|
|
|
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
 |
FRIDAY, Aug. 21 (HealthDay News) — Marijuana may buffer the brain against the damages of binge drinking, a new study suggests.
Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, used
high-tech scans to compare microscopic changes in brain white matter in
teens aged 16 to 19 who were divided into three groups: binge drinkers
(boys who consume five or more drinks at one sitting, and girls who
have four or more drinks); binge drinkers who also smoked marijuana;
and a control group with little or no experience with either alcohol or
drugs.
As expected, the binge drinkers showed signs of white matter damage
in all eight brain regions examined by the researchers. But the binge
drinkers/marijuana users had less damage in seven out of the eight
brain regions than the binge drinkers did. And compared to the control
group, the binge drinkers/marijuana users had more white matter damage
in only three regions.
The researchers wrote that brain white matter tracts were “more
coherent in adolescents who binge drink and use marijuana than in
adolescents who report only binge drinking.” They said it’s “possible
that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating
alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death.”
The study appears in the current issue of the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
“This study suggests that not only is marijuana safer than alcohol,
it may actually protect against some of the damage that booze causes,”
Steve Fox, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy
Project, said in a news release from the project.
“It’s far better for teens not to drink or smoke marijuana, but our
nation’s leaders send a dangerous message by defending laws that
encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana,” he added.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
 |
In 1974, University of Virginia researchers discovered
something very unlikely. Cannabis, banned in the United States in 1937,
and further demonized by the Nixon administration in 1968, had an
unexpected property: it inhibited the growth of lung cancer cells. But,
even more surprising was the response from the government: an apparent
complete absence, even discouragement of any follow-up studies. The
results were briefly mentioned in news reports at the time, but with
the end of the Carter administration, cannabis became a step-child as
far as scientific research was concerned.
Like any unloved step-child cannabis was treated with different rules, and made a scape-goat for social ills.
There
was still research being done on cannabis, but funding was only
available if the intent was to prove harm. In fact, it wasn't until the
pioneering work done by Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, in Israel, and Dr.
Manuel Guzman in Spain, that this startling anti-cancer property of
cannabis sativa became public again.
What is even more troubling
is that the United States Government actually did a secret follow
up-study on the Virginia findings, in the mid '90's. When it only
served to confirm the results of the 1974 research, and showed that THC
(one of the main active ingredient in cannabis – and the one the
government loves to hate), when administered to mice, protected them
against malignancy, true to form, our government attempted to bury the
results. Fortunately, a draft copy of the study was leaked to the
journal, AIDS Treatment News, and the media covered the story. An
excellent article by Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, covers this part of our shameful history.
By 2003, the cat was pretty much out of the bag, and a quick search onPubMed brings
up at least 262 results when you put in "cannabis and cancer" in the
search string. But, as late as this year, the US Government was still
funding research meant to prove that cannabis causes cancer. The
extremely flawed survey which attempted to link cannabis smoking with testicular cancerfalls
into this category. In fact, in 2008, two years after Dr. Donald
Tashkin research which showed that not only does cannabis not cause
lung cancer, but appears to protect against it, three respected doctors
from the cannabis research group felt compelled to write a letter to
the European Respiratory Journal debunking a New Zealand study which claimed that smoking cannabis led to an increased risk of lung cancer.
Now, this month in Cancer Prevention Research Journal one can find a study demonstrating that chronic, long term of cannabis actually reduces the incidence of head and neck cancer. Specifically:
"10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a
significantly reduced risk of HNSCC" [head and neck squamous cell
carcinoma].
Knowing this, are you angry? You should be. It's a safe bet to say you know someone who has cancer. Or died of it.
It's also a safe bet that you didn't hear any coverage of this story in the mainstream media.
For my money, it's way past time for the politics of prohibtion to
be thrown aside, and hard science applied to what promises to be an
extraordinary new era in the treatment and cure of cancer.
And... we need all the voices we can get saying: That time is now!
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/new-us-study-affirms-smoked-marijuana-protects-against-cancer
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
 |
Dr. Phil Leveque Salem-News.com
Pain is the scourge of man and ALL other animals.

(MOLALLA, Ore.) - I’m not writing about a toothache, a bruise or even a
small cut. I’m not even writing about acute pain. However, this is a
great overlap and acute pain/injury can develop into severe chronic
pain.
That
is what I’m writing about. Pain of both kinds can be graded on a scale
of 1 to 10 with one being more of a nuisance but ten being so severe
that it causes unconsciousness or even death by shock.
Aspirin
is possibly the most common painkiller for mild (1-5) pain but some
will say any alcoholic beverage, coffee, tea or even a tobacco
cigarette will work. There are
about eight classes of non-opiate painkiller drugs of which aspirin is
the best known. It was discovered almost pre-history in willow bark but
it wasn’t till 1899 that Acetylsalicylic acid or Aspirin was discovered
and patented. All the rest followed but Aspirin is still number one.
Opium
itself has been used for about 6000 years and the various Opiates
(Morphine, Codeine, etcetera) are used for the more severe/chronic
pain. The most potent Opiates, that is, derived from Opium, are Heroin,
Dilaudid and Oxycodone (eg Oxycontin, Percodan).
There
are about a dozen in this class. These seem to be the best known and
used. There are other Opioid drugs like Methadone, Fentanyl and Demerol
which are not related in chemical structure but which have similar
pharmacological actions to the Opiates.
The
dosage of the Opiates is not a real clue to their effectiveness. For
example, doses of codeine up to 60mg or more will not provide the same
relief as 5mg of Morphine or 2.5mg of Dilaudid. Heroin is considered by
many to be the ultimate strong painkiller. It is used in England.
Dilaudid or Oxycontin is considered to be the most useful for severe
pain in the U.S.
One of the
strangest features of all of the above is that they all have major
adverse/side effects. Aspirin causes stomach bleeding. Tylenol causes
severe liver and kidney damage. Others are similar.
The
Opiates and Opioids are in a class by themselves for bad adverse/side
effects. They frequently cause nausea, vomiting, severe constipation
and the worst is severe addiction even after brief use.
This
brings us to the use of Cannabis. Both Cannabis and Opium were used in
medicine about the same time, about 5000 years ago and both were widely
used in the Orient and slowly brought to Europe. Cannabis was first
brought to European Russia (Scythia) about 1000 years ago.
Opium
was possibly brought to Europe by the Arabs via Africa and the
Mediterranean countries. The Greek Theophrastus wrote about it in the
Third Century, A.D.
Dr.
William O’Shaunessy brought Cannabis as medicine from India to England
about 1840, from which it spread to the rest of the western world.
For
some “Reefer Madness” reason it was declared a dangerous/useless drug
by the U.S. Government in 1937 and only two “legal” Cannabis medicines
are now available, Marinol and Sativex. They are not very satisfactory.
In
the meantime ever since about 1850 Marijuana, first used by smoking a
pipe or as a cigarette, has taken over. The U.S. Govt. estimates about
10 million people use it daily as medicine and 70 million have used it
for recreational/social reasons.
Marijuana,
as is, is widely used for pain both mild/acute and extreme/chronic.
About 70% of legal medical marijuana patients use it for all kinds of
pain. Their experience indicates it is the SAFEST, MOST EFFECTIVE,
THOUGH MILDLY ADDICTIVE PAINKILLER EVER DISCOVERED BY MAN.
WHY ISN’T IT LEGAL???
http://salem-news.com/articles/august112009/pain_cannabis_pl_8-11-09.php
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
 |
By Julie Chadwick, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, August 11 2009
CANNABIS CULTURE - Cannabis substitution is being recognized as a viable solution in the battle against drug addiction.

The biggest albatross around the neck of cannabis in every arena – from the study of cannabinoids, with its monthly and even weekly discoveries, to political legislation and medical usage – has always been its falsified reputation as a substance that will lead to the use of harder drugs. Every drug-prevention warrior at some point rolls out the old “gateway drug” carpet and manages to wrap it around the entire marijuana debate. Cannabis substitution is being recognized as a viable solution in the battle against drug addiction.Cannabis substitution is being recognized as a viable solution in the battle against drug addiction.
Like many people, as a teen I was presented with this hypothesis, and even then the reasoning seemed to smell funny. With no experience to base it on, and thus no real bias either way, it simply seemed like an unprovable argument: even if an adult user of hard drugs used marijuana first, how can it ever be confirmed that the first action caused the other? Today’s scientific consensus seems equally confused; it’s easy to find reputable research that backs up both sides of the argument, usually clutched in the hands of the accompanying activists from either camp.
Strangely enough, there is yet another facet to the discussion: the experiences of people who say that cannabis has, in fact, been a gateway out for them, a way in which they have managed to get off harder, more addictive substances.
Greg Ballantine* was what the medical establishment termed a “functional addict” in that he managed to hold down various regular jobs in his hometown of Vancouver while also maintaining a daily habit of smoking heroin. After smoking marijuana by chance one day, he started to wonder if cannabis had a positive effect on his addiction. “It makes me so mad when people call cannabis a gateway drug because I felt it was like the exact opposite. It made me think, ‘what are you doing? This is heroin, a dangerous, addictive narcotic!’ Cannabis was like the voice of reason.” Ballantine believes this is one part of why cannabis began to function as a replacement for heroin – the fact that it encouraged introspection about his habit.
Victoria Adams* is a distinguished career woman who quit smoking cigarettes by using marijuana brownies. She started smoking cigarettes as a teenager and was up to several packs a day, but says pot made her think twice. “It transformed my mind so I didn’t think about cigarettes. That’s what I like about it – it makes you stop and think, to stand aside and look at yourself. It gives you such clarity, really.”
With a habit as strongly addictive as cigarettes or heroin, some additional insight into one’s habit is beneficial but hardly enough to kick the physical symptoms of withdrawal. However, both Adams and Ballantine say that cannabis helped them in this respect, as well as others. Ballantine describes it as working on several levels. First, “it distracts your mind from whirring on this one track of ‘I want to get loaded’.”Then, he says, it worked on the physical symptoms of withdrawal, settling his stomach and relaxing the frenzy of drug craving. “It alleviates the stress associated with cigarettes,” agrees Adams, saying that it treated both the tensions of quitting smoking and the other stresses that cigarettes had helped her deal with before.
Cannabis Substitution Treatment
Adams and Ballantine’s revelations are nothing new. Doctors have referenced the use of cannabis for the treatment of addiction as far back as the late 1800s, when cannabis treatments were in vogue for everything from pain relief to menstrual complaints, headaches, and even rabies. Two notable medicinal examples include Dr. William O’Shaughnessy, who experimented with cannabis substitution for more harmful drugs at the University of Edinburgh in the 1840s, and Dr. E. A. Birch, who published an article in the medical journal The Lancet in 1889 concerning the use of cannabis in the treatment of opiate addiction. By 1850, cannabis was listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia as being useful for alcohol and opiate addiction, among a long list of diseases and complaints.
Perhaps a more surprising account of the successful treatment of morphine and heroin addicts with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) came in 1944 from a report commissioned by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New York City. Initiated under the auspices of the New York Academy of Medicine as a response to increasing accounts of unfounded and hysterical marijuana hype in the media, the report aimed to be “a thorough sociological and scientific investigation.” One of the tasks of the subcommittee was to administer 56 morphine and heroin-addicted prison inmates with either THC, no treatment, or Magendie’s solution (morphine sulphate). The report’s findings were remarkable, stating that it was the subcommittee’s impression that “those who received tetrahydrocannabinol had less severe withdrawal symptoms and left the hospital at the end of the treatment period in better condition that those who received no treatment or were treated with Magendie’s solution. The ones in the former group maintained their appetite and in some cases actually gained weight during the withdrawal period.” They made specific note of the potential ?benefits of marijuana in assisting with some of the mental distress experienced during withdrawal.
The findings of the LaGuardia Commission became part of a greater contention between Mayor LaGuardia and the first commissioner of the United States Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. Anslinger built a career on being rabidly anti-marijuana, infamously declaring it an “assassin of youth”, though it is debatable as to whether even he truly believed the scare stories he planted in the media. Following the blow dealt to his credibility by the LaGuardia Report, it was Anslinger who first invented the “gateway drug” hypothesis in his desperation to give marijuana a new dangerous edge. He sought to link it to heroin, despite the fact that he had previously testified before Congress that a marijuana user does not graduate into harder drugs like heroin. His campaign was largely successful, with the Boggs Act being passed by the US Congress in 1951, a legislation that essentially lumped marijuana in with narcotic drugs for the first time.
Official research into the anti-addictive potential of cannabis then languished somewhat until the 1970s, when an enterprising American doctor named Tod H. Mikuriya had an alcoholic patient tell him that she didn’t feel the need to drink if she had marijuana available to smoke. ?For Mikuriya, this was part of a pattern that began to emerge in his practice regarding cannabis usage and its effect on alcoholics – and when the method was sanctioned by his encouragement and assistance, it often met with great success. By 2002, six years after Proposition 215 passed in the state of California (allowing medical marijuana), Mikuriya had prescribed 92 patients cannabis for both for their addiction to alcohol and its attendant problems.
In a fascinating 2004 report for the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, Mikuriya methodically details the journey of these patients, concluding that the substitution of cannabis for alcohol is much more than simply ‘swapping one drug for another.’ He asserts that when one looks at the role alcohol plays in auto accidents and damage to the body’s organs, there is virtually no comparison with cannabis’ “benign” side effects. On top of this, he touts the beneficial influence of cannabis on sleep cycles, appetite and energy levels, and the easing of pain and muscle spasms for the recovering alcoholic. Considering the potential benefits versus the risk, cannabis seems like a likely first option in treating addiction. There are few alternatives for most addicts; those dependent on opiates have little recourse but to get on a “maintenance program” of more addictive and side-effect-riddled Methadone.
Reward Pathways and the Endocannabinoid System
Dr. Robert Melamede, an associate professor of biology at the University of Colorado and an expert in the field of cannabinoids, says much of the official reluctance to treat addiction with cannabis has to do with the interpretation of how addiction works within the body’s endocannabinoid system. Melamede describes the endocannabinoid system, which he says was only discovered in the early 1990’s, as a thermostat-like regulating body composed of chemicals “that we produce in our bodies out of essential fatty acids.” These chemicals function within the endocannabinoid system to turn on “receptors that change biochemical pathways, and then [turn] off the chemicals that turn on those receptors to establish a kind of balance. Everywhere you look, we see that the endocannabinoid system has very protective properties. That’s what makes marijuana such a unique drug.”
Melamede continues, “It’s the only plant material out there that can tap into our universally functioning endocannabinoid system, and in doing so, mimics the effect of the way the body works. This is why it has so many activities, because the endocannabinoid system winds up literally regulating everything in our body. Among the ‘everythings’ that it regulates seems to be the reward behavior associated with various drugs of abuse.”
This profound connection between the endocannabinoid system and addictive drugs has intrigued scientists, says Melamede, because they have observed that “a lot of the rewarding properties associated with those drugs can be blocked by blocking the endocannabinoid system.” Some scientists believe that simply ‘turning off’ the endocannabinoid system is the way to combat addiction, something that Melamede says “is the stupidest thing imaginable to me, because your cannabinoid system has so many critically important roles in your health. If people are addicted to different drugs, the reason they got addicted was that stimulating those pathways provided something that their bodies needed. What I would say is that rather than using addictive drugs that are funneling through the cannabis pathways, why not just use the cannabis, which we know that in so many circumstances is actually beneficial for people?”
Other scientists are beginning to agree with Melamede, at least in part. Daniele Piomelli, Professor of Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry at the University of California, Irvine, is finding in his research that “blocking reward pathways exacerbates drug-related problems,” and although he agrees a different approach is needed that could include “the stimulation of endogenous cannabinoid pathways,” he believes much more research is needed.
Prescription Drugs and Cannabis
With so much political controversy and debate existing around drug addiction, it is easy to assume that illegal drugs are the problem, conveniently overlooking the harm and dependence wrought by legal psychotropic pharmaceutical drugs, with which cannabis may also have potential applications.
Sharon Heys* is a young mother who, in high school, had “fairly serious substance abuse tendencies” and developed a dependence to crystal methamphetamine. Deciding to quit all drugs and alcohol ‘cold turkey’, and only smoke copious amounts of cannabis, Heys says she managed to stay clean. She admits, however that she basically did nothing but “work, go home, and smoke pot.” For Heys, it was a period in her life that was marked by severe depression that, coupled with running away from home, was the reason she says she ended up having a drug problem. “If I was in Middle America or where pot isn’t available, I definitely would have been put on – and probably needed – antidepressants because I was not well.” Heys felt pot was a far better option than antidepressants, because the pharmaceuticals are “really habit forming [and] have a lot of side effects. People have told me it changed their personality so much that they didn’t feel like themselves anymore.”
Victoria Adams, who quit cigarettes using marijuana brownies and a toke here and there, had similar findings following a car accident when she was put on Paxil to deal with her anxiety. “[My husband] said I was like a dead person – no spark in me at all.” She quit the pharmaceuticals and successfully used marijuana again, finding it also worked “like a tranquilizer, but it put my personality back in, my spark.”
Another favorite claim of anti-cannabis crusaders is that marijuana is itself an addictive substance. Although there is not much evidence of pot being physically addictive, there is some research that suggests a small percent of the population can develop an intense psychological dependence on it. “From almost any angle, marijuana is a more benign drug than alcohol,” asserts Dirk Hanson, author of the upcoming book The Chemical Carousel: What Science Tells Us About Beating Addiction. “But lost in this argument, as usual, is the fact that marijuana is an addictive drug for a minority of users. It is not a risk-free substance in that respect – though from a societal standpoint, I would substitute pot for booze in a heartbeat.”
No methodology is without its potential drawbacks. But when the risks of cannabis substitution are weighed against the crushing physical, mental, emotional, economic, and social agony that addiction causes, the promise cannabis holds for a relatively safe way out is more than tantalizing. From the inducing of introspective reflection about the distress that is the very source of one’s addiction, to the easing of physical and mental pain caused by withdrawal itself, marijuana may be a viable option in helping hard drug addicts find a gateway out.
* Names have been changed to protect the individuals’ identities.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/gateway-out
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, May 22, 2009
 |

by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
I always went back and forth about writing to you regarding my self-medication of Asperger's Syndrome, but the reader posted earlier
convinced me. I, too, am diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome; people
tell me I'm intense, committed, hard-nosed, highly principled (on a
borderline-pathological level), honest/blunt to a fault, overly
formal/polite, etc.
I was entirely against substance use - from caffeine to alcohol to
illegal drugs - until a close friend of mine unexpectedly passed away
when I was 21. I had smoked periodically starting that year (maybe
5-10 times ever), but after he died, my use/abuse really took off. In
short, I stopped giving a damn about what I put in my body.
At that time, I also became friends with a group of people that, had
I not started smoking cannabis on a regular basis, I would have never
been friends with. I started going to parties (something I had never,
ever done before), speaking out about issues that moved me, and just
generally interacting with people in a manner I had never been
comfortable with. That is not to say that I'm a shy person; I have
never been a shy individual, I've never hesitated to "tell it like it
is" or to speak up if I feel wronged. But something about cannabis
made me socially "normal" (a word I don't agree with; I support
neurodiversity as a concept).
Cutting through the haze of daily cannabis use (and there is a
haze; take it from someone who's been smoking daily for 7+ years now)
can be difficult. But for me at least, that haze is a moot point, and
sometimes even a bonus. Ask my girlfriend; about a year ago, I told
her I was going to stop using cannabis. After two weeks she was ready
to kill me. She told me that our relationship was in jeopardy if I
didn't get back on the cannabis. It sounds extreme, but she said it in
one of those half-kidding/I'm-really-being-serious kind of ways.
When I'm not using cannabis regularly, I become an incredibly
manic over-achiever who does not let petty obstacles like peers, social
stigmas, or friends get in his way. When I'm not on cannabis, it is
nothing for me to end a years-long friendship because I perceive it as
getting in the way of my achievement (and this has happened before; it
took a lot of work to bring it back). Not only that, but my "routines"
(AS term) aren't nearly as important to me if I'm regularly smoking.
Example: my morning routine is to wake up early, put on a pot of
coffee, let the dog out, pour my cup of coffee, let the dog back in,
stir in my cream, then sit on the couch and read or listen to my
iPod until my coffee is done. If I haven't been smoking regularly, and
my girlfriend comes down and lets out the dog BEFORE I put on the pot
of coffee, that will completely ruin my day if not my entire week. I'll be irritable by the time I get to work, and liable to snap at the smallest provocation.
On the other hand, if I had smoked the night before, I will notice
that my routine has been jockeyed, but it just won't bother me that
much. The same goes for my social connections; when I smoke, I reflect
upon, and come to value a social connection, but it's a cognitive
process for me... It's not something I do naturally, and it's not
something I'm inclined to do if I'm sober (my mind says, "THERES NO
TIME, THERES NO TIME")
I guess you could say my overal point is this: All people are
different. All people choose to use substances for reasons that you
may not understand, or care to understand. But one thing is consistent
with every single person I have ever met in my entire life: Everyone
has vices in which they indulge, whether it's ducking outside of work
to smoke a cigarette, ordering an appetizer and dessert with
dinner, making your partner wear handcuffs to bed, laying around and
playing video games, snorting coke in the bathroom at the bar or club,
skipping religious service, blazing up after a hard day's work, or
having a nightcap... And everyone has reasons for doing these things.
And until they decide that those reasons are no
longer worth doing whatever it is they're doing, societal stigmas,
oppressive laws, and shaming will only alienate people.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-cannabis-closet-dealing-with-aspergers-ctd.html
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 14, 2009
 |
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 14, 2008
 |
Shawn talks with Dr. William Eidelman about the results of his use of super concentrated cannabis hemp oil.
To learn more about this oil that cures cancer and other serious diseases, please watch Rick Simpson's "Run from the Cure" at www.phoenixtearsmovie.com. You will find written instructions for making the oil (be very careful, it's super flammable) at www.phoenixtears.ca.
Many people are familiar with SMOKING "hash oil" or "honey oil". If you have a health problem, you might want to try EATING it. Just a tiny bit a couple of times a day to start out with. Increase that as your body gets used to it, and you should be able to function fine going about your daily activities. This method can cure cancer and many other things.
www.youtube.com/jackherertv
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 14, 2008
 |
Jack Herer TV - 12/07/08 - www.youtube.com/jackherertv
Special Guests:
Jacqueline Patterson (Medical Mary Jane) & Friend www.myspace.com/medicalmaryjane
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, November 07, 2008
 |
By Tim Worstall
Posted in Policing, 6th November 2008 13:19 GMT
Regular readers will recall the confused mess (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/08/cannabis_law_analysis/) that is this government's cannabis policy. There has been a drop in cannabis consumption since it was downgraded from Class B to C, but nevertheless they want to put it back up to Class B again. Yes, we know all about the argument that what you ingest is entirely your business, it being your body and all that but morals are always trumped by politics.
In the comments section to our last piece the general consensus was that the policy was driven either by a craven servility to the Murdoch press or, as a daring alternative, a bending to Daily Mail woo woo. The general consensus however was that it was Puritanism, that awful fear that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves and that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. We're arguing over whose Puritanism, not whether.
There was one vaguely respectable argument that could be put forward on the prohibitionist's side, that of cannabis induced schizophrenia. This has been increasing even as the general incidence of schizophrenia has been stable (or even falling, depending upon who you ask). That the rise was on the order of 500 people a year means it's not a very important point, not when compared to 3 million regular tokers, but there are still those who will buy the argument that people should be stopped from harming themselves, even if the risks are very low.
There is certainly a correlation, but we should still want to know about causation before we take any further action. For it is possible, and it is a view advanced by some (like myself last time), that those who are about to become schizophrenic dose themselves on cannabis as they are known to on alcohol and any other substance that comes to hand to still the voices. Or perhaps there's a milder version, that cannabis induced psychosis isn't in fact cannabis induced at all, but is simply coincidental: that it's an early marker of schizophrenia rather than something brought on by cannabis itself.
When we try to test this we also want to be very careful indeed about our sample groups. We really don't want to be making the mistake that the World Health Organisation has been making with HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa. Testing pregnant women to give you the incidence of a sexually transmitted disease in the general population really ain't all that clever: you're testing the one group of the population where you have actual proof that they've been partaking in unprotected sex. It might be useful to get an idea of scale, but it's just not going to be all that accurate.
Fortunately, all of this is just what some scientists have done(http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true) (sadly, the full paper (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/65/11/1269) is not online for free access). We know that there is a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia (more accurately to three different conditions that we'll, for convenience sake, group together here). If we're lucky we can also find a decent data set which we have indeed got, some 2.25 million Danes born between 1955 and 1990, and we know both their own treatments for either cannabis induced psychosis or for those varied schizophrenic type diseases. We can also track their familial relationships and see which of them did or didn't suffer in these manners. Excellent, we can now try to test our correlation. Do people who have had cannabis induced psychotic episodes then go on to develop schizophrenia at a higher rate than their genetic predisposition (as evidenced by their familial incidence of schizophrenia) would lead us to believe they would?
Well, looking at the 609 who had treatment for such pot induced freakouts and those 6,476 who were treated for the full blown nastiness, well, umm, no. Formally:
In terms of estimated rate ratios, persons who develop cannabis-induced psychosis are as predisposed to schizophrenia spectrum disorder and other psychiatric disorders as those who develop schizophrenia spectrum disorder without a history of cannabis-induced psychosis.
So at this point we can say that, no, that bad trip on some heavy shit does not lead on to schizophrenia. There's no difference in incidence.
But the paper's authors go much further:
Altogether, these findings, in addition to those of previous studies, indicate that cannabis-induced psychosis may not be a valid diagnosis but an early marker of schizophrenia.
That is, that the very idea of that bad trip is itself wrong. The disease is already there, simply wrongly diagnosed as being cannabis induced. And finally we get:
Rather, the degree of hereditary predisposition in individuals who receive treatment of cannabis-induced psychosis closely mirrors that in those who develop schizophrenia with no history of cannabis induced psychosis. The results agree with those of other studies that show that cannabis predominantly causes psychotic symptoms in those persons who are predisposed to develop psychosis or show signs of psychosis in the absence of cannabis use.
This goes a great deal further than my or anyone else's original supposition, that pot consumption might cause problems only for those who are already predisposed to mental health problems. If it were simply this then we could deal with legalised pot simply by placing warnings upon it, as we do with nuts and nut allergies (umm, 'nut' possibly isn't le mot juste there). But this finding goes further. There seems to be no evidence that cannabis consumption increases the incidence of these mental diseases at all. Incidence is the same for those who have had the "cannabis induced" version as it is in the general population, adjusting for the risks we perceive from the incidence of such problems in their immediate families. That there's actually nothing to do with cannabis at all, that it just so happens that some who are becoming schizophrenic, something which is often marked by short episodes before it fully takes grip, happen to have been puffing 'erb when such episodes hit.
Thus there really is no logical leg for the government to stand upon in its reclassification of cannabis: there's not in fact one reason against the legalisation of the damn stuff and the increase in liberty and freedom that would result.
So, anyone think this is going to make any difference? No, thought not myself. OK, back to basics then, could the Murdochists and the Mailites let us know who is really to blame for the idiocy which is current drugs policy?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, July 26, 2008
 |
The police raid on Martin Martinez, a Seattle man who uses marijuana to dull the chronic pain from a motorcycle accident, made the page-one headline last Thursday: "Was Pot Raid Justified?" Martinez's lawyer, Douglas Hiatt, insists vehemently that it was not.
In Seattle, the topic of medical marijuana and the law leads quickly to Hiatt. A native Chicagoan, 49, this blue-jeaned barrister is vehement often, his deep voice rising quickly to indignant italics.
His cellphone rings. "I gotta take this," he says. "Hello? Yes ... No ... No, we're not going to do that! Look, this is my client ... Yes, I'll be there." Click.
Originally a public defender, Hiatt is now exclusively a medical-marijuana lawyer. It is not a lucrative practice. His clients are often broke, and typically they are merely trying to be left alone. Hiatt says he has been paid in salmon, and once in an organic pig.
His first client was an AIDS patient stuck in the King County Jail. Hiatt went to Dan Satterberg, then deputy prosecutor, for help — and it was Satterberg who smoothed things over after last week's raid on Martinez.
To Hiatt, King County's Republican prosecutor is "Good King Dan," who follows the law that 59 percent of Washington voters approved in 1998. Most prosecutors around the state don't, Hiatt says.
"It makes me crazy," he says.
For healthy folk who think of marijuana as getting stoned, "medical marijuana" may sound like a doper's deception. Hiatt shakes his head. His clients are in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Typically, they are on disability. Many have cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease or Crohn's disease.
AIDS patients are using marijuana to control nausea, so they don't vomit up the 40-odd pills they have to take every day. In 2000, when a judge forbade writer and AIDS patient Peter McWilliams from using marijuana, he threw up his "AIDS cocktail," choked on his vomit and died.
The word "cocktail," makes Hiatt bristle. "It's not a damned cocktail. This is chemotherapy for life."
McWilliams had been ordered to use Marinol, a drug with one of marijuana's active ingredients. Hiatt says he has a client right now ordered by a judge to use Marinol.
"It makes my client really stoned, and he doesn't want that," Hiatt says. "It's expensive. It costs $10 to $20 a pill. Why use it when you can grow a house plant?"
Hiatt's typical client is one, like Martinez, with chronic pain. Says Hiatt, "Their doctor puts them on OxyContin, morphine, one of the opiates. Their brain is in a fog because of the opiates. They're constipated. They're miserable. They say, 'I lost my life.' Then they try marijuana. It allows them to cut their opiate dose in half. Some of them eliminate it. They feel better. Their mind is clearer. They're not constipated anymore."
"I've heard that story five hundred times," Hiatt says. "Because it works."
Hiatt estimates there are 25,000 medical-marijuana patients in Washington. The state law says they can have a 60-day supply, but since 1998 it has been up to local officials to say what that is. The Department of Health will have a public hearing in Tumwater Aug. 25 on a new rule to allow patients 24 ounces of dried plant and six mature plants. And that's not enough, Hiatt insists.
"Every single medical marijuana patient I have is over these numbers," he says.
I relate Hiatt's story partly because I believe in letting these folks alone, but partly also because I had an aunt who was in sharp pain from a pinched nerve. Her doctor prescribed an opiate, which handled the pain but messed up her mind and her gut.
My aunt was the most un-stoned person I ever knew, but she told me she would have taken marijuana, or anything else, if it had killed the pain, and to hell with the government. I would be no different.
Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to www.seattletimes.com/edcetera
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008066765_rams23.html
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|