And Some More Evidence That Prohibition Has Failed

Report: Cannabis prohibition causing more problems than it fixes.

The most obvious flaw in drug prohibition is the banning of cannabis. Not only is cannabis less harmful than alcohol, not addictive, has many many medical uses and is used regularly by over 80 million people but it also can provide paper, rope, clothing, soap, building materials and other renewable products. Henry Ford’s first car was built and fuelled with cannabis. 

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on Hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941

--The Cannabis Chronicle

Smoking pot recreationally may not be the healthiest choice for some but the science is fairly clear. For most adults, moderate use will not cause any major harm. Like alcohol though, their are some people who should not participate in cannabis use. Those with a family history of mental health issues and the young are best to keep away. What the authorities refuse to grasp is that prohibition doesn’t stop these people from using cannabis. Prohibition simply places unqualified people, often criminals, in charge of the cannabis market. Strict laws have failed to deter drug use. You would think it would sink in when we discovered that teens find it easier to buy pot than alcohol or that drug use continued to grow over the decades.

Black markets don’t just create violence and crime but a more dangerous product. The quest to increase potency has produced “Skunk” - extra strong weed with a high content of THC and low doses of cannabinoids. Skunk is now the standard for most pot smokers. The latest research has confirmed what many scientists have expected for a long time - THC needs to be balanced with cannabinoids to reduce the negative effects of cannabis. High grade skunk, grown in hydroponic setups, increases THC while reducing cannabinoids. It seems the argument that we now have stronger dope was missing the point altogether. 

Scientifically and logically, the banning of cannabis is one of the strangest policies on this planet. Anti-drug nutters and governments around the world hold on to this idea that we need to be protected from the evil weed. But as the media starts to wind down it’s fanatical campaign against cannabis, the public are slowly learning the truth about cannabis. 

An informed public coupled with pro-cannabis supporters are arming themselves with scientific research and taking their cause to the law makers. Politicians are increasingly being challenged about their support for cannabis prohibition as the latest round of Reefer Madness fades into the history books. Those remaining staunch opponents will not be remembered fondly by the next generation as they seek answers to why our bizarre cannabis laws lasted so long. 

Prohibition of Cannabis

British Medical Journal (BMJ)

Volume 341

By Professor Robin Room

October 2010

Prohibition of cannabis is not achieving its aims in the US, and may even worsen outcomes

A new report, Tools for Debate: US Federal Government Data on Cannabis Prohibition, focuses on the effects of the enforcement of drug prohibition in recent decades in the United States. It shows that efforts to suppress the selling and use of cannabis increased substantially. Adjusting for inflation, the US fed­eral antidrug budget increased from about $1.5bn (£0.95bn; €1.1bn) in 1981 to more than $18bn in 2002. Between 1990 and 2006, annual cannabis related arrests increased from fewer than 350 000 to more than 800 000 and annual sei­zures of cannabis from less than 500 000 lb (226 798 kg) to more than 2 500 000 lb. In the same period the availability of illicit cannabis and the number of users rose: the retail price of cannabis decreased by more than half, the potency increased, and the proportion of users who were young adults went up from about 25% to more than 30%. Intensified enforcement of cannabis prohibition thus did not have the intended effects.

The report then turns to “unintended consequences” of prohibition, arguing that both in the US and in countries sup­plying the markets of affluent countries, drug prohibition con­tributed to increased rates of violence because enforcement made the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over. The report concludes with a brief discussion of the alternatives to prohibition—decriminalisation and legalisa­tion—arguing that experience with regulation of alcohol and tobacco offers many lessons on how a regulated market in can­nabis might best be organised.

The report’s conclusions on the ineffectiveness in the US of “supply control” (the conventional term for enforcement of drug prohibition) are in line with reviews of the evidence from a global perspective.

Tools for Debate joins a bookshelf of reports from the past half century describing perverse effects of drug prohibition and charting ways out of the maze. So far, no government has dared to follow the thread all the way. Now, with the proposition of setting up a legal regulatory system on the California ballot in November, the international drug prohibition system may find itself facing a non-violent popular revolution. Half a century after the present international system was consolidated by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the drug prohibi­tion wave may finally be ebbing.

There is a precedent. A wave of alcohol prohibition swept over the international scene a century ago, with 11 countries adopting prohibition between 1914 and 1920. Eventually the wave receded, with US repeal in 1933 marking the end of alcohol prohibition at the national level. Prohibition was replaced by restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neoliberal free market ideologies of recent decades.

Because the international drug prohibition movement was originally an offshoot of the movement to prohibit alcohol, a detailed examination of the experience with alcohol is particu­larly relevant. The RAND modelling of the effects of legalising marijuana in California projects an increase in consumption, probably a substantial one, but experience with the repeal of alcohol prohibition shows that with substantial state regula­tion, consumption can be constrained. However, the alcohol control regimes of that time were far more restrictive than they are now in the United Kingdom and in many English speaking jurisdictions.

Analysis shows that these strong alcohol regulatory systems limited the harms from drinking in the period before about 1960, but the lessons have not been applied to regulating cannabis or other drugs. In some places, state control instru­ments—such as licensing regimes, inspectors, and sales outlets run by the government—are still in place for alcohol and these could be extended to cover cannabis. For instance, state retail monopolies for off sale of alcohol in Canada (except Alberta), the Nordic countries (except Denmark), and several US states would provide workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis, as has been proposed in Oregon.

The US has a particular hurdle with respect to regulating cannabis: US court decisions on “commercial free speech” question restrictions on advertising and promotion of a legal product. Barriers also exist at an international level. Psycho­active substances such as cannabis (and alcohol and tobacco) should be exempted from World Trade Organization free trade provisions. The requirements in the drug control treaties for criminalisation of non-medical production and use need to be neutralised, at least with respect to domestic markets. For countries following this thread, adopting a new framework convention on cannabis control could allow a regulated legal domestic market,3 while keeping in place international market controls as a matter of comity (whereby jurisdictions recognise and support each other’s internal laws).

The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the pro­hibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results. The challenge for researchers and policy analysts now is to flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes, as was done at the brink of repeal of US alcohol prohibition.

Robin Room professor, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Stockholm University; and AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, VIC 3065, Australia

Related Articles

More Evidence of Failed Prohibition

It's Official - "Tough on Drugs" Causes More Crime & Violence

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work - So What Do We Do Next?

Jeepers - HeraldSun Says Prohibition has Failed

Australia Knew About Potency and Mental Health Myths

In June 2008, respected medical journal, Science Daily published a study by NDARC. Science Daily said:

Claims that a large increase in the strength of cannabis over the last decade is driving the occurrence of mental health and other problems for users are not borne out by a study of the worldwide literature, say researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) and the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), both from Australia.

Part of the NDARC study concluded that:

Claims made in the public domain about a 20- or 30-fold increase in cannabis potency and about the adverse mental health effects of cannabis contamination are not supported currently by the evidence.

The following year, the Australian government spent $18 million dollars on an advertising campaign which somehow overlooked the NDARC report. Political rhetoric didn’t change either as increased potency and mental health problems still remain some of the top issues in the campaign against cannabis. Isn’t it odd that NDARC and NDRI are both part of the National Drug Strategy and report to the federal government yet Australia’s latest anti-drug campaign has ignored some of their findings?

Conclusion: Increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in a single year than over years or decades. Claims made in the public domain about a 20- or 30-fold increase in cannabis potency and about the adverse mental health effects of cannabis contamination are not supported currently by the evidence. Systematic scientific testing of cannabis is needed to monitor current and ongoing trends in cannabis potency, and to determine whether cannabis is contaminated. Additionally, more research is needed to determine whether increased potency and contamination translates to harm for users, who need to be provided with accurate and credible information to prevent and reduce harms associated with cannabis use. -National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) - Cannabis Potency And Contamination: A Review Of The Literature. March 2008

Just as disturbing are the many anti-drug crusaders who along with the government continue to push cannabis myths regardless of the evidence. Myths like the Gateway Theory and Amotivational Syndrome remain constant in anti-cannabis campaigns but were debunked years ago, even decades. What’s the point of NDARC and NDRI when the government simply overlook their findings? Politicians, anti-drug warriors and the media are quick to warn us of negative studies relating to illicit drugs but it seems any research that contradicts their agenda is ignored.

Claims Linking Health Problems And The Strength Of Cannabis May Be Exaggerated ScienceDaily June 2008 Claims that a large increase in the strength of cannabis over the last decade is driving the occurrence of mental health and other problems for users are not borne out by a study of the worldwide literature, say researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) and the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), both from Australia. Their conclusions are that increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in the strength of the cannabis they use in a single year than over years or decades. Cannabis samples tested in the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy have shown increases in potency over the last decade, but no significant growth in other European countries or in New Zealand has been found during the same period. THC is the active ingredient in cannabis, which produces the strongest psychoactive effect. In the United States, the level of THC in confiscated cannabis was 8.5% in 2006, up from 4.5% in 1997. Recent Dutch data show that the THC of cannabis sold in coffee shops more than doubled between 2000 and 2004, but has since levelled off. THC content varies according to the part of the plant that is used, the method of storage, and cultivation techniques. Popular belief is that hydroponic or other methods of indoor cultivation produce higher concentrations of THC than occur naturally, but the jury is still out on this issue. The ability to control the indoor environment means that plants can reach their full potential, which includes reaching the maximum level of THC. The increase in market share of indoor-grown cannabis seen in Australia as well as North America and Europe may have led to a more consistent product which could explain the potency increases reported in some countries. While some public debate has linked large increases in cannabis potency to increased mental health problems, there are currently insufficient data to justify this claim, and care ought to be taken when considering policy decisions on this basis. Importantly, further research is required to understand whether cannabis users can, or do, alter their intake in response to a change in potency. In their discussion of potential health risks, the authors point to studies that observe that some cannabis smokers, when faced with a 'strong' product, act rather like tobacco smokers and adjust their dose by increasing the interval between puffs, or holding smoke in their lungs for a shorter period of time. This behaviour may reduce possible harms caused by increased potency. The authors also discuss the health risks of contaminants. Possible contaminants include naturally occurring ones such as fungi; growth enhancers and pesticides; and substances added for marketing purposes to 'bulk up' the weight. Lack of systematic monitoring for contaminants makes an assessment of risk difficult; it is important to learn more about the health risks of cannabis of ingesting contaminated cannabis -- for example, moulds are known to cause respiratory problems and lung disease. The authors say "Given the relatively high prevalence of cannabis use it is important we have current, accurate information to help users make informed decisions about their use, and that policy development and media debate about the health harms associated with its use are guided by research evidence rather than rumour."

2009 U.N. World Drug Report - What’s All The Fuss?

Never before has the UN Drug World Report been discussed and written about so much. The internet has certainly helped fuel the debate and make strong opinions available but the real driving force is the change of attitude towards the "War on Drugs". Where once you were deemed a bit nutty or an obvious druggie by calling for legalisation, it is now common place for media outlets to have a least one article calling for a change in drug policy. This huge shift in thinking has obviously affected the UN which is renown for their strict, US style, zero tolerance stance on drug use. The rhetoric is still thick and their mixed message remains illogical but the latest World Drug Report is the most compassionate and pragmatic public statement to date. The big question remains though - will governments (especially the US) change their drug policies and laws? Will those countries that use the UN as an excuse to implement harsh drug laws remain faithful to the UN or will they selectively choose to ignore the latest message? I can’t see Russia suddenly introducing methadone or China, Singapore and Indonesia halting their executions of drug dealers. Nor can I envisage countries like Japan, the UK or France reducing their reliance on law and order and making drug use more of a health issue. Even locally in Australia, it’s a big stretch to imagine the current Rudd government having an honest debate about drug use or to have a shift in thinking that focusses on treatment rather than incarceration. Suddenly, the Greens and Democrats drug policies are looking more realistic and those politicians who ridiculed them so aggressively are looking more like the ignorant, self serving meat-heads that they are. Listed below are several articles that give some insight into what the 314 page report entails. First up is an overview from TIME Magazine in it’s entirety. Following that are the first few paragraphs of each article. Click the [more] link for the entire article. U.N. World Drug Report TIME By M.J. Stephey June 2009

The Gist: This year's report from the U.N.'s Office on Drugs and Crime did something that last year's did not: it addressed the "growing chorus" of people in favor of abolishing drug laws altogether. And though its authors maintain that legalizing narcotics would be an "epic mistake," the office's executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, does agree that loosening regulations might not be such a bad idea: "You can't have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933." Highlight Reel: 1. On cocaine and heroin trafficking: "The $50 billion global cocaine market is undergoing seismic shifts. Purity levels and seizures are down, prices are up, and consumption patterns are in flux. This may explain the gruesome upsurge of violence in countries like Mexico ... While 41 % of the world's cocaine is being seized (mostly in Colombia), only one-fifth (19%) of all opiates are being intercepted ... In 2007, Iran seized 84% of the world's opium and 28% of all heroin." 2. On moving beyond "reactive law enforcement": "Those who take the "drug war" metaphor literally may feel this effort is best advanced by people in uniform with guns [but] in the end, the criminal-justice system is a very blunt instrument for dealing with drug markets ... the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals is an extremely slow, expensive and labor-intensive process." 3. On targeting the right people in cracking down on drug dealing: "Street drug markets do not exist in a vacuum. The drama is played out on a very particular kind of stage, and it is the stage manager, not the actors, that must be addressed. The property in these areas is owned by someone, someone whose neglect of their property allows illicit activity to continue. Unlike the street addicts and gang members, this someone has something of value to lose — their property." See a graphic on addiction and the brain. 4. On scrapping the one-size-fits-all approach: "There is a common tendency to treat the galaxy of illicit substances as an undifferentiated mass. Different drugs come from different places, attract different consumers, and are associated with different problems ... For example, cannabis is grown in at least 176 countries around the world. It can be grown indoors or outdoors, and is often cultivated in small plots by users themselves ... For most synthetic drugs, the skills needed to access and process the needed chemicals are not widely spread and, consequently, the market tends to favor more organized groups ... In contrast, most of the cultivation of drug crops like coca and opium poppy is confined to small areas within two or three countries. Most of the world's heroin supply is produced on a land area about the size of Greater London." The Lowdown: "It all started in Shanghai in 1909," the authors note of the dawn of narcotics regulation. And what a century it's been. What began as an opium epidemic in China has since become a global problem that includes heroin, cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines and a host of other illicit substances that compose a $320 billion–a–year industry, making drugs one of the most valuable commodities in the world. But despite arguments that legalizing drugs would destroy the organized-crime rings that currently control the market, the report argues that "mafia coffers are equally nourished by the trafficking of arms, people and their organs, by counterfeiting and smuggling, racketeering and loan-sharking, kidnapping and piracy, and by violence against the environment." As Costa said in a statement announcing the report's release, "It is no longer sufficient to say: no to drugs. We have to state an equally vehement: no to crime." The Verdict: Skim.

UN Backs Drug Decriminalization In World Drug Report The Huffington Post By Ryan Grim

In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism." But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased." [more]

Drug Czar Kerlikowske Addresses Un Report On Success Of Decriminalization, Without Mentioning Decriminalization NORML By Russ Belville

The remarks from our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on the release of the UN 2009 World Drug Report, which endorsed drug decriminalization in a reversal of previous policy. Guess which 17-letter D-word never gets mentioned once in our “drug czar’s” 781-word statement? Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. The UN notes that decriminalization in Portugal “keep[s] drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users” and “It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased.” [more]

World Drug Report Preface Majors On Legalisation Transform

Below is the text from the Preface to World Drug Report 2009 - dominated by a detailed rebuttal of the growing calls for a debate on legal regulation of drug production and supply. We have deconstructed these kind of critiques so many times before, we won’t be doing it again here - other than to observe it is the same confused mix of misrepresentations, straw man arguments, and logical fallacies that we are used to hearing from the UNODC's drug warriors. The particularly strange thing here though is that some of the analysis of the problem, the critique at least, is actually fairly good - it's where it leads that is so extraordinary.... [more]

World Drugs In Graphics BBC News

A UN agency has published a comprehensive report on the worldwide illicit drugs market, the World Drug Report 2009. The graphs and maps below show the extent of the problem and measures to tackle it. [more]

BETWEEN THE LINES As usual, the UN Drug World Report is full of praise for their own contribution to another successful year in the fight against drugs. How they qualify a success is up for debate. Once again, the UN has the drug situation under control and the projection of a better outcome next time remains a permanent promise. The report is contradictory and contains some gapping holes in logic but if you read closely, the statistics form the real picture. Production Levels The production of some drugs is down in some countries and in others, it is up. It’s the same every year. An added factor is that customs only stop about less than 20% of drug imports. In other words, drugs are readily available to anyone who seeks them ... just like last year and the year before etc.

Opium cultivation in Afghanistan, where 93% of the world's opium is grown, declined 19% in 2008, according to the UN world drug report. In Colombia, which produces half of the world's cocaine, cultivation of coca fell 18% while production declined 28% compared with 2007. Global coca production, at 845 tonnes, was said to be at a five-year low, despite some increases in cultivation in Peru and Bolivia... [...] His call for international law enforcement to target traffickers rather than users came as it was announced that there is a worldwide growth in synthetic drugs. -The Guardian

Cannabis Potency Straight from the horse’s mouth - cannabis potency has doubled in the US over the last 10 years. The claims of 10 to 30 times stronger are as ridiculous as they first sounded.

Cannabis remains the most widely cultivated and used drug around the world, although estimates are less precise. Data also show that it is more harmful than commonly believed, said the report. The average THC content (the harmful psychotropic component) of hydroponic marijuana in North America almost doubled in the past decade. "This has major health implications as evidenced by a significant rise in the number of people seeking treatment," said the report. -The Guardian

Drug Use From the UN’s figures, only 10-15% of users have a drug problem. At most, that’s 38 million out of 250 million drug users worldwide.

UNODC estimates that between 172 and 250 million persons used illicit drugs at least once in the past year in 2007. But these large figures include many casual consumers who may have tried drugs only once in the whole year. It is important, therefore, to also have estimates of the number of people who are heavy or “problematic” drug users. This group consumes most of the drugs used each year; they are very likely to be dependent upon drugs, would benefit from treatment, and many of the impacts upon public health and public order are likely to be affected by their levels of use. Estimates made by UNODC suggest that there were between 18 and 38 million problem drug users aged 15-64 years in 2007. -2009 UN Drug World Report

Increase in Cannabis Treatment The UN reports that there are between 143 and 190 million people who used cannabis in the previous 12 months. It should be noted that most of those being treated for cannabis are involuntary patients or are doing so to placate the law, employers or family. Also, most of those have not smoked cannabis in the prior month which is unusual for something that is supposed to be addictive. Decriminalisation Works The UN has always strongly been opposed to decriminalisation. When Portugal first decriminalised small amounts of drugs, the UN predicted chaos would follow and have been critical ever since. This year they have nothing but praise for the success of Portugal’s actions.

In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism." But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased." -The Huffington Post

Treatment vs Criminality Harsh drug laws has always been at the core of the UN’s drug policy. Treatment was always a secondary issue compared to arrest and tough policing. The well being of users including those with HIV/AIDS, has generally been overlooked for fear of Harm Minimisation programs like needle exchanges, safe injection clinics and heroin assisted treatment (HAT). It’s funny how public opinion and the media can change the minds of the UN so quickly.

In the end, the criminal justice system instrument for dealing with drug marke as the deterrent threat remains, the arre and incarceration of individuals is an expensive, and labour intensive process. -2009 UN Drug World Report

First, drug use should be treated as an illness. “People who take drugs need medical help, not criminal retribution,” said Mr. Costa. He appealed for universal access to drug treatment. Since people with serious drug problems provide the bulk of drug demand, treating this problem is one of the best ways of shrinking the market. [...] Fourth, he called for greater efficiency in law enforcement. He encouraged police to focus on the small number of high profile, high volume, and violent criminals instead of the large volumes of petty offenders. In some countries, the ratio of people imprisoned for drug use compared to drug trafficking is 5:1. “This is a waste of money for the police, and a waste of lives for those thrown in jail. Go after the piranhas, not the minnows,” said Mr. Costa. -UN Press Release

THE LAST WORD

The UNODC will go through its annual charade of telling the world that it has 'contained' the drug problem and that they finally have organised crime gangs in their sights. But even their own propaganda cannot disguise the shocking long-term failure of international drug control efforts or disguise the fact that the UNODC oversees the system that gifts the vast illegal drug market to violent criminal profiteers, with disastrous consequences. -Danny Kushlick, Head of Policy at Transform

Again ... Pot is Relatively Harmless

[Sigh] How many (real) studies do we have to have before the anti-cannabis morons go away? Below is another report that reinforces what we have known for 40 years or so - pot is relatively harmless. No amount of junk science, slandering or silly comments can change that. So why do the anti-cannabis crusaders persist? Why do they go on and on with unimportant, unreliable, non concluding theories or go to great lengths to find the smallest of loopholes to exploit. Only those with a set agenda or an ulterior motive would go to such extremes and frankly, it’s pathetic.

These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis -Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark

I don’t feel the need to try and explain to these people that they are wrong anymore. I’ve gone past that point as I am discovering more and more that these nay-sayers will never change their mind regardless of the evidence or truth. The difference is that the anti-cannabis crowd aren’t looking for the truth like scientists or the AOD industry, they are simply trying to discredit marijuana as dangerous so it becomes unacceptable. Whether it’s relatively safe or not doesn’t matter to the anti-cannabis zealots and they are just another step in the sinister history of trying to demonise marijuana. We need to ask ourselves one simple question. If cannabis is so dangerous, where are the bodies? Where are the millions of freaked out cannabis addicts who should be filling up our hospitals, rehabs and morgues? With so many smokers throughout the world , why hasn’t society been overrun with these damaged cannabis smokers? It only takes 5 minutes or so on the internet to find out that there are no recorded deaths due to cannabis use alone. It also becomes apparent that many normal and/or successful people have smoked cannabis recreationally without any negative consequences. What you won’t find is that cannabis is responsible for violent crimes. Unlike the legal drug alcohol, you won’t find cases of domestic violence because someone was high on dope or a fight broke out amongst a crowd of stoners. But beware, you will find many, many sensational headlines telling you that new research points to cannabis being more harmful than we first thought. Read them carefully and you see that the so called new evidence is not supported by most scientists or the research falls into the category of junk science. As a research expert said, 90% of new research is useless in the real world and research based on established evidence is much more likely to be conclusive. In other words, the dangers of cannabis has been shown to be minor for many years with thousands of reports proving that. The research used by the anti-cannabis crowd is often tricks of randomised statistics, shoddy research practices or taken out of context to shock the public. For example, you must of heard of that often used fallacy, “The cannabis of today is not what it was when our parents smoked it”. It’s bullshit. Apart from the contention that strong cannabis has always been available in the form of hash, it’s bullshit for the simple reason that people just take less of something that is stronger. If you are used to drinking 6 bottles of beer, do you drink 6 bottles of whisky if it available? No, of course not, you drink less to get the same effect. It is a vital part of their argument that alcohol can be moderated over a session of drinking but for some reason this is not so when it’s cannabis. And then there’s that long ago, dismissed gateway theory ... that is bullshit. The high levels of cannabis causing major psychosis is bullshit. It’s all bullshit. Yes there are dangers involved but they are minimal. Like all substances, some people are prone to have a reaction to cannabis and they should not participate. Common sense should prevail. The truth is simple, most cannabis smokers have no problems whatsoever and never will but there will always be a group of nutters who will try and deceive us into thinking otherwise. For those tired old moralists, read on and weep...

Pot-Induced Psychosis May Signal Schizophrenia By Anne Harding - Reuters November 2008 NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who have long-lasting psychotic episodes after smoking marijuana may be exhibiting early signs of schizophrenia, researchers reported Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry. "Cannabis-induced psychosis," in which a person loses touch with reality and the symptoms persist for at least 48 hours, is an established psychiatric diagnosis, but it is controversial, Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark, and colleagues note in their report. There has been little research on the condition, and doctors have a hard time distinguishing it from other psychiatric disorders or developing a specific list of symptoms by which to characterize it. In a previous study, Arendt and colleagues found that nearly half of people who had an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis went on to develop schizophrenia within the next six years. In the current study, the researchers looked at the genetic roots of both conditions by comparing the family histories of 609 people treated for cannabis-induced psychosis and 6,476 who had been treated for schizophrenia or a related psychiatric condition. They found that individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis," Arendt explained in comments to Reuters Health. Based on the findings, the researcher says, "cannabis-induced psychosis is probably not a valid diagnosis. It should be considered schizophrenia." It's "very common" for people to have psychotic symptoms after using marijuana, such as hearing voices, feeling paranoid, or believing one has some type of special ability, Arendt said. But these symptoms typically last only an hour or two. "It's a very important distinction, this 48 hours criterion," he said. Other researchers have shown that pot smoking roughly doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia, and that people who use marijuana and go on to develop schizophrenia become psychotic earlier than people with the illness who don't use cannabis, Arendt added. It's unclear whether smoking marijuana causes schizophrenia or not, but if it does, according to the researcher, it's likely a gradual process. Nevertheless, he said, "the consensus is pretty much you should not use cannabis if you want to avoid an increased risk of schizophrenia." Anyone who experiences an extended psychotic episode after using marijuana should get help, Arendt advised. These symptoms could represent an opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia, he added, and the earlier people with this illness begin treatment, the better their prognosis. SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, November 2008.

Cannabis is OK - The Debate is Over

OK, it’s time to end this debate, once and for all.

• Cannabis Is Relatively Harmless

• Harsh Laws Do Not Work

• Potency Increases Are A Myth

This is scientific fact and there is evidence to back it up. If you disagree, you are wrong ... simple. There, now I have said it. End of discussion, final, it’s over, no buts about it, just accept it. There has to be a cut off point somewhere and I am declaring it now. How much more evidence can be produced as we are already just repeating the same studies? What? So you have read differently? What you have read is wrong or it has been manipulated to suit the agenda of the writer. Go back and reread it. Am I wrong? No, I’m not but don’t take my word for it, read the evidence below.

EMCDDA have produced a 700 page report about cannabis. The two-volume report aims to provide an authoritative reference work on scientific research, legislation and policy issues associated with the drug in Europe.

A cannabis reader: global issues and local experiences [read]

EMCDDA, Lisbon, June 2008

Cannabis is the most-used illicit drug in Europe, but it can also be a major source of division and debate among politicians, scientists, police, professionals and citizens

As a result the public faces a daily flow of information on cannabis, some of it well-founded, but some of it militant and at times misleading.

The report is designed as a guide to inform research, debate and policymaking on the substance.

-Wolfgang Goetz. Director - EMCDDA

My worry is that even all of the evidence in this article will not influence those of the Zero Tolerance / prohibitionist view point. We have seen the Reefer Madness propaganda campaigns in the US and the junk science reports coming out lately at amazing rates but these approaches seem to catch the public eye. Whilst there has been ample reports in the media about the relative safety of cannabis for the last 30 years, it’s the alarmist viewpoints that have dominated especially recently. Supposed legitimate organisations have put out many statements that are simply wrong or purposely misleading. Such organisations as the US Drug Czar’s office, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNOCD) are notorious for deceitful practices and they influence most of the world’s drug policies.

Locally, Australia is also guilty of mass propaganda against cannabis with the government probably the biggest offender. Given the influence of the religious right and hard core prohibition supporting journalists, our government is prepared to follow the populist route and mislead the public. Then we have our friends, Drug Free Australia (DFA) who are funded by us, the tax payer to lie and ignore real evidence with religo-psyco babble and family values rhetoric.

All that is history now as I have declared the debate is over. Evidence has won out and the Disneyland morals brigade have lost. After you have read the EMCDDA 700 page report, read it again and then read on below for some more research that show up the anti-cannabis extremists as the liars that they are.

Cannabis Safer Than Alcohol Or Tobacco, Says Study

Irish Examiner

June 2008

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/06/27/story66083.asp

CANNABIS is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, according to a major review published by the EU drugs agency.

The report said most users cease smoking cannabis by their late 20s or early 30s and that the vast majority did not experience any negative effects.

“On every comparison of dangerousness we have considered, cannabis is at or near the bottom in comparison with other psychoactive substances,” said author Robin Room, in an analysis contained in a 700-page EU report on cannabis.

The report, A Cannabis Reader: Global Issues and Local Experiences, was published yesterday by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to coincide with international day against drug abuse and illicit trafficking.

Mr Room examined a range of research on the health effects of legal and illegal drugs, which compared the substances based on dangerousness or harm, degree of intoxication and dependence. These found:

* Harm: Ecstasy and cocaine highest, followed by alcohol and heroin, with cannabis lowest.

* Intoxication: Alcohol highest, heroin next, then cocaine, cannabis fourth.

* Dependence: Tobacco highest, heroin second, cocaine third, alcohol fourth and cannabis lowest.

The study follows a report this week by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs, which highlighted sharp rises in cannabis use in many parts of Ireland.

Mr Room said a report by the French Roques committee divided the effects of drugs between general toxicity — involving direct health damage — and “social dangerousness”, with criminal and other behaviour resulting.

It rated cannabis as “very weak” in terms of toxicity and “weak” in terms of social dangerousness.

In comparison, alcohol was rated “strong” for both, with tobacco “very strong” and “none” respectively.

Heroin was rated “strong” (except for medical doses) for toxicity and “very strong” for social dangerousness. Cocaine was also rated “strong” and “very strong”.

Mr Room said the current international restrictions on cannabis were “too harsh”, compared with the greatly under-regulated systems for alcohol and tobacco.

In a separate analysis on the health impact of cannabis, researcher John Witton concluded: “Most cannabis users cease smoking cannabis by their late 20s or early 30s and the vast majority do not experience any adverse effects.”

He said a minority continue their use and that long-term heavy users reported negative health effects.

Forum: Decriminalization Of Cannabis

Wim van den Brink

Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research Academic Medical Center,

University of Amsterdam Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.encod.org/info/IMG/pdf/Brink_Decriminalization_Cannabis_2008.pdf

Conclusion :

This paper has shown that cannabis use is not without risks, that criminalization is an expensive strategy involving considerable policing, prosecution and a fair amount of incarceration, that decriminalization does not result in lower prices and higher consumption rates, nor in more severe patterns of cannabis use, that prohibition and criminalization are associated with social harms to the cannabis user, that decriminalization may reduce the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia and between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs, and that criminalization may reduce the legitimacy of the judicial system.

What are the implications of these conclusions for the debate on criminalization versus decriminalization? Evaluation of prevention strategies, including national drug policies, should be subject to the normal conventions of health technology assessment; that is, it should be evidence-based, cost-effective, acceptable to the public receiving it and not generate substantial collateral harms. It seems not very likely that a more vigorous criminal-jusitice-based approach would fulfil these criteria.

A further decriminalization combined with quality control, price measures including taxation, primary and secondary prevention of use and harm reduction through age restrictions and limitations of the number of cannabis retail outlets may postpone early onset of cannabis use and stabilize or even reduce cannabis consumption rates.

Finally, low-threshold and free-of-charge treatment facilities are needed for those who – despite preventive actions – develop physical or mental health problems. Given the available scientific data, existing repressive, expensive and unsuccessful criminal justice policies should be replaced by humane, effective and more efficient health policies such as those currently implemented in many of the European countries, including the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and many others.

Cannabis Potency And Contamination: A Review Of The Literature

-National Center for Biotechnology Information

-Addiction Journal

ABSTRACT

Aims: Increased potency and contamination of cannabis have been linked in the public domain to adverse mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the available international evidence on patterns of cannabis potency and contamination and potential associated harms, and discusses their implications for prevention and harm reduction measures.

Methods: A systematic literature search on cannabis potency and contamination was conducted.

Results: Cannabis samples tested in the United States, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy have shown increases in potency over the last 10 years. Some countries have not shown significant increases in potency, while other countries have not monitored potency over time. While there are some grounds to be concerned about potential contaminants in cannabis, there has been no systematic monitoring.

Conclusion: Increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in a single year than over years or decades. Claims made in the public domain about a 20- or 30-fold increase in cannabis potency and about the adverse mental health effects of cannabis contamination are not supported currently by the evidence. Systematic scientific testing of cannabis is needed to monitor current and ongoing trends in cannabis potency, and to determine whether cannabis is contaminated. Additionally, more research is needed to determine whether increased potency and contamination translates to harm for users, who need to be provided with accurate and credible information to prevent and reduce harms associated with cannabis use.

Jennifer McLaren - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia,

Wendy Swift - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia,,

Paul Dillon - National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Steve Allsop - National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Australia

Drug Potency Myths & the ABC ... Again!

Another Zero Tolerance/Prohibitionists lie has been exposed.

A recent article reputes the myth that the newer, stronger cannabis (i.e. ‘Skunk’) is now more dangerous than it was because THC levels have increased. It’s amazing simple really ... If cannabis is stronger, you need to use less.  Just like if you need 12 cans of beer to get drunk, you would only need 6 cans with a higher alcohol content. The argument that cannabis is stronger than what our parents used just means less consumption. Myth dispelled, hysteria over, more junk science in the trash. 

And of course there's hash. It's THC levels are not just 9.6% but about 50% and that has been around for as long as I can remember. They conveniently forgot about that.

And what is it with the so called, ‘respectable’ media of late? This is the second time in a few days that the ‘respectable’ Australian media have chopped up a story that dispels some drug/alcohol myths which have bombarded us for the last year or two. Instead of celebrating the truth amongst the mountains of lies, propaganda and drug/alcohol hysteria, some media outlets have been complicit in the shonky practice of cherry picking information and manipulating the public. 

Only last week the ABC joined the ranks of other dodgy media groups with a radio report that was so far from reality that it was scary. They declared that marijuana is no longer a soft drug and a new report proved it. Except the report was a sham that even a Daily Telegraph reader would cringe at. The report claimed that 15 men who smoked over 5 joints a day for 10 years had damage to their brain. And this was the basis on which the ABC reported that cannabis was much more dangerous than we thought. Yeah, it’s hysterical. With that sort of abuse, I am surprised there wasn’t more damage and if anything, the findings proved that it took massive levels of cannabis abuse to cause minimal damage. A joint is about the equivalent of 3-5 bongs which means these stoners were having 18-25 bongs a day! Jeepers, does this sound like the average casual dope smoker. pffft. They were hard core smokers who makes up only a tiny fraction of marijuana users.

Now the ABC has taken an Associated Press article about a press release from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and removed sections that contradict the report. Read the two articles below and you will find that the Fairfax publications have included the whole AP article but the ABC website has edited out important comments from a psychology professor at the State University of New York that proved otherwise. The original article indicates that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy have kept up their usual anti-drugs rhetoric and have mislead the public. The ABC though have given the story the completel opposite spin by only including the propaganda that the article disputes. Really sloppy stuff. The ABC article will undoubtedly be used by prohibitionists and the Zero Tolerance twits as evidence for their own selfish causes. The real story though from the SMH and The Age is a huge slap in the face to the propaganda campaigners and will finally put to rest another prohibitionist lie.

Marijuana is very potent and very dangerous stuff. It is a far cry from the mild stuff us hippies in the 60s used to toke on. It is many times more powerful, and extremely dangerous. It is much stronger because of higher THC levels (the “high” producing element of cannabis). With increased potency comes increased health risks.

Because today’s marijuana may be as much as 15 times stronger than that smoked in the 1960s, it is much more dangerous.

-Bill Muehlenberg. Culture Watch

Thankfully, according to a 2007 report by NDARC, the majority of Australians are now more street-wise about the increased potency of present day cannabis.

-Jo Baxter. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

The evidence is that fewer children are even experimenting with cannabis, which is a far more potent drug today than it was when Nimbin's hippies were young.

-Miranda Devine.  Sydney Morning Herald

Sydney Morning Herald / The Age

Drug Potency Doubles

June 12, 2008

Marijuana potency increased last year to the highest level in more than 30 years, posing greater health risks to people who may view the drug as harmless, a new US report says.

The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 to 2007.

It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 per cent last year, compared with 8.75 per cent in 2006.

The 9.6 per cent level represents more than a doubling of marijuana potency since 1983, when it averaged just under 4 per cent.

"Today's report makes it more important than ever that we get past outdated, anachronistic views of marijuana," said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He cited baby boomer parents who might have misguided notions that the drug contains the weaker potency levels of the 1970s.

"Marijuana potency has grown steeply over the past decade, with serious implications in particular for young people," Walters said. He cited the risk of psychological, cognitive and respiratory problems, and the potential for users to become dependent on drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

While the drug's potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups.

"Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke," he said.

The White House office attributed the increases in marijuana potency to sophisticated growing techniques that drug traffickers are using at sites in the United States and Canada.

A report from the office last month found that a teenager who has been depressed in the past year was more than twice as likely to have used marijuana than teenagers who have not reported being depressed - 25 per cent compared with 12 per cent. The study said marijuana use increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 per cent.

"The increases in marijuana potency are of concern since they increase the likelihood of acute toxicity, including mental impairment," said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the University of Mississippi study.

"Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction," Dr Volkow said.

But there's no data showing that a higher potency in marijuana leads to more addiction, Dr Earleywine said, and marijuana's withdrawal symptoms are mild at best.

"Mild irritability, craving for marijuana and decreased appetite - I mean those are laughable when you talk about withdrawal from a drug. Caffeine is worse."

The project analysed data on 62,797 cannabis samples, 1302 hashish samples, and 468 hash oil samples obtained primarily from seizures by law enforcement agencies in 48 states since 1975.

ABC News

Pot Potency Climbing Rapidly: US Officials

June 13, 2008

Marijuana sold in the United States today is on average more than twice as strong as it was 25 years ago, increasing the threat of serious mental impairment in users, US drug policy officials say.

The average level of THC - marijuana's psychoactive ingredient - in seized drug samples is 9.6 per cent, compared to just under 4 per cent in 1983, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

And the highest THC level found in a sample of pot measured in recent months was an astounding 37.2 per cent, according to the research from the University of Mississippi's 32-year-old Potency Monitoring Project.

"The increases in marijuana potency are of concern since they increase the likelihood of acute toxicity, including mental impairment," Nora Volkow, director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a statement.

"Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction; however, more research is needed to establish this link between higher THC potency and higher addiction risk," she said.

White House drug czar John Walters warned that the higher potency make marijuana a greater health threat than in the past.

"Baby boomer parents who still think marijuana is a harmless substance need to look at the facts.

"Marijuana potency has grown steeply over the past decade, with serious implication in particular for young people, who may be not only at increased risk for various psychological conditions, cognitive deficits and respiratory problems, but are also at significantly higher risk for developing dependency on other drugs."