Expats held in Lamma drug bust

[Claire ex-ax]

Claire,
Did you check the links I gave to Bad Science (which point out the errors in some of the 'evidence' you offer?

The links you proffered led to articles/blog entries written by one Ben Goldacre. Who is this person and where can I read his research studies?

[Claire ex-ax]

Just looking at some of your other references I don't think anyone would deny that whilst you are stoned that you can't function at 100% - the issue is if there is any long term harm - and there is no evidence that there is.

I'm not going to delve for tons of those, so here are just a couple.

Regional brain abnormalities associated with long-term heavy cannabis use.
Yücel M, Solowij N, Respondek C, Whittle S, Fornito A, Pantelis C, Lubman DI.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;65(6):694-701.

Corpus callosum damage in heavy marijuana use: preliminary evidence from diffusion tensor tractography and tract-based spatial statistics.
Arnone D, Barrick TR, Chengappa S, Mackay CE, Clark CA, Abou-Saleh MT.
Neuroimage. 2008 Jul 1;41(3):1067-74. Epub 2008 Mar 14.

[PDLM]

He's a medical doctor whose forte is pointing out the methodological errors in various aspects of research (i.e. the Bad Science). As you could easily see by reading more on his site.

[Load Toad]

He gathers other peoples studies and comments on the conclusions and reporting that draws conclusions from studies - pointing out how often incorrect and reactionary conclusions are drawn or how the media distorts what the research actually indicates. Follow the links on his blog.


One thing in the news in the UK at the moment is the sacking and resignations of the Govt. drugs advisor's (BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Second drugs adviser quits post). It seems the government doesn't want sound scientific advice on what drugs are harmful or by what degree - but wants scientists who agree with the governments position on drugs. Which is based of course on all the old failed policies of the past.

[PDLM]

We seem to be debating two different things here...

To me, whether or not cannabis causes damage with long term heavy use is irrelevant. So do many things that are legal (alcohol, tobacco, BigMacs, etc). The problem for me is that politicians try to draw completely arbitrary lines around what is legal and what isn't legal for a consenting adult to do in a way that affects no-one else. That, to me, is wrong.

[Load Toad]

I agree 100%. And the arbitrary way they make these decisions and the policies they follow actually make the 'harm' issue far worse and often create social situations that cause harm to the people who have no interest in being involved with those practices.

[Claire ex-ax]

In the informative and interesting Cannabis, the mind and society: the hash realities (Robin M Murray, Paul D Morrison, Cécile Henquet, Marta Di Forti. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. London: Nov 2007. Vol. 8, Iss. 11; p. 885), they conclude (under Legal policies):

One thing is certain: politicians find it difficult to balance the enjoyment that cannabis brings to the majority of users with the dependence, cognitive difficulties and psychosis it induces in a minority. Swings in popular prejudice tend to push legislators towards alternately tightening and loosening the legal constraints on cannabis use. Public education about the risks of excessive use of cannabis appears to have a greater influence on consumption levels than alterations in the legislative status of cannabis; however (and curiously), governments rarely adopt this approach.

[leedseagle]

going back to the original post... the court hearings were/are today

does anyone know how/if you can check the outcomes online?

[jgl]

In the informative and interesting Cannabis, the mind and society: the hash realities (Robin M Murray, Paul D Morrison, Cécile Henquet, Marta Di Forti. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. London: Nov 2007. Vol. 8, Iss. 11; p. 885), they conclude (under Legal policies):

Uh, and what point is that supposed to support? That cannabis policy is poorly thought out, or that it's dangerous?

If the former, everyone probably agrees on this.

If the latter, then *anything* is dangerous. Driving at more than a walking pace is going to result in someone, somewhere, getting run over. Going outside during the daytime is going get give someone, somewhere, skin cancer. Staying inside with no sun exposure is going to cause vitamin deficiency. Gambling leads to addiction. Drinking leads to addiction.

The question is, how dangerous is it, and who does it harm? When it comes to cannabis, the answer seems to be "not very" and "a tiny fraction of users".

[Load Toad]

politicians find it difficult to balance the enjoyment that cannabis brings to the majority of users with the dependence, cognitive difficulties and psychosis it induces in a minority

Booze, gambling, cigarettes, X-sports, food, loud music, rock n roll, pets, handbags, daft hats, religion, facial hair....