|
|
| Designer Cannabis 'Harming Young' |
|
Posted by CN Staff on January 17, 2005 at 21:25:06 PT By John Crowley Source: Daily Telegraph UK 
The increased availability of high-strength cannabis is harming the physical and mental health of young people, the Royal College of General Practitioners said yesterday.Dr Clare Gerada, head of the college's drugs misuse unit, said that relaxed attitudes towards the drug and the greater availability of stronger forms were leading to rising rates of depression and psychosis among vulnerable young people. Speaking on the eve of a conference being held by the college in London today, Dr Gerada said stronger, genetically modified forms of the drug were widely available. She said: "While we are finally winning the battle against smoking and alcohol we are in danger of ignoring cannabis. Genetically modified forms of the drug are now the norm rather than the exception. "There is evidence that high levels of use - especially among teenagers who are physically and mentally still developing - carries with it the increased risk of psychosis and respiratory conditions such as asthma. "With cannabis now more popular among young people than cigarettes and higher potencies more widely available than ever before, it is time we looked again at the health risks." Her attack comes a year after the drug was downgraded from Class B to Class C. People caught with cannabis are let off with a warning and the drug is confiscated. The conference has been organised to broaden GPs' knowledge about cannabis and help them deal with the conditions arising from its use, as well as understand the evidence for possible medical benefits. Doctors have shied away from questioning patients about drugs, due to a lack of knowledge and concerns about confidentiality. Speakers at the conference will include Prof John Henry, from St Mary's Hospital in London, and the Labour MP Kate Hoey. "With cannabis more popular than tobacco and higher potencies more widely available than before, it is time we looked again at the health risks," Dr Gerada said. Research conducted by the Department of Health in 2003 found that almost a third of men aged 16 to 24 took cannabis in 2003. In November last year, figures from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction showed that two in five British 15-year-olds had tried cannabis - the highest rate in Europe. Ms Hoey, who has spoken out against the dangers of cannabis, said the new research was very worrying. "Those of us who opposed the downgrading of cannabis warned that this would lead to more use of the drug," she said. "This research should help the new Home Secretary to realise that a mistake was made. "I hope even at this stage that the Government should classify it as a drug that is very harmful for young - particularly vulnerable - people." The Conservatives have pledged to return cannabis to Class B status. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The next Conservative government will reflect this by reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it." Source: Daily Telegraph (UK) Related Articles & Web Site: Drugs Uncovered: Observer Special GPs Shy Away from Addressing Cannabis Use Joint Studies - Guardian Unlimited Smoking Cannabis Can Make You Psychotic Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #45 posted by afterburner on January 24, 2005 at 10:51:10 PT |
| UK: Cannabis Smoker is Told Off by MP Roche.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n130/a07.html
Pubdate: Fri, 21 Jan 2005
Source: Hampstead And Highgate Express, The (UK)
Copyright: 2005 Archant Regional
Contact: letters@hamhigh.co.uk
Website: http://www.hamhigh.co.uk
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2597
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) CANNABIS SMOKER IS TOLD OFF BY MP ROCHE {A DRUG-taker was forced to retreat after getting a ticking off from Hornsey and Wood Green MP Barbara Roche. {The MP was on a walkabout in Wood Green on Sunday ( January 16 ) with Haringey Council's education spokesman George Meehan when she stumbled on a man in his 20s smoking cannabis in a stairwell. {Ms Roche said: "I passed him and I thought we would not like this in our area or near my family so I said he should not be doing it here. {"Looking around you speak to residents and they say drugs are a problem and not what they want in the area.} Maybe we should just do away with "Tea Time"! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #44 posted by observer on January 20, 2005 at 11:07:31 PT |
| Oh, come off it. What is this "Designer" cannabis? The cannabis we smoke is as "designer" as a peach, as "designer" as brussel sprouts, or as "designer" as a tulip or a poodle. Cannabis isn't "designed", it is selectively bred, like peaches, poodles, tulips and brussel sprouts. Prohibitionists call seletively bred cannabis "designer" to confuse it with "designer drugs" (meaning "synthesized") like MDMA, the 2CBs, and so on. Prohibitionists want to make cannabis seem more potent, scary, out of (their) control, shallow (like "designer jeans"), and evil. Although hashish has been around for many centuries, and can be very strong, prohibitionists want to make strong strains of "designer" cannabis seem novel, alien, alarming, and especially dangerous. (Have you noticed how prohibitionists never mention hashish in their alarmist "not your daddy's dope" rants?) A similar strategy is employed with the term "grow lab", which tries to confuse pot plants with meth labs. Most "grow labs" aren't any more "labs" than are mom's spider plants. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #43 posted by FoM on January 20, 2005 at 10:16:19 PT |
| What an excellent comment. Thank you. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #42 posted by ngeo on January 20, 2005 at 10:08:46 PT:
|
| I remember the 60's. I graduated from a Canadian university in 1968. I remember the first long hair, people who changed their clothes, psychedelic art, etc. I believe there was a social movement at the time, outstripping politics. It was based on cannabis, because the cannabis opened people's eyes to the evil in the system - and to the beauty of the natural world. At the core of that movement I believe was the idea of tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Many people dropped out to the farm. It was the 'dropping out' that scared the establishment. Someone who 'drops out' can really hurt the movie(remember Bush after 9/11 - go out and buy something?). People found it was really hard work to drop out - where does the money come from? The powers that be introduced cocaine, began the 'war on drugs' which demonized cannabis by its association with cocaine, and forced the 'recreational' users back into the mainstream. And how are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paris? But some people had faith in the vision they created by the use of cannabis. Some of those who dropped out really did succeed. I believe that is where a true social movement will succeed once again - by people making a commitment to hard work, by understanding the evil of the regime's consumer hype, and by working together to survive and thrive while preserving their own freedom to create. It has to start with food, shelter and clothing, it has to grow from the ground up, and it has to work around the system from inside the jurisdiction of the system. Given the stress that will come over the next years, it will find plenty of support. Can a bunch of 'hippies' make anything work? Only if they start thinking of themselves as human beings instead of 'hippies', and realize how scary a true social movement is in a police state with a military government that pretends to be 'free and democratic'. At some point, hopefully before it hits the fan, the powers that run this world will see the light. The wise ones among them already see the light; but the dangerous ones will have to be forgiven. I believe it will take a kind of 'truth and reconciliation commission' for the entire world to move the world. The criminals will have to be let off. Well that's my rant for today. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #41 posted by afterburner on January 20, 2005 at 06:48:04 PT |
| {Learn about the Yippies - the pioneers of the legalization movement. See some amazing clips of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and honorary Yippies John Lennon & Yoko Ono. Clips from "The Chicago 7" on TLC, "Gimme Some Truth", and "The Mike Douglas Show" (co-hosted by John and Yoko!) Yippee!}
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3359.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #40 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 21:02:30 PT |
| You said what I felt about that time. It was almost magical. Roll Another Number: A few words from good ole Neil. I'm not goin' back to Woodstock for a while, Though I long to hear that lonesome hippie smile. I'm a million miles away from that helicopter day No, I don't believe I'll be goin' back that way. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #39 posted by afterburner on January 19, 2005 at 20:54:01 PT |
| My then wife-to-be and I were leaning toward the so-called hippie culture, the freedom of mind. We got married the weekend of Woodstock in an outdoor wedding with our own self-constructed ceremony instead of going to Woodstock. In the end the marriage lasted longer than the "summer of love" or that weekend of fun and music. The "vibe" of those years (the sixties) cast a white shadow over the following years, providing hope for the future and wise alternatives to the ills and follies of society. Not to mention, whoops I just did, the inspiring music that touches the hearts, minds, spirits and souls of those not even born when Max Yasgur's farm attracted an instant city and closed the New York Thruway. As far as Charles Manson goes, a strong case could be made that he was a government-paid saboteur set lose on the so-called hippie culture to destroy its peaceful image. At the very least he was a child of the US prison system, a manipulative believer in black magic and mind domination. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #38 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 18:39:46 PT |
| It took me a while to figure out how to say what the term Hippie meant to me. It wasn't the colors even though they were pretty but it was a state of mind. A state of mind to buck what was taught as gospel. A state of mind to say hey catholic church why did you tell me these things? It was about exploring outside what was normal in society. It was a time of awakening for me. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #37 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 18:05:17 PT |
| for sweet little fat boys. I never knew a mean one...although, I'm sure there are some out there. They are so tender hearted and vulnerable and brave and sad. Their humility is sweet and striking...stunning even to a tender heart like mine that loves people and tries to see the lovable in them. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #36 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 15:34:02 PT |
| I'm so glad that I am not overweight. I feel sorry for people that are because they are the next target for being shunned by society. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #35 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 15:28:38 PT |
| http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=61CA8CD2-286A-4460-96AF-CD58EE176EA8 [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #34 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 15:24:46 PT |
| I was twelve years old in 1960 and planted fairly firmly in East Texas Rural culture. (Tex Watson was, too...arrgggh.) I guess that would make me a "ETR". "Eater" sounds worse than "hippie". I always dislike labels. The worry caused to some people by "different" goings on in Haight Ashbury was nothing compared to the sheer horror that Manson and family brought to the American public. They are the stain on the word "hippie"...as I see it. People can be so stupid. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #33 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 15:12:17 PT |
| I had some totally cool ones though. Something of a clotheshorse...I favored the huge flare, low cut Cher type bell bottoms and even had some real navy issue ones. I had a lovely evening dress in the seventies that was very Cher. Saying I was hippie though would be like saying I was a Doctor because I had a Ben Casey shirt or Elizabeth Taylor because I had that ruffled blouse we called a Liz shirt back in the sixties. My idea of hippieism is the Haight-Ashbury and things that spoked out from there. The Rainbow people are hippies to me. I've always been quite awed by them. I collected love beads. I hope there was no sexual thing to that...I didn't know it if there was. Coureges...white boots. I was probably into that and 4-H, and Future Homemakers of America when the hippies were being born. Later when the divorce came and I had to let my children visit their father, I sowed all the wild seeds I needed to have ever sown on the occasions when my children where in their father's care and not mine. Middle to late twenties. I was an angry young woman. What the kids call my hippie pictures were actually just a very angry young woman dealing with a terrible disappointment. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #32 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 14:59:48 PT |
| I thought I was young when I got married but you were young. I was 17. I had a friend who was going to school in Berkeley and would write me the coolest letters and kept me informed of how great it was. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #31 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 14:52:22 PT |
| I thought it looked magnificent and fun. But I felt that I had given up a lot of the things of youth, like that. I was a very young teenage bride at fifteen and still made myself finish two years of highschool. Running around just having fun wasn't on my agenda. I gave up school dances, activities, college and such "fun" (smile)to begin as quickly as I could on what I saw as my adult life with the love of my life. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #30 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 14:25:53 PT |
| I was raising my young son during that time also from a teenage marriage but everytime I would see something about Woodstock on the news I would stop and think how wonderful it must be. I was in such a conservative relationship that I wouldn't have dared say anything good about it. I still could dream though and that I did. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #29 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 13:52:27 PT |
| What a concept...to think that that seems "wrong" to some people. Charles Manson did more harm to the name "hippie" than any one person. Would that we had never heard of him. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #28 posted by Hope on January 19, 2005 at 13:48:06 PT |
| I’m sure some people believe that everyone who came to adolescence and young adulthood during the sixties and seventies are hippies. My own son has referred to me as an “old hippie”. I never made the Haight-Ashbury scene. I only saw Janis Joplin on variety shows on prime time entertainment shows. I listened to her on the radio and watched her on TV and loved the amazing depth of her singing and enjoyed her music at every opportunity, but when I went into head shops I didn’t have a clue what it was about. I thought, “Hmmmm. Weird pipes…funky shirts and posters and lights. I honestly didn’t know, even in the early seventies, that a rack of funny cigarette papers and displays of weird, to me, hand blown glass pipes had any connection to marijuana. I didn’t pay any attention to how other shoppers viewed the stores. I looked at it sort of like a museum type display. Looked and went on my way. Later in my progress through the seventies I found out what it was about and I thought the head shops were a suddenly more interesting place. Yet, my own son, whose diapers I was folding in the sixties, during a teenage marriage that failed eventually in the seventies, once said I was an old “hippie.”. I think everyone has their own idea of what a hippie really is. My first hearing of the term resulted in imagery involving being in the situation of having too great a breadth of hip width, so as to have an unbalanced… “hippie appearance“. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #27 posted by FoM on January 19, 2005 at 12:42:03 PT |
| I wanted to say something about the Hippie culture. I thought it was wonderful. Minds were opened to see that not everything we are taught is true or necessary. It's what they have done with Hippie terms that makes it seem bad. Look at Woodstock in 1969. What an event it was. What an expression of hope for the future Woodstock had. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #26 posted by afterburner on January 19, 2005 at 06:00:02 PT |
| "This [anti-hippie] attitude is still very much present today." Surprisingly, true. I have been doing some commercial deliveries lately (nothing illegal)! Some of the other drivers have made reference to "hippie houses" and so on. I was shocked to hear such talk in 2005. We have the legitimate science and medicine on our side. We have the financial costs to society on our side. We have the truth on our side. But those lingering anti-hippie attitudes are the biggest obstacle we still face. Ironically, the term "hippie" (according to Dr. Tim) was an Establishment label for manifesters of a profound change in public consciousness, which could "save the planet for another day."(Neil) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #25 posted by John Tyler on January 18, 2005 at 20:36:24 PT |
| Legalize it. The mystery will disappear. It will become a boring thing adults do. Off topic slightly, I got a coffee table book for Christmas called Hippie. I know, it sounds hokie, but it was interesting because it talked about how the hippie movement started and how conventional society absolutely freaked out and did everything they could to oppress the ideas, and the people involved through police power and propaganda. This attitude is still very much present today. In their mind it is associated with first blacks, and later an anticonventional social movement. Both of them are not exactly proper to the ruling political class. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #24 posted by siege on January 18, 2005 at 13:26:45 PT |
| Have you seen all the young girls at 8-9 years of age that have ( BREAST )this did not happen till they where about 13 or a little older back in the late 50's
they feed cows, pigs, Chickens and every thing else GMOs to get hight production and growth out of it, and it is showing in the people that EAT it. So tell us about how safe it is FDA. where do you think all the OBESITY come FROM!! GMOs this is what make you SICK, and then you go to Doc. to get better.
So the pharmaceutical have US come and going any WAY you look at it. buy more of there DRUGS. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #23 posted by afterburner on January 18, 2005 at 12:37:21 PT |
| INDEPTH: GENETIC MODIFICATION
Genetically Modified Foods: a primer
CBC News Online | May 11, 2004
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/ { The typical Canadian kitchen is likely to contain many ingredients or foods that have been genetically modified. Everything from bread to tomatoes, corn and soya oil has been produced from altered food organisms.{ Some estimates peg as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves as "modified." That's largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered.{The term "genetically modified" refers to the alteration of genetic material. Specifically, it means the genes of one organism have been "cut out" and then "pasted" into another organism. {GM plants are often created to resist disease and eliminate the need for pesticides. Desired characteristics, such as a hardier texture, higher nutritional value or faster growth, are chosen to produce a kind of "super food." {Consumer concerns { About 60 per cent of our processed foods contain some genetic modifications, but consumers in Canada would be hard pressed to find out what is and isn't altered.{ Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians argue GM foods are a health risk. They say the food industry should be more transparent in its creation and testing of GM foods. They also point out that there are no long-term studies on the effects of modified foods on human health.}more... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/ CBC MARKETPLACE: FOOD » GM FOOD - LABELLING Food fight over the labelling of genetically modified products Broadcast: Dec 7, 1999 | Producer: George Prodanou; Researcher: Jenny Wells http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/gmfood/ {Of all the consumer items we purchase, food is the one we are most personal with. Because we literally take it into ourselves, we have a fundamental right to know what it is, how it was processed and that it is safe. About 60 per cent of our processed foods are genetically engineered, but you won't know that by reading a food label.{In a 1999 Environics poll, 80 per cent of respondents said they wanted labelling which told them what foods were genetically modified. Government and industry have responded with a voluntary labelling plan that may go into place sometime in the future. That has a some consumers dissatisfied.{"I don't want to take the risk. I would like to have them labelled, so that I can decide what I'm going to buy and not going to buy," says one woman interviewed outside a Toronto grocery store. {"You hear about plants being altered with animal genetic material and vice versa. I don't know how that works but I'm really apprehensive about it," says one concerned man. BSE shocked the United Kingdom when it contributed to the deaths of three dozen Britons. {In 1996, mad cow disease, or BSE, shocked the United Kingdom when it contributed to the deaths of three dozen Britons. Three years later, Belgian chickens are found contaminated with dioxin. {"You have a public in Europe much more sensitized to food safety issues in the wake of BSE," says Jim Thomas with Greenpeace, UK. {So, Europeans could be forgiven their heightened sense of concern when genetically modified foods hit their supermarket shelves 18 months ago. {British shoppers were suspicious of the foods, into which scientists had knitted foreign genes. Dubbed GMOs (genetically modified organisms) they were to be found in everything from baby food to potato chips.{A group of activists charge across a farmer's field in Britain { British farmers lost test fields of genetically modified canola and corn, not to the corn borer it was designed to repel, but to environmental activists, with a new tactic called "crop pulling."{ The tabloids and the big food chains scorned the new foods. That lead to labelling that permitted British consumers to know when they were buying genetically modified foods.{ But that's not happening here in Canada. Although more than half of our prepared foods come from genetically modified crops, it doesn't have to say so on the label.{ That's because Health Canada has decided that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to or as safe as conventional food. A food must be labelled in Canada if it is pasteurized or irradiated. But labelling a food genetically modified is still voluntary.{ And its just not happening.}[!!!]more... http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/gmfood/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #22 posted by siege on January 18, 2005 at 10:50:25 PT |
| you have hit on ( some ) back in the 50's 60's in the service I read and --- Scientists that worked on this, some that would blow you away Science and human genes and mutation not at liberty there was a man every 50 feet around the place and if you did not have the right I D you did not get in.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #21 posted by dongenero on January 18, 2005 at 10:41:56 PT |
| I don't know about the 2nd company siege.
Here is the Prairie Plant Systems web site. They still tout their Medi-Cann business. They were criticized for the shipped product being poor quality but, that may have been as directed by Health Canada. http://www.prairieplant.com/home.htm [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by FoM on January 18, 2005 at 10:13:52 PT |
| What an interesting discussion. Thanks everyone. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by dongenero on January 18, 2005 at 10:09:15 PT |
| I would be surprised if they were working on GMO cannabis medicine for human consumption. I think GMO products are generally not approved in foods etc. In the last few years there were some tortilla chips being recalled nationally here in the states for accidental inclusion of GMO corn that was considered unsafe for human consumption. Here is some info to further expalin the distinction: What are GMOs? A GMO, a Genetically Modified Organism, is a man-made organism created in a laboratory and patented by a corporation or the USDA. GMOs are created by a process called genetic engineering. How are GMOs different from traditional cross-breeding? We've all heard of creating hybrids by crossing a broccoli and a cauliflower, or two varieties of roses, or two breeds of dogs. But a GMO is completely different. It is created when a gene from a totally unrelated species is shot into the genetic material of another species. Here are some examples of GMOs that have been grown in the U.S.: * Rat and human genes in trout * Spider genes in goats * Human genes in corn or rice * Mouse and human genes in potatoes * Fish genes in tomatoes * Cow or human genes in salmon These combinations never occur in nature. Scientists worldwide now admit that the rush to sell genetically engineered products has put people's health, property, and the environment at risk. This is why 30 countries have banned, or propose to ban GMO crops, including Japan and many European countries. In the U.S., Gerber baby foods, Trader Joe's, even McDonalds and Burger King, are now refusing GMO corn, potatoes, and other ingredients. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by siege on January 18, 2005 at 09:56:02 PT |
| Is Prairie Plants Systems
the ones doing it know or are they the first one, it's the co. that took it over from the first.
achieved through a breeding program or not it did not say.
this come in an Email on stocks and bonds for public opening or just going public don't rember. the name of co.
it started with an (( B ))
this was about Jul.,Aug.,Sept, 04. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by dongenero on January 18, 2005 at 09:49:02 PT |
| I assume that would be Prairie Plants Systems.
But, I wonder if that is a strain they achieved through a breeding program or by genetic engineering, that is, genetic dna modification at the molecular level. As Sam Adams mentions, this GMO work as applied to plants is the type of thing being carried out by "deep pocket" chemical corporations with their pools of genetic engineers, to build in herbecides at the genetic level etc. Dangerous stuff to play with in my estimation. Be careful what you ask for...you may just get it...and more. I think it is a significant distinction. The good Dr. Gerada is blurring the distinction for sensational effect. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by siege on January 18, 2005 at 09:31:26 PT |
| The company that runs the canada marijuana program said it patented a marijuana plant thats has 50 % THC. and said they are trying to get the U.S. to give them rights to the Medical marijuana in the U.S.A. allso. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by CorvallisEric on January 18, 2005 at 09:09:45 PT |
| would be like a radish plant (inconspicuous, fast and easy to grow) with cannabinoid-bearing trichomes on its leaves. Doesn't sound any crazier than using flounder genes to impart frost resistance to plants. The good doctor may be onto something useful. ;) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by Sam Adams on January 18, 2005 at 08:59:32 PT |
| You've got a point. Let's see now. Who created MDMA (ecstasy)? Who created cannabis? The answer to the 2nd question depends on your religious/nature beliefs. The answer to the 1st question is Merck, a large American corporation. Gerada is a bald-faced LIAR. There is not a single genetically-modified cannabis plant on Earth. The only people on Earth who are genetically modifying ANY plants are huge chemical companies. Does it even matter if you're a liar anymore? Being called a liar used to be fightin' words. Now it seems most government officials and many other "experts" shamelessly lie. Indeed, there are many professions today where lying is the primary responsibility. Or maybe the liars have just shifted professions. Lying on a mass scale used to the be domain of the Church. Now they've gone away and government, academia, and doctors seem to have filled the gap. In honor of "Doctor" Gerada I'm going to go inhale some cannabis vapor right now, and take a moment to think about how important honesty is to me. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by cloud7 on January 18, 2005 at 08:57:02 PT |
| http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/31012003/opinion.shtml Sorry if this was already posted. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by cloud7 on January 18, 2005 at 08:27:49 PT |
| It's a shame they still use Reefer Madness as a scientific documentary at the Royal College, the effect it has on their studies is clear. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by dongenero on January 18, 2005 at 08:07:21 PT |
| What the hell is designer cannabis!!?? I guess that is supposed to make a mental link to the synthetic drugs that are often referred to as "designer drugs". Whatever,,,,just get scared!!!!! Now, genetically modified cannabis widely available. Actually this is the first I've heard mention of genetically modified cannabis. I'll give her that breeding practices are used to isolate traits, taht is no big deal, it's been done for centuries, but to infer that genetic engineers are out there, widely modifying cannabis at the moleculaar level is bullshit. I'm not saying there may not be a couple of idiots out there thinking of someting like that but frankly, I think most people would reject GMO cannabis as they would GMO foods. Maybe it's another reason to legalize and regulate cannabis to organic standards...before some renegade Monsanto molecular genetics engineers run amok? This article is about fear mongering. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by siege on January 18, 2005 at 07:03:37 PT |
| Peace and Freedom the broadest range of pharmaceuticals and administration gov't.
don't have our concern at hart they have only there own benefits to look Too.
Any one opposed to the downgrading of cannabis is blinded by there own lives rejection and inability to cope, and should go to a small room and talk to there maker.
It is food for the sole and to keep the person well. the ones in Health care if you are not sick they are unhappy. Physician heal thy self. So what every happin to this!!
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on January 18, 2005 at 06:15:53 PT |
| You guys are right, think about what they're really saying: this plant causes "psychosis", therefore, you must work at your job for us a few hours a week, to pay us to go chase down all these people using cannabis. We'll totally fail at stopping anyone from using it. Most kids will try it. In fact, you've already paid us thousands of dollars of your money and cannabis use has exploded, especially among kids. But, this plant causes PSYCHOSIS! We're all totally brainwashed. What if it does cause psychosis? It's not going to give me psychosis unless I use it, why the hell should I have to pay to keep someone else from getting psychosis? When did that become MY responsibility? When I go off to work in the morning, is it my mission to prevent my neighbors from consuming certain plants? What a warped and perverted world we live in. All I'm saying is, if men and women aren't free to make their own choices, we're all slaves. We're gradually losing the right to self-determination and self-control. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by lag on January 18, 2005 at 06:09:27 PT |
| Yeah, I figured that out, at least subconsciously, which is prolly why I went on a rant about the All-ighty ollar. They fear what they should embrace, and embrace that which we should fear...I wonder who is going off the deep end here? Anyone here read any blogs besides cannabisnews.com? I'm particularly pleased with first-draft.com, myself...just curious if anyone suggests any others. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Hope on January 18, 2005 at 05:47:58 PT |
| prohibition supports a lot of people. They don't want to find new careers or jobs. They make money persecuting and caging their fellow man for using the plant. The money those people make, of course, is the bigger bump to get past...even bigger than the fear and ignorance. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Hope on January 18, 2005 at 05:26:32 PT |
| I've pondered that question many times myself. I can only conclude that the years and years of propaganda, lies, fear mongering, and demonization worked really well.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by afterburner on January 18, 2005 at 04:31:28 PT |
| As kaptinemo says, "Follow the money." Their livelihoods depend on illegal cannabis and the demonized scare reaction of unsophisticated users. This is just a typical rearguard action by one of the world's most prohibitionist countries against the winds of change and progressive politics. "Dr Clare Gerada, head of the college's drugs misuse unit": the title says it all "drugs misuse unit"! Can you say *vested interest*? Just like a NIDA, NI-Drug Abuse! "stronger, genetically modified forms": this is a deliberately deceptive obfuscation! Cannabis is NOT a GM (Genetically Modified, that is gene-spliced) plant. Funny (as in odd, not ha-ha) how the government and business think it's alright to sell us *unlabelled* GM foods, against our will, but then these charlatans use the public's fear of GM food, which we are forced to consume without proper long term field testing, to further demonize cannabis. The proper term for refined cannabis is cross-bred, an age old farming technique which has *nothing* to do with latter-day "mad" scientists and their gene-splicing in the laboratory in order to produce a patentable life-form that can create monetary profit without the so-called proper approval process for "new" drugs, peer-reviewed double-blind tests, followed by approval by the FDA, Health Canada, and the UK equivalent regulatory agency! And we know how much we can trust them anyway: VIOXX, anyone? {The Conservatives have pledged to return cannabis to Class B status. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The next Conservative government will reflect this by reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it."} The battle cry of false *conservatives* around the world! If It Ducks Like a Quack... http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20097.shtml#27 And who dreamed up that title, "Designer Cannabis..."? Not much better than the sniggering pot puns we usually get, but just as demeaning. It implies that someone (some evil Pusherman) is trying to create a crack-like "drug" just to make more money without regard for the consumers . These "high-octane" cross-bred cannabis strains are a Godsend to medical cannabis patients around the world because they can get the medical results with less plant material and fewer negative side effects. "O this will be a revelation. O this will be war and frustration": (listen for it): Gathering of the Healers: The Healing of the Nations http://www.rastaheart.com/rastaheart/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Dark Star on January 18, 2005 at 04:01:41 PT |
| All one can do is offer better data to disabuse people of the extremist views. If you know the literature, send it to people in positions of power, whether medical, political or merely those grabbing the microphone. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by lag on January 17, 2005 at 22:36:46 PT |
| They are trying to turn Cannabis into moonshine...make it look like it will curl your tows and impregnate your dog, the male one that couldn't get pregnant until you took that first puff. I'm just being facetious, but seriously, they are trying to make this into a moonshine debate. Wanna slow down this rash of increased potency? Regulate. Wanna get rid of Cannabis? Time to wipe out life as we know it...not because we couldn't live without cannabis, but that it'll be around as long as the humans. The logic doesn't make any sense...why do they hate this plant so much? There are so many things on the market that are approved, that can kill you...and yet this is the most fearful thing? They have their priorities out of whack...can we not get like a list of issues that need to be dealt with prioritized out? Perhaps, we could study the effects of money on people, and the effects of highly potent cash on people's mental acuity. People make a lot of unhealthy decisions under the influence of money, unhealthy for themselves, and often harmful to others... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on January 17, 2005 at 22:02:07 PT |
| I don't see any numbers cited to support this "increase in depression and psychosis". [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 17, 2005 at 21:27:43 PT |
| It couldn't possible be that young people are a little scared because they might wind up fighting in the war? I believe in times of stress drug use in general will increase. Remember, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die! That's the reality young people fear in my opinion. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |