Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google Sign In »
  • Register Now!
Grass Outdoors Shade Purple Orange Blueberry Watermelon Apple Banana Strawberry Chocolate
WARNING/DISCLAIMER The OZ Stoners cannabis community contains information regarding cannabis & other drugs; it is designed for mature (18+) audiences only. This site in no way condones the use of cannabis by minors. The content here within this cannabis community is for educational & entertainment purposes only. Any buying/selling or trading of illegal cannabis seeds, clones, flowers, resin or oil is strictly prohibited within this cannabis community. - Login to remove this message
LED Grow Lights | Prestige LED Grow Solutions Australia
Grow Fresh LED Grow Technology  "Moving into the future"

Photo

The trouble with cannabis

* * * * * 3 votes NCPIC jan copeland mathew large cannabis

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1
MongyMan

MongyMan

    Cannabis Research Breeder

  • Moderator Crew
  • 2974 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cannabis Genetics and Breeding
  • Location:My Island
  • Cannabis Use:Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads), Hashish, Oil Concentrates
  • Fav. Heads:100% Organic
  • Fav. Lighting: HID and the Sun
http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1woGo8SNf

The trouble with cannabis

May 24, 2012


Posted Image

Dope use is increasing, as is the surrounding debate, writes Amy Corderoy.
Depending on who you talk to, cannabis is either the scourge of our youth - threatening to turn us all into mentally ill layabouts - or a peaceful, benign herb that not only will not hurt its users, but could actually treat many illnesses.
For a drug that is supposed to have a relaxing effect, it sure causes much consternation.
At the Herald's debate "Should the government decriminalise drugs", held on Monday night at the University of Sydney, audience members argued cannabis was a different kind of drug, a safe choice.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Australia, it seems, likes cannabis. The most recent figures indicate a little more than 10 per cent of people used cannabis last year, slightly up on 9 per cent the year before.
A study published in The Lancet released earlier this year found people living in the Oceania region - made up of Australia and New Zealand - were the biggest cannabis users in the world.
In the debate about whether marijuana use should be legalised or decriminalised, the science of what we know about the health effects of this popular drug can get caught up in the politics of law reform.
Dr Matthew Large, a psychiatrist and researcher at the University of NSW, has been on the frontline of public mental health services for 20 years.
"On most days, the majority of my inpatients have a history of long-term cannabis use, on some days, all of them do," he says.
Research presented this week at The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' Congress in Tasmania found that of almost 10,000 young people aged between 16 and 29 living in NSW who had their first hospital admission for psychosis between 2005 and 2011, more than 40 per cent also had an illicit substance diagnosis.
Large has a particular interest in the links between cannabis use and psychosis, a hotly debated area.
One of the main arguments cannabis does not cause psychosis is that while the rate of use of the drug has increased, schizophrenia and psychoses have not.
A British study from 2009 tracked the rate of diagnosis of schizophrenia and psychosis in British general practice between 1996 and 2005, following almost 600,000 patients each year, or about 2.3 per cent of Britain's population aged 16 to 44.
It found that during that time the prevalence of psychoses and schizophrenia fell, despite the fact that research indicated cannabis use was increasing.
"The most parsimonious explanation of the results reported here are that … the causal models linking cannabis with schizophrenia/psychoses are not supported," the researchers wrote in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Large says the problem with studies such as this one is that there are many different factors influencing schizophrenia rates in the community. The highest recorded increase in schizophrenia he has heard of was in a town in post-World War II Britain, when many pregnant women were suffering from malnutrition.
If cannabis does trigger schizophrenia it is also likely to affect only a small proportion of users.
The combination of these two factors means small increases in psychoses or schizophrenia could be masked by other changes, such as improvements in maternal nutrition.
A landmark study by Large, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry last year, found the age of onset of psychosis was almost three years earlier among cannabis users than those who didn't use the drug. The effect seemed to be greater among heavy users than light users, but that did not reach statistical significance, meaning further research would be needed to see if that was the case.
The study, which analysed the results from 83 different studies looking at the age of onset of psychosis in drug users and non-drug users, did not find the same effects for alcohol.
"I think it's very unlikely that cannabis use would bring forward the age of onset of schizophrenia and not cause any cases," he says. "The other evidence of course is, depending on how you look at it, there have been between seven and 11 studies … showing cannabis users are between two and six times more likely to develop schizophrenia."
And he says research has shown injections of pure THC can trigger psychosis in some people.
While it is not clear who will get sick and who won't, there are now two promising genes that researchers think might be the key to identifying people at risk.
Another theory is that cannabis might actually be toxic to the developing brain.
A study in which Large was involved, published this year in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, found although there does seem to be some benefit to quitting cannabis when you are first diagnosed with psychosis, there was no conclusive evidence that patients' conditions would definitely improve if they stopped using.
"We are pretty sure about the benefits of giving up other drugs [when you have psychosis]," Large says. "But we think it's quite possible that once you have been a cannabis smoker and have developed schizophrenia, giving up won't make a big difference.
"During adolescence there's a lot going on in the brain, there's a lot of neural pruning and a lot more generation of new neurons. You're brain is beginning the last stage of its cook, so to speak."
And people who become psychotic earlier have much poorer outcomes: they are less responsive to medication, are more often hospitalised and have more severe hallucinations.
All this has encouraged Large to speak out publicly about the results of his research. When his paper on psychosis onset was published last year, the University of NSW went all-out, hosting a press conference and releasing video interviews online.
The response was surprising.
Large began receiving threatening emails and was the subject of literally thousands of blog posts attacking him.
"I was surprised by the accusations I was somehow in the pay of Big Tobacco or the government," he says. "The emails said I was going to pay and there was blood on my hands that had to be repaid with blood.''
He was accused of promoting propaganda and being responsible for people being sent to prison for smoking marijuana. He likens the response to his study to the attacks on climate scientists by those who don't believe in climate change.
The director of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre at the University of NSW, Professor Jan Copeland, is a veteran of cannabis research, yet she was initially hesitant about getting involved with the Herald'sdrugs series.
She says the public discourse around cannabis has been politicised more than any other drug.
"People have no middle view about cannabis: typically it's the worst drug in the world or it's the most health-giving medication that should be encouraged," she says.
Like Large, she has been the subject of death threats because of her work. But for Copeland, whose centre is a consortium of eight expert bodies that study cannabis and work out ways to reduce its harms in the community, the idea that cannabis is a safe drug is a pipe-dream of users.
Young people who use cannabis are more likely to fail at school, become dependent or develop conditions such as schizophrenia, she says.
But these type of problems often involve complex social issues and many cannabis users say the drug should not be blamed for people who fail at school.
Copeland says while there is always the potential that a common cause is to blame for problems that seem connected, such as drug use and school failure, the evidence points to cannabis having an independent role.
"Researchers have pulled the data from at least three birth cohorts and they have actually measured every aspect over their life, their school performance, their IQ, their family, their other drug use and who they mixed with," she says. "They found 17 per cent of the population attributable risk of leaving school without qualification was related to cannabis use."
Copeland says some cannabis advocates make the mistake of conflating their many beliefs about cannabis, including its medical or agricultural uses, arguments about law reform or talk about the health risks, into one pro-cannabis argument.
"The large majority of people have in fact never used cannabis, but many have, and they feel they have an expertise that is equal to science," she says.
Given the history of government-funded or -supplied information on cannabis, it's no wonder some people are unwilling to trust official sources.
Classic propaganda movies like Reefer Madness show just one toke on a joint turning smokers into depraved rapists, murderers and addicts.
Copeland is happy to acknowledge that marijuana does not have the harms of other drugs, citing the figure that about one in 10 users will go on to be dependent, compared with one in eight alcohol users and one in three nicotine users.
"But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater," she says. "Many of us, myself included, have drunk alcohol in the past and even swallowed, but I have never had a problem recognising the harms of alcohol."
One important factor, she says, is that alcohol is a known quantity, whereas cannabis is not.
"Cannabis is not one drug, there are over 80 different cannabanoids and between 500 and 2000 chemicals," she says. "It's been called a chemical soup."
Older cannabis users often point to the higher potency of today's cannabis compared with the drugs they smoked in the past.
Copeland says research is increasingly backing up that concern. She says it is not necessarily the growing methods, though, but rather the strains of seeds that are producing drugs with a higher ratio of one chemical, THC, to another, CBD, which preliminary evidence has linked to an increased likelihood of smokers developing psychosis.
Last year, the Dutch government passed a law banning coffee shops from selling cannabis with a THC content greater than 15 per cent, saying anything above that pushed cannabis from being a "soft" to a "hard" drug.
Copeland is involved in a ground-breaking study examining the THC content of cannabis seized in Sydney and the north coast area, with results expected in September.
No doubt the blogosphere will light up when the results come in.
Our understanding of the health effects of cannabis has improved, but the politics of legalisation and decriminalisation is a separate issue. Most things we put in our bodies have the potential to harm us, and some people argue the lower risk profile of cannabis compared with alcohol highlights the hypocrisy of cannabis being illegal while alcohol is not. Others say adding yet another drug to the legal pile will only lead to more harm.
For her part, Copeland says she avoids getting into the debate for fear of delegitimising her work in the eyes of users.
Large doesn't shy away from the argument, but is disappointed a productive, considered conversation is not always possible.
"The quality of the debate around cannabis on the internet is at a very low level, with a lack of understanding of scientific method and people pretty much re-enforcing their own, and I hesitate to say it, paranoid beliefs," he says.
"While I'm worried about any increase in prevalence if it was legalised … at least then we might be able to have a sensible discussion about its dangers."
  • 1

gallery_7617_565_5131.jpg

 

"Cannabis Prohibition Laws Cultivate Organised Crime"


"Don't let fear hold you back, Stand up for your beliefs if you believe Cannabis improves your health." Daryl D

 

I Support

Cannabis Compassion Australia

 

Putting Patients Before Profit


Cannabis was called Cannabis when Australia was founded. Marijuana was a mexican word unknown in Australia until American Reefer Madness arrived.

 

gallery_7617_360_6824.jpg


Say thanks with some bits:  1Ed71abMUAJ3q3XBQzYzSzJRydR58kKeT1

#2
El Gato

El Gato

    Couch Locked

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1405 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cannabis & Cannabis products
  • Location:Out of my head
  • Cannabis Use:Rec. & Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads)
  • Fav. Heads:Bio-Organic
  • Fav. Lighting: 600W

The director of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre at the University of NSW, Professor Jan Copeland, is a veteran of cannabis research,


Really?? I mean really??? Since friggen when? Comming up with your own ideas is not reaserch Jan Copeland. Next thing I will be hearing that Hilter was just reaserching Jews and shit.

Who cares who ya hurt with ya "reaserch" right, mole?
  • 0

#3
Cerberus

Cerberus

    WooWooWooWooWooWoo!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1582 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:asleep outside the Gates of Hades... again
  • Cannabis Use:Rec. & Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads)
  • Fav. Heads:"Hydroponic"
  • Fav. Lighting: 1000W HPS
did anyone catch how many times they nearly quoted evidence? Like, when Mathew Large says things like "our studies show it may be linked" or it "seemed to contribute to psychosis" or something similar?

lol, what a joke of an article, in fact, when the Cordoroy chick mentioned "No doubt the blogosphere will light up when the results come in." I pissed myself laughing because the only way to read that is with sarcasm.

Go on, read it again, in context, with sarcasm while imagining the journalist rolling her eyes while saying it ;)

Good onya SMH, you're well on your way to becoming the larger version of the Daily Telegraph, chuck a celebrity on the front page and you'd pass for Mx quality journalism.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#4
Tracybee

Tracybee

    Budding

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 Posts:
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:GoldCoast
  • Cannabis Use:Rec. & Medicinal
  • Fav. Heads:"Hydroponic"
  • Fav. Lighting: HPS
As they say, you either love it or hate it. No middle ground..whatever that means?
  • 0

#5
Frazz

Frazz

    Drug War Veteran

  • 420 Crew
  • 5337 Posts:
  • Cannabis Photography Competition

  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the fringes of society
  • Cannabis Use:Rec. & Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads), Hashish, Oil Concentrates
  • Fav. Heads:100% Organic
Ive had a gutful of that Dopeland dame and her filthy lies .. and see they call it marijuana whereever they can to further demonise the Mother Weed ..

Secret meetings were held by financial tycoons. Cannabis was declared a threat to their billion dollar enterprises.
For their dynasties to remain intact, cannabis had to go!
These evil men took an obscure Mexican slang word : ' marihuana ' and pushed into the consciousness of the public ....
Attached File  Marij.jpg   30.12K   5 downloads

Q: How can you tell if someone has been using marijuana? A: If someone is high on marijuana, he or she might:

  • seem dizzy and have trouble walking;
  • seem silly and giggly for no reason;
  • have very red, bloodshot eyes; and
  • have a hard time remembering things that just happened.

... more to the point .. its no ones f*%#ing bussiness anyway! :faint:
I need some ....
Attached File  hash.jpg   31.14K   4 downloads Attached File  mariju1.jpg   8.84K   0 downloads

:peace:
  • 1
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

#6
MongyMan

MongyMan

    Cannabis Research Breeder

  • Moderator Crew
  • 2974 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cannabis Genetics and Breeding
  • Location:My Island
  • Cannabis Use:Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads), Hashish, Oil Concentrates
  • Fav. Heads:100% Organic
  • Fav. Lighting: HID and the Sun
Amy Corderoy the author of this artice seems very uninformed on the subject imo...

Peace MongyMan
  • 0

#7
MongyMan

MongyMan

    Cannabis Research Breeder

  • Moderator Crew
  • 2974 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cannabis Genetics and Breeding
  • Location:My Island
  • Cannabis Use:Medicinal
  • Fav. Type:Raw (i.e. Heads), Hashish, Oil Concentrates
  • Fav. Heads:100% Organic
  • Fav. Lighting: HID and the Sun
Where is your journalistic questioning Amy Corderoy, when "Dr Matthew Large, a psychiatrist and researcher at the University of NSW, has been on the frontline of public mental health services for 20 years." makes a comment like this for eg......

"On most days, the majority of my inpatients have a history of long-term cannabis use, on some days, all of them do," he says.


Why havn't you rasied the following questions just for starters?...

Why do the majority of Dr Matthew Large's inpatients have a history of long-term cannabis use, and on some days, all of them do? This isn't a normal thing across the spectum of mental health practitioners. Is there something Dr large is doing that has created this situation? Does Dr Large target cannabis users? Is Dr Large just anit-cannabis on his own agenda no matter the science?

There are alot of questions you could have raised in this article if a genuine open discussion is going to be the value of it Amy Corderoy :doh:

The way it stands atm it's just emotive media drivel that adds nothing to anything.

Why didn't you ask some of these questions?...

Given the NCPIC has been involved in importing "Sativex" aka Nabiximols into Australia, (hash oil in alcohol) from GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK making them an active player in the Commercial Australian Medical Cannabis market, do the NCPIC, Dr Mathew Large and Prof. Jan Copeland recognise cannabis can have medical uses that can be and are approved by health depts. and/or the TGA etc.?

The NCPIC was formed with financial backing in part from Pfizer pharmacuticals and is currently involved with GW Pharmacuticals from the UK. Is the NCPIC a wholy independant not-for-profit government funded cannabis information resorce organisation as it claims, Is the NCPIC activly involved in the Australian medical cannabis industry and recieving financial benefits from pharmacutical companies and or others who are also involved in the Australian medical cannabis industry? Is there a serious conflic of interest here?

Why is the NCPIC importing cannabis from the UK when there are Australian medical cannabis companies such as Ellomo Medical Cannabis P/L and Mullaway's Medical Cannabis P/L etc. for eg. here in Australia.

From Jan Copeland....."People have no middle view about cannabis: typically it's the worst drug in the world or it's the most health-giving medication that should be encouraged," she says......"
What load of rubbish that is lol There are plenty in the Australian cannabis community want on open honest and scientifically factual discussion on cannabis that includes ALL of it's possible benefits and/or harms. Unlike Jan copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC, the Australian cannabis community doesn't have a blinkered agenda.
That arrogant single minded stand is the stand Jan copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC takes. You could ask Jan copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC why that is Amy?

"Like Large, she has been the subject of death threats because of her work."
lol who hasn't? Is that a cry for special sympathy? Jan copeland and Mathew Large need to get over themselves. Ask them were they genuinly scared Amy, was it reported to the relevant authorities (thats is facts you can check) or is it just a way to gain sympathy for their cause telling people that? Do they have a dodgy back too? lmao

"the idea that cannabis is a safe drug is a pipe-dream of users."
See there is more of that us an them attitude from Jan Copeland and the NCPIC. This is WHY the NCPIC appears to be unable to comunicate openly and scientifically with the Australian cannabis community. Ask her Amy....Is the NCPIC an us and them organisation, blinkered anti-cannabis and bugga the science? It certainly seems to be the case to many in the Australian community.

" Copeland says some cannabis advocates make the mistake of conflating their many beliefs about cannabis, including its medical or agricultural uses, arguments about law reform or talk about the health risks, into one pro-cannabis argument."
Jan copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC are serial offenders at just that but from an anti-cannabis angle whenever it suits them....ask Jan copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC if they understand cannabis is a plant Amy Corderoy? It's agricultural and medical uses are inherantly intertwined. Ask Jan Copeland, Mathew Large and the NCPIC if they have any concerns about governtment regulated cannabis supply? Ask them are the cannabis plants GW Pharmacuticals grow to make sativex agriculture?

"Many of us, myself included, have drunk alcohol in the past and even swallowed, but I have never had a problem recognising the harms of alcohol." [
Ask Jan Copeland if she can do that with alcohol why can't others do it with cannabis? Is this an alcohol specific thing even though Jan Copeland and the NCPIC tell you alcohol impares judgement? Or does Jan Copeland have some special superpower that gives her super intuition that no one but her has? lol

" One important factor, she says, is that alcohol is a known quantity, whereas cannabis is not."
Ummmmm because of prohibition, and what about home brew alcohol? Is it a "known quantity"?
If cannabis wasn't illegal breeders and growers could send their plants of to a uni for testing...AND MANY WOULD!!!!!!!!! Ask Jan Copeland if Sativex is ok Amy? It's hash oil in ethanol. You can make it easily at home...Many do.... Ask her what relevance her comment has if cannabis was legal?

"Cannabis is not one drug, there are over 80 different cannabanoids and between 500 and 2000 chemicals," she says. "It's been called a chemical soup."
Is Jan Copeland now claiming all the chemicals in cannabis are a drug? Where is the science to back that claim Amy? Over 80, between 500 and 2000..sounds like dodgy logic to me based on sketchy facts to clutch at straws to back a basless claim. Ask Jan Copeland if it is Amy.

"Older cannabis users often point to the higher potency of today's cannabis compared with the drugs they smoked in the past.Copeland says research is increasingly backing up that concern."
THAT IS JUST AN OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE JAN COPELAND :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: Everyone hates a liar Jan :thumbdown:
Ask Jan Copeland what research and figures she bases that comment on? Because it is the direct oppisite of and in total contradiction to what is posted online on cannabis websites by Australian cannabis growers and consumers. Those actually smoking it.

"Copeland is involved in a ground-breaking study examining the THC content of cannabis seized in Sydney and the north coast area, with results expected in September."
Why is it ground breaking? Ask Jan Copeland what figures they have to compare these results to from previous studies Amy, there are no previous studies, is that the groundbreaking bit, it's the first study? Imagine if this could be done openly without 'seizing' random test subject. It's far from scientific the way it is atm. Ask Jan Copeland would an open study be more acurate and of more value scientifically?

"For her part, Copeland says she avoids getting into the debate for fear of delegitimising her work in the eyes of users."
Ask Jan Copeland how that could possibly happen if what she is saying is true? Jan Copeland's work can only be delegitimised in the eyes of users if Jan Copeland is unable to back the claims Jan Copeland and the NCPIC make about cannabis. If Jan Copeland and the NCPIC can back those claims with sound science how can Jan Copeland and the NCPIC have anything to worry about? Ask Jan Copeland Amy, why is she so worried?

" The quality of the debate around cannabis on the internet is at a very low level, with a lack of understanding of scientific method and people pretty much re-enforcing their own, and I hesitate to say it, paranoid beliefs," he says."
Why didn't you ask Mathew Large why he feels he and his associates are so omnipotent lol......They can't be the only ones on the internet that have university degrees and scientific training etc? lol Maybe I have it wrong....ask Mathew Large was he refering to people like himself, Jan Copeland, the NCPIC and many others still clinging onto a drug war that is over with that comment?

There is an almost endless list of questions you could have asked Amy.....but guess you just went after the emotion button status quo you knew.......maybe next time you can have a genuine crack at it?

Wake up Amy Corderoy...the war on cannabis is over....it's time to show organisations like the NCPIC and people like Mathew Large and Jan Copeland for what they really are....profesional, grant chasing, middle class, welfare recipients........Oh sorry its not welfare if its a grant :angel:

The only accurate fact in most of that article was this..

."... if it was legalised … at least then we might be able to have a sensible discussion about its dangers."




Peace MongyMan


PS...I have emailed the SMH attention Amy Corderoy bringing her attention to this thread.......maybe she will comment?
  • 5

#8
Naycha

Naycha

    Concentrating....

  • 420 Crew
  • 6060 Posts:
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Quality
  • Location:I live where I am
  • Cannabis Use:Medicinal
  • Fav. Heads:"Hydroponic"
Great critique of a poorly researched (by the author) article Mongy :thumbsup:

I hope Amy Corderoy does reply, at least that would show the possibility that she has some integrity as a journalist.....

Naycha :peace:
  • 3

#9
mjbarratt

mjbarratt

    Researching Cannabis

  • Researchers
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 Posts:
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne
  • Cannabis Use:Recreational
  • Fav. Heads:None
I think one of the problems here is that people need to be able meet in the middle and be respectful of each other's expertise. The experts in this article are portrayed as elitist - as if science is the only knowledge of any value, and any experiential knowledge of cannabis users is not in any way useful or valuable. This is disrespectful to cannabis users and growers who actually know a lot about cannabis and its effects and its problems and how best to optimise the experience.

Yes there are people who seem to ignore the harms. I think the first place we can all start from is that we all accept that there are risks associated with cannabis use (it is not always safe). Then it would be a nice step for all parties to admit that there are also benefits to cannabis use. Then I think researchers and users could start having a fairer dialogue, ideally one that would lead to policies that respect human rights as well as are good for public health.
  • 7

#10
Allotropy

Allotropy

    Couch Locked

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 Posts:
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Interests:Vagina
  • Location:Earth
  • Cannabis Use:Spiritual
  • Fav. Heads:None
  • Fav. Lighting: None
Ok expert here,,

Rules to cannabis In my opinion:

1. If you have mental health problems like schitsophrenia , bipolar disorder, Schitsoaffective disorder in some cases anxiety, depression ,, personality disorders whatever... Listen to what your doctor says, who is an expert and don't smoke cannabis.

2. Don't smoke cannabis if your under the age of 18 or have genetic vunerability to mental illness.. you could be 0.1% and have a psychosis.

3. Vapourising is safer then smoking pot, eating pot is safer then vapourising, however smoking pot is still 20 x safer to smoking cigarettes

4. Marijuana is safer then alcohol and tabacco x 20

5. Enjoy if you have problems,, see your doctor cause if you don't fit the criteria I mentioned your like millions of other people and smoking cannabis is alot safer then alcohol and cancer sticks.
  • 0

gallery_7617_565_5131.jpg    

 

 






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: NCPIC, jan copeland, mathew large, cannabis

Bongsmart Headshop | Glass Bongs Waterpipes Pipes Paraphernalia Lighters & More
LED Grow Lights | Prestige LED Grow Solutions Australia
WARNING/DISCLAIMER The OZ Stoners cannabis community contains information regarding cannabis & other drugs; it is designed for mature (18+) audiences only. This site in no way condones the use of cannabis by minors. The content here within this cannabis community is for educational & entertainment purposes only. Any buying/selling or trading of illegal cannabis seeds, clones, flowers, resin or oil is strictly prohibited within this cannabis community.