Survey on quitting cannabis

[littlbit]

Sally persecuted is not what people here feel, it is anger at the type of questions in the survey. Lets face it surveys are set up to get the particular outcome the company wants, that usually has little to do with the facts.

 

Your survey is designed to show that people can, and do get addicted to cannabis, like all research of this type, it never takes everything it should into consideration.

 

You never answered my questions I notice, that alone proves that you had only one intention in mind, proving how evil cannabis is, and not finding out what the truth is.

 

Again cannabis itself is not addictive, tobacco and chemicals are addictive, until you take all influences into consideration, you are simply not genuine in what you claim.

[iamnotacop]

Sally r, was here and I was going to say hi, but I hit refresh and POOF, she was gone.

 

Oh well.

[lightning]

Yes she was on for about 1.5 hrs after she posted then at about 6:20 she disappeared, must've had to race off to the pub for Firday night binge drinking session..

[lightning]

Source

 

A helping hand for dealing with cannabis addiction

Kate Benson Medical Reporter

June 17, 2009

AUSTRALIAN researchers have developed world-first guidelines to help people care for someone addicted to cannabis.

 

One in three people have used marijuana and about one in six are addicted, but until now carers worldwide have been given conflicting advice on how to identify problem use, advise someone to seek help or cope when a user is behaving irrationally.

 

Researchers from the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, in Sydney, and Orygen Youth Health, in Melbourne, collaborated on the project, studying websites, brochures and self-help books.

 

They created an extensive survey for medics, carers and recovered addicts to determine the best recommendations.

 

Those guidelines, which will be launched today, will be used worldwide.

 

Dan Lubman, an associate professor of addictions at Orygen Youth Health, said yesterday many people were reluctant to seek help for drug problems because of the associated stigma.

 

"And many have been given all sorts of advice, some of it conflicting, which has confused them. Some people have been told that a user has to hit rock bottom before they can be helped, but the message from our experts was that it is always important to offer help, keep your expectations realistic and remain supportive," Dr Lubman said.

 

The 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that up to a quarter of people aged over 30 were smoking cannabis weekly and one in five were smoking it daily.

 

One in 11 teenagers were smoking cannabis daily and one in five were using it weekly.

 

A cannabis addiction can affect the ability to make decisions, cause relationship difficulties, legal problems, accidents, depression, anxiety and respiratory problems. In its most severe form, it can result in violence, psychosis and suicidal thoughts.

 

"The quicker people get help, the better," Dr Lubman said.

 

This was announced today

 

Now we know what sally r was really here for don't we? And it was NOT to get the truth from those that KNOW.

Claims she was not part of the propaganda machine .... Hypocrites with lies

 

Hey Sally got the guts to show ya face and answer for ya lies,

as I said earlier GET A REAL JOB

Edited June 17, 2009 by lightning

[sally_r]

This is a completely different project -- it has nothing to do with the project I'm running. I haven't told you any lies and am a bit over the hostility. Don't you have anything better to do than sit on your computer writing abuse? This will be the last you'll hear from me.

[littlbit]

C A N N A B I S & A D D I C T I O N

THE FALSE versus THE FACTS

© 1997 Ian Williams Goddard

 

The journal SCIENCE (06/27/97) [1] recently published two

studies on marijuana, also known as cannabis, purporting to

establish not only a similarity in the neurological effects

of cannabis and hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, but

also a causal link between cannabis use and addiction to

hard drugs.

 

The Washington Post [2] claims these studies indicate

"Marijuana may be a far more insidious drug than generally

thought, and apparently alters the brain chemistry of pot

smokers in ways that may make them particularly vulnerable

to 'hard' drugs such as heroin or cocaine..." As the

journal SCIENCE states [1a]:

 

Compared to drugs such as heroin and cocaine,

many people consider marijuana a relatively

benign substance. But two studies [1b] [1c]

in this issue demonstrate disturbing simi-

larities between marijuana's effects on the

brain and those produced by highly addictive

drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

 

The studies were conducted by Scripps Research Institute

(SRI) in California [1b][3] and the Universidad Complutense

de Madrid (UCM) in Spain [1c][4]. Both studies were funded

by the U.S. federal government via the National Institute

on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [5].

 

WHAT THE SRI STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWS

 

The SRI study is purported to demonstrate that cannabis

induces addiction-related neuroadaptive effects in the

limbic system of the rat brain in a fashion identical to

that induced by alcohol, cocaine, and opiates. However,

while the psychoactive agent in cannabis is THC, the psy-

choactive agent used in the SRI study was not THC but the

synthetic drug HU-210 [6], which is said to be like THC.

 

I called SRI to ask if HU-210 is found in the cannabis

herb and was informed that it is not found in cannabis.

Therefore, as a matter of fact, the SRI study tells us

nothing about the neurological effects of any chemical

found in cannabis. Nevertheless, we are being told the

study indicates that cannabis is more dangerous than we

thought, which is false and misleading. But the study

is even more misleading.

 

When users of drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, or opiates

withdraw from the use of those drugs, neurons [7], or

brain cells, in the amygdala [8] begin producing CRF

(corticotropin-releasing factor) [9], which in turn pro-

motes stressful symptomology associated with withdrawal.

 

Unlike alcohol, cocaine, or opiates, however, THC in can-

nabis is eliminated from the body very slowly, lingering

for days after the psychoactive effect has passed. This

prevents brain cells from experiencing a sudden THC with-

drawal, and thus prevents them from going "cold-turkey."

It is believed that the slow release of THC may account

for the mild-to-null withdrawal symptoms, and thus low

incidence of addiction, associated with cannabis. As

the SRI study observes [1]:

 

A clear-cut abstinence syndrome is rarely

reported [by cannabis users], presumably

because of the long half-life of cannabi-

noids, which precludes the emergence of

abrupt abstinence symptoms...

 

However, the plan of SRI researchers was to shut down

the anti-addiction mechanism associated with THC by arti-

ficial intervention in an effort to force brain cells to

go "cold turkey." Then, it seems, if levels of the with-

drawal-symptom-inducing agent CRF were found to have in-

creased, the researchers would, as they did, extrapolate

from those findings that cannabis may be more addictive

than previously thought. However, that extrapolation is

false and misleading, because the study was designed to

artificially induce withdrawal symptoms.

 

According to the design of the study, SRI researchers in-

jected rats for two weeks with the synthetic drug HU-210

-- which like THC is released from the body very slowly --

and then suddenly replaced HU-210 with SR-141716A, which

blocks the uptake of HU-210 by brain cells. This sudden

blocking of HU-120 by the antagonist SR-141716A forced

brain cells to experience a sudden withdrawal of HU-210.

As a result, brain cells did begin to release the addic-

tive-stress-inducing agent CRF in the very same fashion

observed during heroin, cocaine, and alcohol withdrawal.

 

Because the sudden withdrawal of HU-210 forced by the

intervention of SR-141716A caused withdrawal symptoms in

the rat brain, the SRI researchers and the press extrapo-

late that for humans, without being blocked by SR-141716A,

THC in cannabis, which was not even used in the study,

"may be a far more insidious drug than generally thought,"

[2] and even worse, that cannabis could promote addiction

to hard drugs.

 

These tortured and outrageous extrapolations stretch reason

beyond breaking. Not only did the SRI study fail to use THC

in a study being used to demonize THC, but the SRI research-

ers deliberately sabotaged the natural anti-addiction mechan-

isms associated with THC, and then once sabotaged, proceeded

to suggest that cannabis is more addictive than previously

assumed. That is clearly false and misleading.

 

To dismantle the natural anti-addiction mechanism of a

chemical like THC and to then propose that THC is more addic-

tive than we thought is exactly like testing the safety of

Ford cars by testing a group of Hondas, which are like Fords,

that have had their brakes dismantled, and then after the

predictable results declaring: "Fords are more dangerous

than we thought." It's simply outrageous.

 

The SRI researchers manufactured artificial conditions and

results and then propose that those artificial conditions

apply to natural conditions -- that is inherently false.

Is it a coincidence that SRI's manufactured results are

exactly the results that their federal financiers would

most likely want as a logical adjunct to federal efforts

to demonize the safe and medically effective herb cannabis?

 

WHAT THE UCM STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWS

 

The Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) study in Spain

[1c], also funded by NIDA, demonstrated that in laboratory

rats, both heroin and THC increased extracellular concentra-

tions of the neurotransmitter dopamine [10] in the exterior

portion of the nucleus accumbens located in the central

brain [8]. Dopamine is strongly associated with pleasure.

 

The tortured line of reasoning that the UCM study is being

used to foster is that because THC activates neurological

systems associated with pleasure and because heroin activates

neurological systems associated with pleasure, THC tends to

be equivalent to heroin and thus cannabis could lead to

heroin addiction.

 

While the UCM study highlights purported neuro-reactive

similarities between THC and heroin, the UCM study makes

light of the fact that nicotine also increases dopamine

levels in the brain -- strange, the lack of arm-waving

hysteria over fear that nicotine will lead to heroin

addiction. Contrary to the media hype, the UCM study

does not actually present any evidence that THC causes

or leads to heroin addiction.

 

TO THE CONTRARY

 

Contrary to the claim that cannabis use may promote hard-

drug use, research indicates that where cannabis is decrim-

inalized, and thus is more available, there is an inverse

cannabis "stepping-stone" effect that causes people to be

attracted away from lethal hard drugs and toward the rela-

tively safe and available cannabis herb. For example, a

Rand Corporation study published in the Journal of the

American Statistical Association (09/93 v.88, #423) found

in the 12 states that decriminalized cannabis between 1973

and 1978, the number of hospital emergency-room visits

for hard drugs dropped. [11] So as a matter of fact,

cannabis can act as a gateway away from hard drugs.

 

THE FACTS ABOUT CANNABIS AND ADDICTION

 

Research clearly indicates not only 1) that the majority

of those who use cannabis at some point in their life do

not become cannabis addicts, but 2) that the majority of

current cannabis users are not cannabis addicts:

 

1. (a) The 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

[12] found that of Americans age 12 and above, approximately

34% had used cannabis at some point in their life; however,

in the past year only 9% used cannabis, while in the past

month only 4.3%, and in the past week only 2.8%.

 

( A longitudinal study published by the Department of

Health and Human Services found a high "discontinuation

rate" for cannabis use. The study followed a group of high

school seniors from 1975 to 1989. While in high school

(1975) 77% of the group used cannabis; however, by 1989

only 26% of the group had used cannabis in the last year,

and only 16% had used it in the past month. [13]

 

2. Approximately 91% of cannabis users are not addicted

to cannabis according to the SRI study in the journal

SCIENCE [1], which references extensive research [14]

indicating that only "9% of cannabis users may meet

criteria for substance dependence." In absolute contrast

to cannabis, tobacco is ten times more addictive, with

a full 90% of all tobacco users using tobacco at a rate

defined as dependent. [15]

 

The reason cannabis is not as addictive as other drugs is

simply because the discontinuation of use results in only

mild withdrawal symptoms, if any at all. In one study

found in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

[16], sudden withdrawal of THC resulted in mild withdrawal

symptoms. The human subjects in that study were given oral

doses of 180 to 210 mg of THC -- equivalent to upwards of

20 joints -- per day, then the doses were suddenly stopped.

The researchers observed that the resulting mild withdrawal

symptoms, which included poor sleep and restlessness, might

not manifest in cases were normal doses of THC are used.

 

It is common knowledge among professionals in the field of

of drug-abuse research that cannabis is the least addictive

drug. For example, The New York Times (08/02/94) [17] pub-

lished the following addiction-risk ratings:

 

How Experts Rate Problem Substances

 

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National

Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L.

Benowitz of the University of California

at San Francisco ranked six substances...

 

1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

 

Henningfield Ratings

 

Substance Withdrawal Dependence

 

Nicotine 3 1

Heroin 2 2

Cocaine 4 3

Alcohol 1 4

Caffeine 5 5

+ Marijuana ---> 6 ----> 6

 

 

Benowitz Ratings

 

Substance Withdrawal Dependence

 

Nicotine 3* 4

Heroin 2 2

Cocaine 3* 1

Alcohol 1 4

Caffeine 4 5

+ Marijuana ---> 5 ----> 6

 

As we can see, the experts consistently ranked cannabis

the "least serious" drug in key measures of addictivity.

"Least serious" could also be defined as "safest." And

yet in 1995 approximately 500,619 people were arrested

in the US for possession of the safest drug. [18] Over

10 million have been arrested for cannabis since 1965.

[19] Consuming space needed to house violent offenders,

approximately 17% of federal prisoners are in prison

for violating cannabis laws. [19] Is this logical? No.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The evidence clearly indicates that with cannabis, unlike

the hard drugs, most people can take it or leave it and

come-and-go as they please. While cannabis may share some

neuro-reactive similarities with hard drugs as defined in

the UCM study, it is misleading to suggest an equivalence

between cannabis and hard drugs based upon the manufactured

results in the SRI study or upon the findings of UCM study.

 

Ironically, the effort to establish an equivalence between

cannabis and heroin is more likely to induce cannabis users

to try heroin. For example, the drug dealer who has only a

supply of heroin tells the disappointed cannabis consumer:

"Well, try this heroin... Don't worry about addiction, SRI

and UCM researchers say heroin is about the same as pot."

In short, it could very well be the misleading extrapola-

tions derived from the SRI and UCM studies, not cannabis,

that will lead cannabis consumers to use hard drugs.

**********************************************************************

Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard

______________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES___________________________________________________________

 

[1] SCIENCE: Drug Addiction: Marijuana: Harder Than Thought?

Vol. 276, no. 532127, June, 27 1997, pages: 2048-2054.

[1a] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5321/1967

[1b] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5321/2050

[1c] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5321/2048

[2] THE WASHINGTON POST: Marijuana's Effects on Brain Studied.

By Curt Suplee, Friday, June 27, 1997; A10-11.

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WP...062797-idx.html

[3] Scripps Research Institute: http://www.scripps.edu

[4] Universidad Complutense de Madrid: http://www.ucm.es

[5] NIDA: http://www.nida.nih.gov

[6] HU-210 (delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol dimethyl heptyl) is the synthetic

cannabinoid used in the Scripps study. HU-210 is not found in

cannabis.

In the SRI study, HU-120 was used in place of THC (delta-9-

tetrahydrocannabinol). THC is found in cannabis.

[7] Neurons: http://www.norml.org/research/ref/ota/ota_1/ota_bx1a.html

http://www.dac.neu.edu/units/bouve/pt/pth1366/pharm.htm

[8] Human brain: http://data.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie/brainstuff/index.html

[9] CRF: http://www.beri.co.jp/scop/data/scop.1.008...01.001.001.html

[10] Dopamine (C8H11NO2): http://ils.unc.edu/dopamine/dopahome.html

[11] JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION: "The Effect of

Marijuana

Decriminalization on Hospital Emergency Room Drug Episodes,

1975-1978."

By K.E. Model, Sept. 1993, v.88, #423 p.11.

Abst:

http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/geta...328626-11329761

[12] 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.

[13] Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and

Young

Adults, 1975-1990, Vol II (1992), p 31. By L.D. Johnston, P.M.

O'Malley,

J.G. Bachman. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.

Abstract: http://sunspot.health.org/pages/ru-20050.html

[14] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADDICTION: J.Halikas, et al. (20)701 (1985).

PHARMOCOLOGICAL REVIEW: L.Hollister. (38)1 (1986).

EXPERIMENTAL CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: J.Anthoney, et al. (2)244

(1994).

[15] Nicotine Dependance, 1997, Treatment Research Center,

Department of Psychiarty, University of Pennsylvania.

Text: http://www.med.upenn.edu/%7Erecovery/nicotine.html

[16] Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: "Clinical Studies of

Cannabis

Tolerance and Dependence," Jones, R.T. et al, 282:221-39, 1976.

[17] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends On Whose

Criteria You Use. By Philip J. Hilts, August 2, 1994, p. C3.

Text: http://www.pantless.com/~pdxnorml/NYT_addictive_080294.html

[18] Marijuana Arrest Record: http://www.mpp.org/arrest95.html

[19] Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States:

Preliminary Report. By Chuck Thomas, Marijuana Policy

Project, December 1995. http://www.mpp.org/arrest94.html

 

Thanks to THE LINDESMITH CENTER

(http://www.soros.org/lindesmith)

for pointing to this addiction data:

http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/exposing/claim9.html

 

This report will be found at:

http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hemp-add.htm

Other reports by Ian W Goddard on cannabis:

http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hemp-med.htm

http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hempsafe.htm

 

© 1997 Ian Williams Goddard - Free to copy nonprofit with attribute.

 

http://www.io.com/~patrik/sri_lies.htm

 

 

Hey how about some truth for a change, then again, you are the propaganda arm of the war, and therefore into lies and deception, we all know the first casualty of war is truth.

 

There is one thing you and the rest of the liars, the truth is being told and you simply give us more amunation every time you put together these pieces of propoganda.

 

So thank you for your assistance in aiding us to win the war aginst you the enemy. :bongon:

[lightning]

Researchers from the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, in Sydney, and Orygen Youth Health, in Melbourne, collaborated on the project, studying websites, brochures and self-help books.

 

Sally just what exactly are we supposed to think, correct me if I am wrong on any point,

1. Same organisation

2. Same subject matter, Cannabis "Addiction"

3. Studying Websites, this is a website dedicated to cannabis.

 

does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing?

 

Don't you have anything better to do than sit on your computer writing abuse?

 

I spend little time on my computer "writing abuse". I actually was very civil until you chose not to reply to anyone's questions, chose not come here and discuss the subject you raised.

 

Actually I spend much time researching the Empirical science of the only medicine that relieves MY PAIN

Oh and of Late preparing High Court documentation to take out these draconian laws!!! Which I am just finishing off at this morning, for Lodgement tomorrow. I just posted my last during a coffee breaks while reading the news of the day.

I am prepared to state that I have probably been a medical cannabis user longer than you have been alive. And given my aspies and Mensa level IQ and that Cannabis is one of my "pet" subjects (us aspies have them at extreme levels of focus) I would suggest that actually discussing the subject with myself and numerous others found on this site ( Many with even more knowledge on this plant than me) would be far more educational for you in your "project" than throwing up a link to a survey and not being prepared to engage discussion.

Yes Sally you have received a lot of flack from many of us but really what did you expect,

You work for an organisation whose very name seeks to prevent the naturally occurring plant Cannabis which MANY of us see as a sacrament, a medicinal herb, a tool for relaxation that does not promote violent behaviour and is incredibly safe (has never killed or damaged the human body cells) as long as it has not been tainted.

 

If you had bothered to engage in rational science based discussion from the outset and truly sought the opinions of the 20k odd members of these forums you would have been received much better,

If you are up for the discussion then please say so and we can all get on with it, and please bring your colleagues! Especially who ever wrote that piece of garbage I quoted earlier,

If you want real information from the actual users the choice is YOURS. And no Sally you have not lied personally to us but your organisation has and we offered you the chance to engage and you withdrew

Edited June 17, 2009 by lightning

[Radic]

the war on drugs is over

you lose

seen

we do not want peace

we want justice

seen

we will forgive

but

we will never forget

as we speek

people are suffering to the point of death

because medicinal cannabis is prohibited

 

Which side are you on????????????

 

sista

reasoning is a 2 way street

equal rights is a must

you have not answered any of we questions Sally

yet you ask we to answer yours

 

Sally--r

please answer we questions

[luciddreaming]

Sally R, I just sent an e-mail to that address in the first post. Please do not take what some of us have said to heart.

We are just trying to help. We want a discussion, we want to discuss Cannabis laws with anyone who will discuss it with us.

Maybe through this discussion you could find another idea for a study.

[littlbit]

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-offic...h/151/15105.htm

 

CHAPTER 4 TOXIC EFFECTS OF CANNABIS AND CANNABINOIDS: REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

4.29 Another measure of the extent of cannabis dependence is the number of people who seek treatment for it. Department of Health figures (1996) show that in 6 per cent of all contacts with regional drug clinics cannabis was the main drug of misuse (Q 27). A similar figure, that cannabis users constitute 7 per cent of all new admissions to drug treatment centres in Australia, was reported recently. Dr Philip Robson[17], who runs a Regional Drug Dependence Unit in Oxford, said that 4.9 per cent of those admitted to his unit cited cannabis as their main drug (Q 462). However he did not regard cannabis as an important drug of addiction: "The drug falls well below the threshold of what would be expected for a dependency ­producing drug which has clinical significance...I do not meet people who are prepared to knock over old ladies in the street or burglarise houses or commit other crimes to obtain cannabis". Professor Robbins estimated that at least 2 per cent of regular cannabis users (whom he defined as those using cannabis more than once a week) in the USA are dependent, on the basis of an estimate of 5m users and an official figure of 100,000 on specific treatment for cannabis dependency syndrome (Q 623).

 

4.30 It has been suggested that US figures may be inflated by people on compulsory treatment, for instance after testing positive at work, who may not in fact be dependent. According to Professor Hall, however, "In Australia ... drug testing is uncommon and there is no cannabis treatment industry. Yet treatment services...have seen an increase in the number of persons seeking help for cannabis" (p 221). He even suggests that the figures may be kept down by the widespread belief that it is not possible to be dependent on cannabis (Q 748).

 

4.31 Giving up cannabis is widely believed to be relatively easy: according to the Department of Health, "studies report that of those who had ever been daily users only 15 per cent persisted with daily use in their late twenties" (p 45). Most epidemiological studies in Britain and the United States have shown that the illicit use of cannabis mainly involves people in their late teens and twenties, with relatively few users over the age of 30.

 

So this study, used by the governments at the time, shows like all others that there is no cannabis to addiction proof, in fact the opposite always seems to be the case if all factors are taken into account. For instance tobacco, is totally addictive and the withdrawal are the symptoms, are the same as those claimed, to be from cannabis?

 

So is the withdrawal being claimed tobacco or cannabis?

Are the numbers now going for treatment rising at the same level as the court orders, for treatment?

 

Sally are you ever going to answer anything put to you? Research is supposed to be balanced, so are you doing research or gathering more information, you can then twist, to use against us, in this war against herbal medicine supporters?

 

You will get no respect on this site unless you are willing to debate.