dear sir,
i am writing to you to add my complaint about the canabis review
meeting scheduled for the 5th of february 2008 and the fact that you
will not be allowing anyone for the pro side even speak during the
meeting only allowing the oportunity to contibute (how patronising do
you want to get?)in the open forum a pathetic 45mins at the end of the
session at the end of the meeting even though you will be allowing three
speakers from the oppostion to speak for twenty minutes each.
i dare to say that you will not be making this public knowledge as i
would suggest that the whole meeting will be downplayed by the media and
any reports will be carefully doctored to suit your needs as will the
final conclusion reached and the government will surely do what they
like at the end of the day anyway.
how on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously as an
advisory council when you schedule events that are so obviously biased
as to prove to anyone with a brain that it is simply a chance for the
antidrugs lobbies to get together and sharpen their knives.
for my part i call you a bunch of biased charlatans and suggest that
you are simply a puppet organisation performing to a government that has
already made the decisions and is only using this event as a debate that
it can and will turn to its own advantage and as such would like to
express my disapointment and say that quite unequivocalably i have no
confidence in the outcome of your farcical little debate or in this
governments drug policy, amongst other things.
this manipulation is oh so true of a government that shows it is as
hypocritical, deaf and stupid as it ever was and is now adding
beligerency to its list of talents making me glad to be an ex-pat
yours sincerly
michael r harper
c/valencia 608bis
barcelona
08026
i have nothing to hide or be ashamed of can the ACMD say the same
Monday, 28 January 2008
Friday, 25 January 2008
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Cannabis Campaigners Fuming Over Advisory Council Review Agenda
Members of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance campaigning group (LCA) are fuming over the refusal of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs
(ACMD) to give them a slot for a speaker at the forthcoming Review on cannabis classification. The Review is due to be held on February 5th at the London Excel, Platinum Suite.
Alun Buffry, a spokesperson for the LCA, said: “We received invites to the Review along with the Agenda, but upon looking through it we saw no representation from the cannabis-using community itself.”
“Bearing in mind that anti-cannabis campaigners such as Debra Bell (from TAC) , Marjorie Wallace (from SANE) and Paul Corry (from RETHINK) have each been given a 20-minute slot, it is clearly going to be an outrageously biased review.
“So I wrote to the ACMD offering a speaker from the LCA – somebody who has had experience with illegal cannabis; The LCA contains many self-confessed cannabis users, whether it be for medical, religious or recreational reasons”
“The ACMD refused an opportunity telling us: “yourself, and your colleagues from the LCA who are attending the review, will be welcome to contribute during the open forum”, which means during just 45 minutes allocated to the floor, right at the end”
“How can this review reflect the “wide range of evidence” that the ACMD seems to be looking for, when not one cannabis users is being given an equal opportunity to those who seek upgrading.”
Notes for editors:
1) Letter sent to ACMD January 23
Looking through the list of speakers - also noticing a few tbc's, I was disappointed to see that there is no representative from ANY cannabis community or pro-legalisation group.
Considering that the agenda is all about cannabis, one has to wonder how many of the speakers have admitted to having used cannabis.
In the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), we have a wide representation of cannabis users including many who openly admit to having used cannabis for over 35 years. It includes people of all ages, a range or political and religious beliefs, backgrounds, education and occupation.
It includes people who use cannabis predominantly (or totally) for "medical" reasons, for religious reasons, and / or for so-called recreational reasons.
Although The LCA cannot claim to represent all cannabis users, we are the largest of the UK campaigning groups with over 3000 endorsements: from 1999 to 2006, LCA was registered as a political party and contested over 70 elections, gaining as many as 8% of the vote - and in an "all-up" council election in Great Yarmouth the candidates received a vote from over 16% of the voters!
LCA contains people with a vast experience and knowledge about cannabis - real cannabis! - what it has been like to live under prohibition - the appearance of various forms of cannabis and cannabis resin on our streets for many years, more recently including ground glass having been added to wet cannabis bud.
LCA contains people who have bought cannabis illegally, grown cannabis illegally and even sold cannabis illegally - people who have been through the courts and people who have not.
Considering the inclusion of speakers such as Debra Bell, whom, despite living through what she sees as cannabis-caused tragedies, has no experience of cannabis at all - and no academic qualification to count this makes the Review's presentation seem extremely one-sided.
I therefore would like to apply for a slot for a speakers from the LCA and would be happy to speak under Sessions 1, 3 or 4.
regards
Alun Buffry
LCA Treasurer and Spokesperson
2) Response from ACMD, January 24
Dear Alun,
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of Cannabis has been requested over concerns over the mental health effects of cannabis with particular regard to stronger forms of the drug.
The ACMD will consider a wide range of evidence during the two day meeting in February. This meeting will include the presentation of expert evidence on mental and physical health effects of cannabis, its use and social harms. In addition, the ACMD will consider the responses to the Home Office Drugs Strategy Consultation and the results of polling data (undertaken by the ACMD) to understand public perceptions
regarding cannabis, which will inform the Council's advice to Government.
The agenda for the 5th February has now been set and there will be no further places available for presenters. The tbc's you refer to relate to the title of the presentation - all the speakers are confirmed.
However, yourself, and your colleagues from the LCA who are attending the review, will be welcome to contribute during the open forum.
Will
Will Reynolds
Secretary to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
3rd Floor (SW) Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
(ACMD) to give them a slot for a speaker at the forthcoming Review on cannabis classification. The Review is due to be held on February 5th at the London Excel, Platinum Suite.
Alun Buffry, a spokesperson for the LCA, said: “We received invites to the Review along with the Agenda, but upon looking through it we saw no representation from the cannabis-using community itself.”
“Bearing in mind that anti-cannabis campaigners such as Debra Bell (from TAC) , Marjorie Wallace (from SANE) and Paul Corry (from RETHINK) have each been given a 20-minute slot, it is clearly going to be an outrageously biased review.
“So I wrote to the ACMD offering a speaker from the LCA – somebody who has had experience with illegal cannabis; The LCA contains many self-confessed cannabis users, whether it be for medical, religious or recreational reasons”
“The ACMD refused an opportunity telling us: “yourself, and your colleagues from the LCA who are attending the review, will be welcome to contribute during the open forum”, which means during just 45 minutes allocated to the floor, right at the end”
“How can this review reflect the “wide range of evidence” that the ACMD seems to be looking for, when not one cannabis users is being given an equal opportunity to those who seek upgrading.”
Notes for editors:
1) Letter sent to ACMD January 23
Looking through the list of speakers - also noticing a few tbc's, I was disappointed to see that there is no representative from ANY cannabis community or pro-legalisation group.
Considering that the agenda is all about cannabis, one has to wonder how many of the speakers have admitted to having used cannabis.
In the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), we have a wide representation of cannabis users including many who openly admit to having used cannabis for over 35 years. It includes people of all ages, a range or political and religious beliefs, backgrounds, education and occupation.
It includes people who use cannabis predominantly (or totally) for "medical" reasons, for religious reasons, and / or for so-called recreational reasons.
Although The LCA cannot claim to represent all cannabis users, we are the largest of the UK campaigning groups with over 3000 endorsements: from 1999 to 2006, LCA was registered as a political party and contested over 70 elections, gaining as many as 8% of the vote - and in an "all-up" council election in Great Yarmouth the candidates received a vote from over 16% of the voters!
LCA contains people with a vast experience and knowledge about cannabis - real cannabis! - what it has been like to live under prohibition - the appearance of various forms of cannabis and cannabis resin on our streets for many years, more recently including ground glass having been added to wet cannabis bud.
LCA contains people who have bought cannabis illegally, grown cannabis illegally and even sold cannabis illegally - people who have been through the courts and people who have not.
Considering the inclusion of speakers such as Debra Bell, whom, despite living through what she sees as cannabis-caused tragedies, has no experience of cannabis at all - and no academic qualification to count this makes the Review's presentation seem extremely one-sided.
I therefore would like to apply for a slot for a speakers from the LCA and would be happy to speak under Sessions 1, 3 or 4.
regards
Alun Buffry
LCA Treasurer and Spokesperson
2) Response from ACMD, January 24
Dear Alun,
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) review of Cannabis has been requested over concerns over the mental health effects of cannabis with particular regard to stronger forms of the drug.
The ACMD will consider a wide range of evidence during the two day meeting in February. This meeting will include the presentation of expert evidence on mental and physical health effects of cannabis, its use and social harms. In addition, the ACMD will consider the responses to the Home Office Drugs Strategy Consultation and the results of polling data (undertaken by the ACMD) to understand public perceptions
regarding cannabis, which will inform the Council's advice to Government.
The agenda for the 5th February has now been set and there will be no further places available for presenters. The tbc's you refer to relate to the title of the presentation - all the speakers are confirmed.
However, yourself, and your colleagues from the LCA who are attending the review, will be welcome to contribute during the open forum.
Will
Will Reynolds
Secretary to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
3rd Floor (SW) Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Internet Censorship In The U.K.
On the 27th of December 2007 the Canna Zine was accepted as an
accredited Google News source.
Frankly I was shocked and stunned as previously we had published our
press via a network of online PR sites, so it was no secret where we
were coming from with regard to our material. But, be that as it may,
our first article, syndicated via Google News in our own right, went out
on December 27th.
On December 31, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith passed a new techology
measure which was called "Cleanfeed".
Essentially, Cleanfeed is a means of censoring websites the government
don't like, and after the material we have published, about the lies
this Labour government have told regarding cannabis and the laws
surrounding it, its fair to say the government don't like the Canna
Zine. Not one little bit.
Since the start of January we have suffered a catalogue of problems with
regard to getting our material published. Services which I pay for, but
which over a period of time, I no longer received.
British Telecom
It started when my broadband connection was all of a sudden cut off.
Phone lines too.
After two days of British Telecom tech support telling me "the fault is
a mystery", I decided to do some of my own detective work.
I'm currently staying with my girlfriend whilst I wait for a new house
in Cardiff, and we're smack bang in the middle of a South Wales housing
estate. The only service provider in the area, is British Telecom.
So I checked with the neighbours either side and lo and behold their
phone service had been unaffected throughout the entire period, which
eventually ran to almost 5 full days. To this day BT have been unable to
give a reason for the break in service. They still took their payment
all the same!
Web Hosting
Then on the 14th of January I started receiving e-mails from my
web-hosting company, which is a British company who's name I won't
mention right now as I'm still in communications with them on the subject.
I operate a reseller account. What that means is I am not only able to
offer hosting to third parties, but I am also able to operate unlimited
domains, hosting unlimited domain names.
The e-mails stated, "as part of a service improvement scheme, my web
files were being moved to a new, faster server."
Regular visitors to the Canna Zine will know the service has always been
very good. The website always operated very quickly.
But on the 14th January my service levels dropped to a crawl. People sat
staring at a blank screen waiting sometimes 2 or 3 full minutes for the
page to load. A situation which has remained to date.
Google News UK
On the 20th of January I released an article and that was to be the last
article I would release through the Canna Zine as Google News UK pulled
the plug.
Why?
I would be guessing if I answered, but you only have to read through my
material, which is still on Google News, to see why the government,
Gordon Brown, and Jacqui Smith specifically, may want to take the Canna
Zine "off the air".
According to Frank Fisher on The Guardian website;
The technology behind Cleanfeed is simple enough, based on a system
devised by BT and known as Cleanfeed. A list of IP addresses is drawn up
by the industry watchdog, the Internet Watch Foundation, supplied to and
then augmented by the Home Office, and then handed to ISPs with the
simple instruction "block traffic to and from these addresses". The
problems are twofold.
First, the government, in the person of Home Office minister Vernon
Coaker, (who has appeared a number of times on the Canna Zine as an ex
toker himself - use the Canna Zine SEARCH for more) simply demanded that
all UK ISPs "voluntarily" sign up for the system - there is no
legislative backing for this at all. And second, no doubt only because
no open discussion took place, no parliamentary debate occurred, and
therefore no real examination of the dangers of such a process were
exposed, no one except the Home Office knows what's on that final list.
We're led to believe that it's purely a list of child pornography sites.
But no one outside government knows. Not even the ISPs. They block; they
don't look.
As of December 31 last year, all UK ISPs duly agreed to adopt the system.
You're now viewing a state-mandated subset of the internet. How do you
feel about that?
Like to vote against it? You can't.
Like your MP to sit on a committee to oversee implementation? He can't.
Like to know if the Google results you're seeing are a full
representation of Google's actual results? You can't.
Censorship at this level - above even ISPs, is all but invisible to the
end user. It's a secret that they're keeping these secrets from you,
(and me).
Now, this isn't China you might say, we trust our government to only
censor material that needs censoring. Sure?
This is the same government that has leaned on ISPs inside the UK, and
outside, not with the intention of blocking illegal or obscene material,
but simply sites that irritated, embarrassed, or offended the government.
Not using legal methods either - a court order, say - but bullying and
threats.
And this is the same government that was only beaten by one vote in the
House of Lords, on their 2006 proposal to force UK ISPs to drop sites on
the say-so of a single police officer.
This is, remember, that same government that's constantly telling us,
with regard to ID cards, that if you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear. Why then, do they hide this list?
Now, OK, most will feel with regard to child pornography a bit of
overkill may be justified, but with "extremism" we start a whole new
ball game. It's a truism that one man's terrorist is another's freedom
fighter, what should also be understood is that what is inflammatory and
incendiary material to one, is the simple truth to others.
Can we really accept that a few pen pushers in the Home Office should
have absolute veto over our online browsing habits?
If the government is determined to pursue this path - and I'd stress I'd
really rather they didn't (the best answer to poisonous speech is
non-poisonous speech) - then the very least they must do is introduce
transparency. There is no reason why the list supplied to ISPs should
not be reviewed and questioned by a parliamentary committee at the very
least and, unlike child porn, there's no reason why that shouldn't be in
open session.
Better would be a wider consultation, perhaps along the lines of the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, where government could put
its case to interested parties, including representatives of ISPs, civil
liberties groups, and the public.
You bet I'd volunteer. We cannot allow a power like this to operate,
unchecked and unobserved, even if it is currently used benignly. Can
those who'd say they would trust this government to act proportionately,
really say they'd trust all future governments also? Future Spycatcher
episodes will invariably happen online and in the UK, if the government
of the day chose to act, we'd know nothing about it. We may even be in
that situation right now.
The manner in which the government has grasped this power, the way in
which they are already wielding it, and their resistance to introducing
transparency to the process, suggests they think imposing invisible and
opaque censorship, with no legal process, is a proper way for the state
to behave.
I reckon the Chinese government feels that way too. Censors generally
feel their censorship is in a good cause too. It makes no difference.
We need a proper legal footing for these measures, proper oversight, and
a proper understanding that free speech is not a trivial principle the
government can simply ignore, but a cornerstone of any state that claims
to be democratic. If they're going to slice off chunks of the internet,
then the rest of us need to be damn sure that what's going is going for
a good reason, and that Jacqui Smith isn't both judge and jury, in the
hanging, drawing, and quartering of the world wide web.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/frank_fisher
http://cannazine.co.uk/content/view/3501/1585/
accredited Google News source.
Frankly I was shocked and stunned as previously we had published our
press via a network of online PR sites, so it was no secret where we
were coming from with regard to our material. But, be that as it may,
our first article, syndicated via Google News in our own right, went out
on December 27th.
On December 31, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith passed a new techology
measure which was called "Cleanfeed".
Essentially, Cleanfeed is a means of censoring websites the government
don't like, and after the material we have published, about the lies
this Labour government have told regarding cannabis and the laws
surrounding it, its fair to say the government don't like the Canna
Zine. Not one little bit.
Since the start of January we have suffered a catalogue of problems with
regard to getting our material published. Services which I pay for, but
which over a period of time, I no longer received.
British Telecom
It started when my broadband connection was all of a sudden cut off.
Phone lines too.
After two days of British Telecom tech support telling me "the fault is
a mystery", I decided to do some of my own detective work.
I'm currently staying with my girlfriend whilst I wait for a new house
in Cardiff, and we're smack bang in the middle of a South Wales housing
estate. The only service provider in the area, is British Telecom.
So I checked with the neighbours either side and lo and behold their
phone service had been unaffected throughout the entire period, which
eventually ran to almost 5 full days. To this day BT have been unable to
give a reason for the break in service. They still took their payment
all the same!
Web Hosting
Then on the 14th of January I started receiving e-mails from my
web-hosting company, which is a British company who's name I won't
mention right now as I'm still in communications with them on the subject.
I operate a reseller account. What that means is I am not only able to
offer hosting to third parties, but I am also able to operate unlimited
domains, hosting unlimited domain names.
The e-mails stated, "as part of a service improvement scheme, my web
files were being moved to a new, faster server."
Regular visitors to the Canna Zine will know the service has always been
very good. The website always operated very quickly.
But on the 14th January my service levels dropped to a crawl. People sat
staring at a blank screen waiting sometimes 2 or 3 full minutes for the
page to load. A situation which has remained to date.
Google News UK
On the 20th of January I released an article and that was to be the last
article I would release through the Canna Zine as Google News UK pulled
the plug.
Why?
I would be guessing if I answered, but you only have to read through my
material, which is still on Google News, to see why the government,
Gordon Brown, and Jacqui Smith specifically, may want to take the Canna
Zine "off the air".
According to Frank Fisher on The Guardian website;
The technology behind Cleanfeed is simple enough, based on a system
devised by BT and known as Cleanfeed. A list of IP addresses is drawn up
by the industry watchdog, the Internet Watch Foundation, supplied to and
then augmented by the Home Office, and then handed to ISPs with the
simple instruction "block traffic to and from these addresses". The
problems are twofold.
First, the government, in the person of Home Office minister Vernon
Coaker, (who has appeared a number of times on the Canna Zine as an ex
toker himself - use the Canna Zine SEARCH for more) simply demanded that
all UK ISPs "voluntarily" sign up for the system - there is no
legislative backing for this at all. And second, no doubt only because
no open discussion took place, no parliamentary debate occurred, and
therefore no real examination of the dangers of such a process were
exposed, no one except the Home Office knows what's on that final list.
We're led to believe that it's purely a list of child pornography sites.
But no one outside government knows. Not even the ISPs. They block; they
don't look.
As of December 31 last year, all UK ISPs duly agreed to adopt the system.
You're now viewing a state-mandated subset of the internet. How do you
feel about that?
Like to vote against it? You can't.
Like your MP to sit on a committee to oversee implementation? He can't.
Like to know if the Google results you're seeing are a full
representation of Google's actual results? You can't.
Censorship at this level - above even ISPs, is all but invisible to the
end user. It's a secret that they're keeping these secrets from you,
(and me).
Now, this isn't China you might say, we trust our government to only
censor material that needs censoring. Sure?
This is the same government that has leaned on ISPs inside the UK, and
outside, not with the intention of blocking illegal or obscene material,
but simply sites that irritated, embarrassed, or offended the government.
Not using legal methods either - a court order, say - but bullying and
threats.
And this is the same government that was only beaten by one vote in the
House of Lords, on their 2006 proposal to force UK ISPs to drop sites on
the say-so of a single police officer.
This is, remember, that same government that's constantly telling us,
with regard to ID cards, that if you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear. Why then, do they hide this list?
Now, OK, most will feel with regard to child pornography a bit of
overkill may be justified, but with "extremism" we start a whole new
ball game. It's a truism that one man's terrorist is another's freedom
fighter, what should also be understood is that what is inflammatory and
incendiary material to one, is the simple truth to others.
Can we really accept that a few pen pushers in the Home Office should
have absolute veto over our online browsing habits?
If the government is determined to pursue this path - and I'd stress I'd
really rather they didn't (the best answer to poisonous speech is
non-poisonous speech) - then the very least they must do is introduce
transparency. There is no reason why the list supplied to ISPs should
not be reviewed and questioned by a parliamentary committee at the very
least and, unlike child porn, there's no reason why that shouldn't be in
open session.
Better would be a wider consultation, perhaps along the lines of the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, where government could put
its case to interested parties, including representatives of ISPs, civil
liberties groups, and the public.
You bet I'd volunteer. We cannot allow a power like this to operate,
unchecked and unobserved, even if it is currently used benignly. Can
those who'd say they would trust this government to act proportionately,
really say they'd trust all future governments also? Future Spycatcher
episodes will invariably happen online and in the UK, if the government
of the day chose to act, we'd know nothing about it. We may even be in
that situation right now.
The manner in which the government has grasped this power, the way in
which they are already wielding it, and their resistance to introducing
transparency to the process, suggests they think imposing invisible and
opaque censorship, with no legal process, is a proper way for the state
to behave.
I reckon the Chinese government feels that way too. Censors generally
feel their censorship is in a good cause too. It makes no difference.
We need a proper legal footing for these measures, proper oversight, and
a proper understanding that free speech is not a trivial principle the
government can simply ignore, but a cornerstone of any state that claims
to be democratic. If they're going to slice off chunks of the internet,
then the rest of us need to be damn sure that what's going is going for
a good reason, and that Jacqui Smith isn't both judge and jury, in the
hanging, drawing, and quartering of the world wide web.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/frank_fisher
http://cannazine.co.uk/content/view/3501/1585/
Teens Who Smoke Marijuana But Not Tobacco Are Different From Other Teen Groups
ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2007) — A Swiss study suggests that teens who use only cannabis appear to function better than those who also use tobacco, and are more socially driven and have no more psychosocial problems than those who abstain from both substances, according to a new report.
See also:
Health & Medicine
* Controlled Substances
* Teen Health
* Lung Cancer
Mind & Brain
* Marijuana
* Illegal Drugs
* Addiction
Reference
* Cannabis
* Tobacco smoking
* Drug addiction
* Forensic toxicology
Cannabis or marijuana is the illegal drug most commonly used by youth, according to background information in the article. Cannabis use is associated with the use of other substances, including tobacco and illegal drugs. "The gateway theory hypothesizes that the use of legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) is the previous step to cannabis consumption," the authors write. "However, recent research also indicates that cannabis use may precede or be simultaneous to tobacco use and that, in fact, its use may reinforce cigarette smoking or lead to nicotine addiction independently of smoking status."
J. C. Suris, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, analyzed data from a 2002 national survey of Swiss students aged 16 to 20 years. A total of 5,263 students were included in the analysis, including 455 who smoked marijuana only, 1,703 who smoked marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who abstained from both substances.
"Our findings in this nationally representative sample of adolescents show that 6 percent of them use cannabis without having used tobacco and that one-fifth of current cannabis users (21.1 percent) declare never having used tobacco," the authors write.
The survey also found that, compared with students who used both substances, students who smoked marijuana only were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 59.7 percent), play sports (85.5 percent vs. 66.7 percent), live with both parents (78.2 vs. 68.3) and have good grades (77.5 vs. 66.6). However, they were less likely to have been drunk in the past 30 days (40.5 percent vs. 55 percent), have started using cannabis before the age of 15 years (25.9 percent vs. 37.5 percent), to have smoked marijuana more than once or twice during the previous 30 days (44 percent vs. 66 percent) or to use other illegal drugs (8.4 percent vs. 17.9 percent).
Compared with students who abstained from both substances, marijuana users were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 47.7 percent), to have a good relationship with their friends (87.0 percent vs. 83.2 percent), to be sensation-seeking (37.8 percent vs. 21.8 percent) and to play sports (85.5 percent vs. 76.6 percent), and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents (74.1 percent vs. 82.4 percent).
Although teens who smoke both marijuana and tobacco seem to have more psychosocial problems and thus may be worthy targets for preventive intervention, those who smoke marijuana only also should be monitored closely and counseled. "In any case, and even though they do not seem to have great personal, family, or academic problems, the situation of those adolescents who use cannabis but who declare not using tobacco should not be trivialized," the authors conclude.
Journal reference: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(11):1042-1047.
This study was supported by a contract from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and the participating cantons.
See also:
Health & Medicine
* Controlled Substances
* Teen Health
* Lung Cancer
Mind & Brain
* Marijuana
* Illegal Drugs
* Addiction
Reference
* Cannabis
* Tobacco smoking
* Drug addiction
* Forensic toxicology
Cannabis or marijuana is the illegal drug most commonly used by youth, according to background information in the article. Cannabis use is associated with the use of other substances, including tobacco and illegal drugs. "The gateway theory hypothesizes that the use of legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) is the previous step to cannabis consumption," the authors write. "However, recent research also indicates that cannabis use may precede or be simultaneous to tobacco use and that, in fact, its use may reinforce cigarette smoking or lead to nicotine addiction independently of smoking status."
J. C. Suris, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, analyzed data from a 2002 national survey of Swiss students aged 16 to 20 years. A total of 5,263 students were included in the analysis, including 455 who smoked marijuana only, 1,703 who smoked marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who abstained from both substances.
"Our findings in this nationally representative sample of adolescents show that 6 percent of them use cannabis without having used tobacco and that one-fifth of current cannabis users (21.1 percent) declare never having used tobacco," the authors write.
The survey also found that, compared with students who used both substances, students who smoked marijuana only were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 59.7 percent), play sports (85.5 percent vs. 66.7 percent), live with both parents (78.2 vs. 68.3) and have good grades (77.5 vs. 66.6). However, they were less likely to have been drunk in the past 30 days (40.5 percent vs. 55 percent), have started using cannabis before the age of 15 years (25.9 percent vs. 37.5 percent), to have smoked marijuana more than once or twice during the previous 30 days (44 percent vs. 66 percent) or to use other illegal drugs (8.4 percent vs. 17.9 percent).
Compared with students who abstained from both substances, marijuana users were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 47.7 percent), to have a good relationship with their friends (87.0 percent vs. 83.2 percent), to be sensation-seeking (37.8 percent vs. 21.8 percent) and to play sports (85.5 percent vs. 76.6 percent), and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents (74.1 percent vs. 82.4 percent).
Although teens who smoke both marijuana and tobacco seem to have more psychosocial problems and thus may be worthy targets for preventive intervention, those who smoke marijuana only also should be monitored closely and counseled. "In any case, and even though they do not seem to have great personal, family, or academic problems, the situation of those adolescents who use cannabis but who declare not using tobacco should not be trivialized," the authors conclude.
Journal reference: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(11):1042-1047.
This study was supported by a contract from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and the participating cantons.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Study Shows Marijuana Increases Brain Cell Growth
By Juanita King, The Muse (Memorial University of Newfoundland)
ST. JOHN’S, Nfld — Supporters of marijuana may finally have an excuse to smoke weed every day. A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Investigation suggests that smoking pot can make the brain grow.
Though most drugs inhibit the growth of new brain cells, injections of a synthetic cannibinoid have had the opposite effect in mice in a study performed at the University of Saskatchewan. Research on how drugs affect the brain has been critical to addiction treatment, particularly research on the hippocampus.
The hippocampus is an area of the brain essential to memory formation. It is unusual because it grows new neurons over a person’s lifetime. Researchers believe these new cells help to improve memory and fight depression and mood disorders.
Many drugs -— heroin, cocaine, and the more common alcohol and nicotine — inhibit the growth of these new cells. It was thought that marijuana did the same thing, but this new research suggests otherwise.
Neuropsychiatrist Xia Zhang and a team of researchers study how marijuana-like drugs — known collectively as cannabinoids — act on the brain.
The team tested the effects of HU-210, a potent synthetic cannabinoid similar to a group of compounds found in marijuana. The synthetic version is about 100 times as powerful as THC, the high-inducing compound loved by recreational users.
The researchers found that rats treated with HU-210 on a regular basis showed neurogenesis — the growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus. A current hypothesis suggests depression may be triggered when the hippocampus grows insufficient numbers of new brain cells. If true, HU-210 could offer a treatment for such mood disorders by stimulating this growth.
Whether this is true for all cannabinoids remains unclear, as HU-210 is only one of many and the HU-210 in the study is highly purified.
“That does not mean that general use in healthy people is beneficial,” said Memorial psychology professor William McKim. “We need to learn if this happens in humans, whether this is useful in healthy people, and whether THC causes it as well.”
McKim warns that marijuana disrupts memory and cognition. “These effects can be long-lasting after heavy use,” he said. “This makes it difficult to succeed academically if you use it excessively.”
“Occasional light use probably does not have very serious consequences. [But] there is some evidence that marijuana smoke might cause cancer.”
Still, the positive aspects of marijuana are becoming more plentiful as further research is done. McKim says it’s not surprising that THC and compounds like it could have medicinal effects.
“Many have been identified,” he said. “It stimulates appetite in people with AIDS, it is an analgesic, and blocks nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. And it treats the symptoms of glaucoma.”
The research group’s next studies will examine the more unpleasant side of the drug.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html
ST. JOHN’S, Nfld — Supporters of marijuana may finally have an excuse to smoke weed every day. A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Investigation suggests that smoking pot can make the brain grow.
Though most drugs inhibit the growth of new brain cells, injections of a synthetic cannibinoid have had the opposite effect in mice in a study performed at the University of Saskatchewan. Research on how drugs affect the brain has been critical to addiction treatment, particularly research on the hippocampus.
The hippocampus is an area of the brain essential to memory formation. It is unusual because it grows new neurons over a person’s lifetime. Researchers believe these new cells help to improve memory and fight depression and mood disorders.
Many drugs -— heroin, cocaine, and the more common alcohol and nicotine — inhibit the growth of these new cells. It was thought that marijuana did the same thing, but this new research suggests otherwise.
Neuropsychiatrist Xia Zhang and a team of researchers study how marijuana-like drugs — known collectively as cannabinoids — act on the brain.
The team tested the effects of HU-210, a potent synthetic cannabinoid similar to a group of compounds found in marijuana. The synthetic version is about 100 times as powerful as THC, the high-inducing compound loved by recreational users.
The researchers found that rats treated with HU-210 on a regular basis showed neurogenesis — the growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus. A current hypothesis suggests depression may be triggered when the hippocampus grows insufficient numbers of new brain cells. If true, HU-210 could offer a treatment for such mood disorders by stimulating this growth.
Whether this is true for all cannabinoids remains unclear, as HU-210 is only one of many and the HU-210 in the study is highly purified.
“That does not mean that general use in healthy people is beneficial,” said Memorial psychology professor William McKim. “We need to learn if this happens in humans, whether this is useful in healthy people, and whether THC causes it as well.”
McKim warns that marijuana disrupts memory and cognition. “These effects can be long-lasting after heavy use,” he said. “This makes it difficult to succeed academically if you use it excessively.”
“Occasional light use probably does not have very serious consequences. [But] there is some evidence that marijuana smoke might cause cancer.”
Still, the positive aspects of marijuana are becoming more plentiful as further research is done. McKim says it’s not surprising that THC and compounds like it could have medicinal effects.
“Many have been identified,” he said. “It stimulates appetite in people with AIDS, it is an analgesic, and blocks nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. And it treats the symptoms of glaucoma.”
The research group’s next studies will examine the more unpleasant side of the drug.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
