The trouble with cannabis

[Ford Fairlane]

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.

 

I like your concept MJ but I think you have it arse about.. We have been bombarded with the risks associated with cannabis, we ( we =society) all know the risks because that is what we constantly hear about. I think the first step is for researchers, government and everyone else to accept there are benifits associated with cannabis use, both medical and recreation, then do a comparison of risk and benifit.

[Allotropy]

I like your concept MJ but I think you have it arse about.. We have been bombarded with the risks associated with cannabis, we ( we =society) all know the risks because that is what we constantly hear about. I think the first step is for researchers, government and everyone else to accept there are benifits associated with cannabis use, both medical and recreation, then do a comparison of risk and benifit.

 

They have done this a long.. long.. long time ago

 

Reason 1 - Black people smoked cannabis.. mexicans. Racist white goverment.. white man.. fuck black man

 

Reason 2 - Largely reason 1 and ......Money vs control vs production relationship

 

Reason 3 - Marijuana opens your mind and encourages "hippy 60's behavour" Anti Military establishment psychological relationships

 

Reason 4 - When marijuana became popular so did other drugs .. like Crack Cocaine shortly after.. Gate way theory...which is more likely in many aspects to become legal when you take reason 2 into consideration And was.. is? Still Controlled by the CIA

 

Reason 5 - The goverment has kept to old traditions and laws. The law is a preventative to many people coming into contact with marijuana despite doctors, musicians and other people who try to promote its use.. like peace fighters (bob marley)

 

 

They tried banning alcohol again but it didnt' work. It's much easier to keep it illegal for a long time and it has and things are now starting to spool over on reagan and his money charade, mariuana should have been legal before cigarettes and grog became legal.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Anthesis

[Budzzz]

I just wanted to point out some obvious fallacies made by Jan Copeland and Mathew Large.

(1)

"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.

 

I'll rephrase this bullshit to show the fallacy.

 

Because we don't know absolutely everything about cannabis no one can be certain about it or the effects it could have.

 

This is a non sequitur because it does not follow that you need 100% knowledge of something to actually know about it and understand it. She may as well say "We discovered 2000 chemicals in cannabis but the are some yet to be discovered until then we really know nothing about it (No matter how much they know about cannabis it will always be insufficient). Or better still "Sunrise is an unknown quantity because no one can be absolutely 100% certain about anything therefore we don't really know if the sun will rise tomorrow, it may not, no one can really say."

 

(2)

"Cannabis is not one drug, there are over 80 different cannabinoids and between 500 and 2000 chemicals," she says. "It's been called a chemical soup."

 

This is another non sequitur (conclusion does not follow from premises) I rephrase to show how stupid and unscientific she is.

 

"Cannabis is actually a chemical soup because it contains 2000 chemicals and over 80 different cannabinoids it can’t be just one drug."

 

WTF then how may drugs is it 10? 20? What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Cannabis is a plant and not a synthetic chemical, it contains many chemical components. How exactly this stops it from being classified as one drug is beyond me. Jan would also have to believe that Tobacco isn't one drug, and neither is Opium, or better yet Wine isn't one drug because it contains so many chemicals it would have to be considdered an unknown quantity. Jan would also believe that a carrot isn't really just one vegetable either, because in her world she can't be certain about anything it's all a vague mish mash.

 

(3)

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.

 

This is the bandwagon fallacy (concluding that an idea is true simply because many people believe it).

The lying bitch can't back it up this research with references though. Just like Cerberus said they nearly quoted evidence. Sorry Jan without references you don't get to use big scary words like "Chemicals" and "Research" to make a sound argument. The truth is that older users don't say this at all, in fact most say that today’s cannabis is not better than what they had in the past.

 

Again more pseudoscience from Jan, because what older cannabis users believe about the potency of cannabis is just not relevant. Science doesn't rely on what people believe. Anyway all that the data related to seized cannabis does show is that yummy sweet high grade is more widely available now, and that's all. Amazingly one sample of hash oil from India in 1981 had 70% THC!!! Fuck your war on drugs!

 

(4)

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.

 

And now we're on to the slippery slope fallacy.

 

1. Event X has occurred.(Cannabis now is more potent and has higher THC)

2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. (making it more dangerous)

Again WTF? Cannabis being more potent just means you need to smoke less to get the same effect.

She would also have to believe that an alcoholic beverage with 40% alcohol is eight times more dangerous than one with 5% alcohol.

Where exactly does she thinks todays strains came from. Obviously she has no understanding of genetics, because you can't get high THC plants from ditch weed. If a strain today is potent it is because its ancestors were potent also, and that is a fact. So the first premise is completely wrong and cannabis is not more potent now than it was before. Any conclusions following will also be wrong "an increased likelihood of smokers developing psychosis". Also why does she only have preliminary evidence, when cannabis has been extensively studied for over 60 years. I'd say it's because the actual evidence contradicts her own biased beliefs about cannabis.

 

Copeland says she avoids getting into the debate for fear of delegitimising her work in the eyes of users.

 

Well fuck Jan you don't need any help from anyone delegitimising your work because you do it every time you open your mouth.

 

The last fallacy I'll post is from Large and it's a fuking whopper!

 

"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.

 

Ah yes the good old ad hominem fallacy (An arguer attacks the person instead of the argument when the arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason) That's right Mr Large we're all a bunch ignorant paranoid potheads. Mr Large appears to love fallacious reasoning also. Well you don't even need to look at the scientific evidence Mr Large when you indulge in basic logical fallacies. What he forgot to tell everyone is that in the research they did they were not able to establish causation. While there is a correlation between cannabis and schizophrenia, they cannot establish causation. In fact the data from his research could be showing that people predisposed or already suffering from psychoses may be more likely to try cannabis and not the other way round. What we do know is that cannabis use is increasing but psychosis and schizophrenia are not. But obviously Mr large doesn’t like these facts and therefore needs to do more research to demonize pot and validate his confirmation bias.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Budzzz

[El Gato]

Great post Budzzz

[Budzzz]

Thanks Token JJ, and I also really liked the critique of the article by MongyMan. Lets hope that Amy Corderoy will comment.

[mjbarratt]

I like your concept MJ but I think you have it arse about.. We have been bombarded with the risks associated with cannabis, we ( we =society) all know the risks because that is what we constantly hear about. I think the first step is for researchers, government and everyone else to accept there are benifits associated with cannabis use, both medical and recreation, then do a comparison of risk and benifit.

 

puka, after reading your comment, I agree with you. I don't really mind what order it happens to be honest. As long as both sides accept there are both risks and benefits, then we can move on to more important questions - like what is the best model for supply and how can we best reduce harms / increase benefits.

[Ford Fairlane]

puka, after reading your comment, I agree with you. I don't really mind what order it happens to be honest. As long as both sides accept there are both risks and benefits, then we can move on to more important questions - like what is the best model for supply and how can we best reduce harms / increase benefits.

I wish there were more researchers out there like you MJ.. thumbs up

[mjbarratt]

Hey puka, thanks There are a few more researchers like me. One that comes to mind is Liz Temple of Ballarat University - she wrote an article for The Drum recently which I think you will all like.

 

In fact in the Update email list I find most contributors are pro drug law reform, whereas it's only a minority (mainly Drug Free Australia) representatives that disagree.

 

I think many researchers in Australia are sympathetic to the situation people who use cannabis (as well as other drugs) find themselves (some of us due to first hand experience I should add!).

 

The frustrating part is that many people are unable to stand up and say something publicly due to insecurity of their jobs. That's why it is important for us researchers to collect data that helps to dispel stereotypes of people who use drugs or grow cannabis or even those who sell - because if we have data to present, we are able to talk about these issues more easily. Without data to present, people can be accused of being biased or having an opinion rather than speaking from evidence.

 

(This is what I try and do in my work anyway!)

[WillyB66]

Great article, very informative, thanks for taking the time to inform.

[WillyB66]

Good arvo mates! I agree substantailly with you both. I can only speak for America where it is a state and federal complex situation on legalities and information. All I know is I wish the Veterans affairs would offer it because it is the only thing that works for me and most vets with ptsd and physical injuries. The motto is take a pill of which i have seratonin I guess it was called gained 40 lbs, lost sex drive and was like a zombie. Shame on them. I am so glad this forum exists. Thx Mates!