as health issues. As if that will happen.

 

The cannabis strategy is a federal government initiative and nothing to do with an NDARC survey. There were nearly 90 different groups that submitted papers of which NDARC was one. So was the hemp embassy, beyond blue, professor Wayne Hall, the salvation army, various health, law enforcement, and community groups. Lets face it; these people do not want the community taking drugs of any sort and their strategy is to stop it or at least cut its use down.

 

The positives are:

This

Strategy was developed within the existing legislative framework, and, as such, issues

surrounding drug law reform and the uses of cannabis for medicinal purposes are not

addressed in the Strategy. Future iterations of the National Cannabis Strategy may wish to

consider including medicinal uses of cannabis and cannabinoids, the best legal model for

sanctions against personal cannabis use, and development of a harmonised national approach

that minimises the net harm to individuals and the community."

 

I am not trying to give ammunition to the anti marijuana cause. The reason I fill in these surveys is because decisions are being made on the basis of wrong information. I also think people should distinguish between university (NSW) research and government propaganda. There is a world of difference. There are also no guarantees that government will not twist research to suit them. Its a risk you take with any research. If I don't fill these things then I have no say. I am hoping that some of the comments that you can make in these surveys may make some researcher think a little more deeply and perhaps look in a different direction. If there was a better way of influencing the debate then I would consider it. Unfortunately the only political movement in Australia seems to be the hemp party and they don't really represent what I think the direction of law reform should be. I comment on blogs and write the odd letter to the editor. I would rather have a minute say than none at all.

[iamnotacop]

Firstly, I am drunk, so I can't comment about this too seriously. I would like to say that freddie is at least thinking about this issue similar to me. I have actually read that report before, but my only comment on that is that was under the Howard Government. I am hoping and praying that Rudd Government will actually take an "evidence based approach", which is what he said he would do (but then again who believes any politicians?)

 

Think about it, look at the other report that the Howard Government did where that fat fuck Bronwyn Bishop ridiculed and dismissed Dr Alex Wodak, who never got to say what he really thought. This was not a report/inquiry it was basically that fat bitch coming to a conclusion before the damn inquiry was even opened.

 

I know that they are two seperate reports, but my point is it was still the same Government. "Zero Tolerance" and "Tough on Drugs" type of mentality has done more harm to our cause than good. Truth, logic and basic common sense has been lost in political bullshit. Hopefully with a change of Government these types of 'non-evidence based' "trials" will cease and we can finally get to the bottom of the truth.

 

 

But even still I do stick by what I said, and at least I tried to have my say.

 

The cannabis strategy is a federal government initiative and nothing to do with an NDARC survey. ......

 

If I don't fill these things then I have no say.

 

I am hoping that some of the comments that you can make in these surveys may make some researcher think a little more deeply and perhaps look in a different direction.

 

 

I would rather have a minute say than none at all.

 

I like the way you think freddie, and would like to encourage you to keep having your say. You have a much better way with words, than I do.

Edited December 28, 2007 by iamnotacop