tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post338438604480942656..comments2023-09-20T11:15:28.673+01:00Comments on Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: The Independent's born-again drug war: Round Twojanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15263261726046054614noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-67113877797016111842007-04-02T16:32:00.000+01:002007-04-02T16:32:00.000+01:00More anecdotal Express / Mail-esque bollocks in ye...More anecdotal Express / Mail-esque bollocks in yesterday's IoS - "I let my son have skunk. It ruined his life" was the banner headline on a two-page personal story. That's it for me, I've cancelled my order and have sent them the following letter to say so:<BR/><BR/>Sir<BR/><BR/>For a while we hoped that your feature "'I let my son have skunk. It ruined his life'" (April 1st, IoS) was an April Fool. In fact we hoped that your recent U-turn on cannabis was just a subtle, long-winded prank. We realise that we were exercising wishful thinking. Pages 28-29 of the latest edition of the IoS are an exercise in anecdotal evidence and your smaller story, 'Long-term cannabis use raises risk of lung cancer', was a prime example of terrible science reporting. Risk of lung cancer raised compared to what? At no point in this story, apart from a reference to ten-year-old advice from the World Health Organisation (WHO), did you compare cannabis use to tobacco use, or indeed to anything at all. So how is cannabis worse than anything else? And if, as your editorial line suggests, cannabis is somehow worse than it was ten years ago, when your now abandoned decriminalisation campaign began, how is the WHO evidence relevant, given that the thrust of your recent pontifications on cannabis is that it has become so bad so recently?<BR/><BR/>The last three weekends of the IoS have convinced me that, for some bizarre reason, you are intent on turning your newspaper into a sick parody of the Mail or Express. Even if, next week, you decide that it was all just an April Fool's joke, I'm afraid it's too late. We have cancelled our order and shan't be reading your apology.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/><BR/>etc<BR/><BR/>Grrr!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-72517762746573271402007-04-02T15:24:00.000+01:002007-04-02T15:24:00.000+01:00Thanks for keeping me up-to-date Steve. Drug poli...Thanks for keeping me up-to-date Steve. Drug policy desperately needs measured and eloquent voices such as yours.Frank Swainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17234214725758521529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-1001311620166421982007-03-31T12:23:00.000+01:002007-03-31T12:23:00.000+01:00i think we have to be wary about jumping to conclu...i think we have to be wary about jumping to conclusions about ambiguous evidence that doesnt establish causal links, but also acknowledge the real possibility the data shows that such links may exist - and respnd to that in the appropriate way. Whilst not perhaps of the same intensity, there has also been a lot of misrepresentation of data and bad science by some of cannabis' 'defenders'. A public health approach requires that we look at the data as objectively as possible and respond with interventions that reduce harm. I dont think theres any evodence that that should primarily involve a criminal justice approach. For me thats where the real debate is. as ive said many times already, a drug being dangerous does not justify continuing with a failed prohibitionist policy, that actively increases harm.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-69745432651763229242007-03-31T04:00:00.000+01:002007-03-31T04:00:00.000+01:00This sounds like a more thourough study on the sub...This sounds like a more thourough study on the subject..<BR/><BR/>"They found that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder (a milder version of schizophrenia) at age 26 than non-users.<BR/><BR/>But when the number of psychotic symptoms at age 11 was controlled for, this increased risk dropped to become non-significant. This suggests that people already at greater risk of later developing mental health problems are also more likely to smoke cannabis."<BR/><BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3098Hicksvillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09807669746157723078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-34694001432241419592007-03-30T17:33:00.000+01:002007-03-30T17:33:00.000+01:00I suppose I do have a lot of faith in people, espe...I suppose I do have a lot of faith in people, especially when considering history. Education has been successful in the great reduction of tobacco consumers. There is no reason to believe it will not apply with alcohol as well, especially in these increasingly health conscious times. We may be moving toward a poly-drug culture, but the most popular drugs will be those that are relatively healthy, like cannabis.<BR/><BR/>I'm certainly glad to offer the studies I have read about cannabis being much less intoxicating than alcohol - especially in regards to impairment. Here are a few:<BR/><BR/>http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7189<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm<BR/><BR/>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html<BR/><BR/>Assumptions about cannabis impairment are common, but assuming is a risky business. Better to look at the facts.<BR/><BR/>For those who want a similar experience to smoking cannabis, there is vaporization. It offers the same ability to titrate dosage, but without the harm of smoke. Personally, I believe it will be the wave of the future with cannabis.<BR/><BR/>The cannabis/psychosis hullabaloo is all prohibitionist hype. We have had 40 years of widespread cannabis consumption, and there has been no concurrent rise in mental health problems. From every indication, responsible use of cannabis is good for you. See these testimonies:<BR/><BR/>http://www.marijuana-uses.com/read.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-67035522767942432362007-03-30T16:19:00.000+01:002007-03-30T16:19:00.000+01:00I guess you just have a lot more faith in people t...I guess you just have a lot more faith in people to choose cannabis, a lot more faith in cannabis being seen as that much better than alcohol. I think we are moving towards a far more poly-drug using culture, not moving away from traditional intoxicants such as alcohol.<BR/><BR/>I didnt suggest that cannabis intoxication was the same as alcohol, I was just doubting your claim that cannabis didnt have "near the impairment of alcohol". That seems a very odd statement to me, both are completely capable of totally depilitating people if consumed in high enough amounts.<BR/><BR/>As for cannabis in food and drink taking off, that again I very much doubt, THC when used orally is very variable and can be strongly hallucinogenic. Niether are desired effects for a lot of people.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not cannabis can cause serious mental health problems is still somewhat up for debate. I think a link will become clearer. Which certainly isnt to say I want to see it illegal, just better controlled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-38787725452459487742007-03-29T22:31:00.000+01:002007-03-29T22:31:00.000+01:00bob --I certainly do believe alcohol will fade. I...bob --<BR/><BR/>I certainly do believe alcohol will fade. It's just a matter of time. Eventually, reports like the Lancet will finally make people realize it is just as wise to avoid alcohol as it is to avoid tobacco. Cannabis is just hastening that end with its clear improvement over alcohol. People used to think tobacco was too rooted in our culture also.<BR/><BR/>I don't have to imagine spliff's being handed out at functions, because I'm pretty sure smoking cannabis will also fade with time. Consuming it in food, drink or vaporizers is much healthier. As soon as marijuana prohibition ends, I'm sure we'll see that trend explode as well.<BR/><BR/>There is no link between anyone's - young male or others' - use of marijuana and violence. There is only a correlation between cannabis use and a small amount of people who are predisposed toward schizophrenia. Even here, correlation doesn't mean causation. This deception by prohibitionists is even more ludricrous when compared to alcohol - which really is a factor of violence and mental illness.<BR/><BR/> If you will recall the soccer tournament of 2000, it amazed the world because it was the first one without serious fan violence. Why? Because it was held in Amsterdam.<BR/><BR/>You think the impairment of alcohol and cannabis are similar? You need to read some research. Some studies have shown that cannabis consumers are safer drivers than people who haven't consumed ANY drugs.<BR/><BR/>There is, of course, a world of difference in the intoxicant levels of every drug. Each one is a different story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-24638077285797182432007-03-28T16:22:00.000+01:002007-03-28T16:22:00.000+01:00I dont think alcohol's dominance of the intoxicant...I dont think alcohol's dominance of the intoxicant world will drop even if cannabis is made legal, not by much anyway.<BR/><BR/>Can you really imagine spliff's being handed out at functions?<BR/><BR/>It is well and truely rooted in our culture now and I dont think that will change for a long while.<BR/><BR/>As for it not causing harm or violence - I think you should read some of the reports regarding young male use, there certainly seems to be a link between that and poor mental health.<BR/><BR/>Again, I'd disagree with cannabis not having the same level of impairment - thats surely the point of any intoxicant isnt it?<BR/><BR/>Most of all though I would argue that alcohol will maintain its high use because many people consider it a more socialable drug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-20865895672280641652007-03-27T16:25:00.000+01:002007-03-27T16:25:00.000+01:00BobYes, the alcohol industry has some competition ...Bob<BR/><BR/>Yes, the alcohol industry has some competition now, but nothing like it will be when marijuana is legal. People don't really grasp how institutionalized alcohol is until they really stop and think about it. Beer and wine in almost every store, served at almost every official function, conference, etc., sponsoring entertainment and sports events, commonly considered a desireable social lubricant.... you could go on and on pointing out how alcohol is the "official" recreational drug of Western culture. THAT is the kind of monopoly the alcohol industry wants to protect. They have good reason to fear, since, marijuana has no signficant harms, no calories, is not addictive, does not cause violence, or anywhere near the impairment of alcohol, and no hangovers.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there are some multiple drug users, but they are not the rule, and good thing, since mixing alcohol and other drugs, especially hard ones, is an often fatal act.<BR/><BR/>Most consumers of marijuana do not consume other drugs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-81585366775273372012007-03-27T09:22:00.000+01:002007-03-27T09:22:00.000+01:00There are certainly serious comercial interests in...There are certainly serious comercial interests involved in prisons in the US, but that is less obvious in the UK.<BR/><BR/>However, I dont buy the 'alcohol companies dont want the competition' argument they already have it, and even when people are using lots of other hard drugs they still drink large amounts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-24371161875133867302007-03-26T17:43:00.000+01:002007-03-26T17:43:00.000+01:00Thanks Steve. That's a great debunking of the har...Thanks Steve. That's a great debunking of the harms charges. It's encouraging to see so much good work done on this issue. <BR/><BR/>I still think it's important to expose the real 'why' of marijuana prohibition, though. <BR/><BR/>Some think that prohibition has falsely propped up western economies so long, we may face collapse if it were ended. Have you read Catherine Austin Fitts' "Narco Dollars For Beginners." It's fascinating and disturbing!<BR/><BR/>http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.htmlJohn Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285213048991057820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-80642996625095245012007-03-26T17:06:00.000+01:002007-03-26T17:06:00.000+01:00there's an excellent blog post on thew IOS coverag...there's an excellent blog post on thew IOS coverage on Clive Bates' blog (formerly of ASH and the Number 10- strategy unit)<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://baconbutty.blogspot.com/2007/03/cannabis-sorry-about-apology.html" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>recommended.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-66270063496958166242007-03-26T16:25:00.000+01:002007-03-26T16:25:00.000+01:00The observations about how tiring it is that, for ...The observations about how tiring it is that, for decades, we keep going round and round over the same old myths should perhaps tip us off to something important.<BR/><BR/>I believe we have let the prohibitionists define the debate, and so, cause us to avoid getting at the heart of the matter.<BR/><BR/>Every major government study (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and elsewhere) has come to the same conclusion. Marijuana is not addictive (or at least insignificantly so) and much less harmful than alcohol. So that's all in and all done on the "harms" of marijuana. We should just refer to these studies and move on.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the real issue is being ignored. That is WHY is there such a big push by government and big business to keep marijuana prohibited? I think we as reformers really fail when we just assume they are doing it out of genuine concern for consumers well-being. Why should we accept that canard when, in every other area of life, government and big business have shown that concern for the average consumer/citizen is the LAST thing on their minds?<BR/><BR/>So, why does government and big business fight to protect marijuana prohibition?<BR/><BR/>Because police and politicians build their careers and empires on it. Because industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. Because other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood. And because government uses cannabis prohibition as a means of controlling minorities and the poor. <BR/><BR/>If cannabis reformers are ever going to win the struggle, we must somehow expose and neutralize these powerful interests who consider cannabis prohibition their precious golden goose.<BR/><BR/>We need some serious and deep investigative reporting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-27993642282731589202007-03-26T13:18:00.000+01:002007-03-26T13:18:00.000+01:00all blogall blogErichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03900536349624866187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-42459663451985891462007-03-26T11:34:00.000+01:002007-03-26T11:34:00.000+01:00I wonder if the IOS carry advertisemnets for alcoh...I wonder if the IOS carry advertisemnets for alcohol? If they do, is it only alcohol under a particular strength? Not reading their newspaper I simply don't know. I do constantly witness though, other newspapers that run equally populist hype re drugs while carrying ads for gin, whisky, vodka etc. - sometimes on the same or adjacent pages. This hypocracy about one drug being advertised while another is demonised must be challenged at every turn!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-48970929882072305392007-03-26T11:03:00.000+01:002007-03-26T11:03:00.000+01:00Unreal all this rubbish printed by papers is enoug...Unreal all this rubbish printed by papers is enough to drive us all insane, when you have to repeat the same facts and evidence and common sense out over and over again. The Telegraph are on the bang wagon with IOS to. Are the MP's related to the editors of the papers?!! Its going to be another long ten years .....chrisbx515https://www.blogger.com/profile/14111482518141374105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-24376836546410626562007-03-26T09:58:00.000+01:002007-03-26T09:58:00.000+01:00Here is my response I sent to the Independent,Mich...Here is my response I sent to the Independent,<BR/>Michael<BR/><BR/><BR/><<<>>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Dear Editor,<BR/>Every once in awhile you read an editorial that seems wrong<BR/>and you feel like you must respond, well this isn't one of those times.<BR/><BR/>Your editorial from Sun, 18 Mar 2007 titled "Cannabis A Retraction" is<BR/>more than just wrong and in need of reply. The editorial seems purposefully<BR/>misleading and is dangerous and needs to be retracted!!<BR/><BR/>First, the editorial states that new "skunk" marijuana is more dangerous<BR/>than marijuana of the old days because it is stronger. This fiction is so<BR/>ridiculous it is hard to know where to start in refuting it. Number one, <BR/>skunk bud isn't new. Second, marijuana isn't more dangerous at higher<BR/>THC values, if it was then the synthetic marijuana pill wouldn't have been<BR/>recently put into our version of Class "C" in the United States. There<BR/>are now three full drug classes between [verboten] whole Cannabis <BR/>plant material and the now down-classed synthetic THC pill in the <BR/>United States!!<BR/><BR/>The synthetic marijuana pill is 100% THC!!! Ask yourself, could marijuana <BR/>be more dangerous at 30% THC then at 20% THC but then be perfectly safe<BR/>again at 100% THC???<BR/><BR/>The THC synthetic pill is called Marinol but in your country a similar<BR/>pill called Cesemet has been on sale for years with no controversy and<BR/>yes the horror it also is 100% THC!!!<BR/><BR/>By the way Marinol is the only drug to ever be down scheduled from<BR/>schedule 2 to schedule 3 in the USA. It was down scheduled for<BR/>"it's remarkable safety and efficacy".<BR/><BR/>It is not true to say that marijuana is more potent today. Perpetuating<BR/>this fiction allows politicians to say that they smoked marijuana, <BR/>apparently a current requisite of attaining public office, while <BR/>simultaneously maintaining denial because they were smoking inert <BR/>hay! BUNK! I am old enough to know that there was really strong, <BR/>extremely skunky Cannabis available in the 1970's. I have smoked <BR/>the strongest skunk available in Amsterdam today and it doesn't even come<BR/>close to the high from Hawaiian Rainbow of the early nineteen<BR/>seventies. If you are going to participate in revisionist history<BR/>at least wait until the old stoners die out.<BR/><BR/>If you really want to limit the potency of marijuana then enact<BR/>a regulated sales program that will take the marijuana out<BR/>of the hands of gangsters and like with alcohol<BR/>and cigarettes today we could limit the potency with regulations <BR/>rather then prohibition.<BR/><BR/>Prohibition has never worked and has always increased<BR/>potency of the prohibited substance and violence associated<BR/>with their sales. In our country we had Al Capone. Alcohol<BR/>became horribly dangerous under prohibition and potency<BR/>of alcohol went through the roof. Your arguments are similar<BR/>to if someone said, during alcohol prohibition, "alcohol is<BR/>more dangerous than ever before and more people are in<BR/>treatment for alcohol crimes than ever before so therefore<BR/>we need", what?? "more prohibition"???? When will we truly<BR/>learn from the mistake of prohibition? <BR/><BR/>Finally I must address your statement that "the number of <BR/>cannabis users on drug treatment programmes has risen 13-fold <BR/>since our campaign was launched" <BR/><BR/>Since I am sure you know that a provision of your new Class "C"<BR/>marijuana il-legal status requires youth caught with marijuana<BR/>to enter into drug treatment the fact that you left out this bit of<BR/>information can be seen as a lie by omission. <BR/><BR/>The harms from marijuana are increased by it's illegal status.<BR/><BR/>Your paper is pandering to the police on this issue and your<BR/>mis-truths are damaging.<BR/><BR/>Medical patients in the United States that use Cannabis<BR/>as medicine are being rounded up and jailed by our DEA<BR/>and your mis-truths are being used by them to justify their<BR/>actions. This isn't a game, you are hurting people.<BR/><BR/>Please act responsibly and retract your retraction.<BR/><BR/>Michael<BR/>miguet@november.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-28918024893488038852007-03-25T23:22:00.000+01:002007-03-25T23:22:00.000+01:00jasonIve no idea why theyve done it. Its probaly n...jason<BR/><BR/>Ive no idea why theyve done it. Its probaly nothing more than a well intentioned but misguided change of view point. Maybe one of them had a bad experience with cannabis, either personally or with someone they know. The cynic would suggest they are just fishing for new readers with an attention grabbing headline: It certainly worked 10 years ago. Who knows. <BR/><BR/>re: potency, check this piece in yesterdays guardian bad science column: http://www.badscience.net/?p=389Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-52019640989127617402007-03-25T23:09:00.000+01:002007-03-25T23:09:00.000+01:00Thanks nice to see the Reefer Madness poster again...Thanks nice to see the Reefer Madness poster again;-)Stuart Glendinning Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905583268964848588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-80882556637222485152007-03-25T22:56:00.000+01:002007-03-25T22:56:00.000+01:00Thanks for notifying me of your post. The Daily Do...Thanks for notifying me of your post. The Daily Dose's link didn't work. I'm curious what prompted the change in their long-standing editorial position. Do you take them at their word? Is it really concerns about increased potency and psychiatric damage? Or, is it something else?<BR/><BR/>Also, you pointed out their inconsistency in quantifying increases in potency. What would be accurate?Jason Schwartzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581672072472783408noreply@blogger.com