[Admin - Rethink]

Today, we've been talking about the risks of cannabis, and awareness of them...

• 'Middle-Class Parents Need to Rethink Their Lazy Laid-Back Attitude to Cannabis' - by Mark Davies of Rethink Mental Illness http://ow.ly/7mePB

Studies indicate that under-18 cannabis use doubles, or even triples, the chances of developing psychosis. Read more here: http://ow.ly/7mrML ...so when you hear that people think cannabis use is 'a normal part of growing up' do you think we are a bit too relaxed about the health risks for young people?

We've been discussing this on Facebook and Twitter already - a lot of people think we're peddling anti-pot propaganda. Is it possible to be critical of cannabis risks without sounding overly negative...or shouldn't we care?

Any opinions?

All the best,

Chris

[Universal Credit]

It is much stronger than it used to be. I'd have a zero tolerance policy on it. Why should people who become ill for no reason have to compete for limited help with those who have caused their illness themselves? A good education prog combined with a punitive zero tolerance approach to the drugs scene? Also those with a dual diagnosis should get help after those who have simply become ill through no fault of their own. I would use surgery to make it impossible for them to hold a splif.

[Admin - Rethink]

Even though we are not saying 'ban', I do like the Jonathan Swift stylee, Spartikus!

We've had lots of views on Facebook and Twitter and here - I'm most curious now to find out how it is possible for a charity like us to be critical of cannabis risks without sounding like we're being absolutely and relentlessly negative (we're not - we support cannabinoid medical research, for example).

We're just after more education and research around the health risks - not interested in making the crime more punishable.

[Universal Credit]

They staple stomachs for obesity....the same with regards fingers for six months may be long enough to cure a chronic drugs habit? I fail to see the difference in essence here?

[ghost]

Spartikus Rex, on 08 November 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

It is much stronger than it used to be. I'd have a zero tolerance policy on it. Why should people who become ill for no reason have to compete for limited help with those who have caused their illness themselves?

Mmmm, By that reasoning why should the able support those with disabilities at all. I mean, where does such rational end?

Cannabis is stronger today but that is precisely because of its illegality. The illegal market leads to stronger crosses whereas a regulated market could reduce harm by controlling the level of thc/cbd etc. The evidence states that the most vulnerable group in regard to cannabis are the young/teenagers. Yet again, an unregulated/illegal market empowers drug dealers whilst we hand the young into their hands. I'm all for sensible harm reduction.

In regard to the original question, my answer would be No. The truth is in recent times it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't understand the associated harms and risks. Many drug users or dual diagnosis patients come from backgrounds of abuse or trauma and self hate/destruction is a big part of any serious addiction. With this in mind I do feel that Rethink and other similar services may have a skewed view on this issue due to the backgrounds of their client group. Cannabis is class 'B' in spite of no related deaths and 3 million users in the UK. The reason its class 'B' is not because of related deaths but because of associated risks and social harms such has mental health issues. The message is very clear.

Ex heroin addicts become alcoholics, coke heads become pot heads etc. This cycle of self destruction is about the symptom of addiction, not the drug itself. A good starting question would be - If mental health is hell, what would cause a person to wilfully inflict themselves to such a hell? How deep must problems be or how hard must reality be for a person to chose insanity.? Whilst informing people of harm is good I feel in most cases the real underlying issues can be to easily negated by a focus on this or that drug.

[Universal Credit]

I've seen people destroyed by drugs. Ain't pretty. The best thing is to re-invent the social disdain that used to exist for this not so very long ago. I'm not suggesting it spread to others. There is a place for this natural emotion. We have social disdain for the bankers because they are destroying the fabric of our society. Drug pushers, who are in it for the money, are a identical breed. They don't care about the consequences. A lot come away from the scene after a few years with no real harm. That is like saying we all use banks so the banksters should be left be. No, they need rounding up and putting against the bleeding wall. Then, these drugs like the banksters financial instruments can be investigated scientificaly to seperate the wheat from the chaff....the good they do from the harm. I'm not anti-drugs, just anti-destroyed lives.

[I am an Aardvark]

The truth of it all is that it's not just cannabis that causes psychosis - it's in combination with other factors.

I agree with what Ghost has written - 'Dual Diagnosis' issues are complex. We shouldn't, as a society; be demonising & punishing drug users & those with MH difficulties that use drugs - But instead should be genuinely helping them - But I expect that's too radical a suggestion.

Prescribed drugs destroy more lives than street drugs anyway - & who really cares about that?

[Universal Credit]

I am a Cat, on 09 November 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

The truth of it all is that it's not just cannabis that causes psychosis - it's in combination with other factors.

I agree with what Ghost has written - 'Dual Diagnosis' issues are complex. We shouldn't, as a society; be demonising & punishing drug users & those with MH difficulties that use drugs - But instead should be genuinely helping them - But I expect that's too radical a suggestion.

Prescribed drugs destroy more lives than street drugs anyway - & who really cares about that?

Pushers and Big Pharma bought Docs are in it for the same distorting motive, money. I don't differentiate.

[I am an Aardvark]

Spartikus Rex, on 09 November 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

Pushers and Big Pharma bought Docs are in it for the same distorting motive, money. I don't differentiate.

Then by that logic your the same as a pot head.

[Universal Credit]

I am a Cat, on 09 November 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

Then by that logic your the same as a pot head.

I'm a service user, I don't know nothing about this logic you speak about?

[ghost]

Spartikus Rex, on 09 November 2011 - 05:09 AM, said:

I'm not anti-drugs, just anti-destroyed lives.

Yes, me also, I have scars on my arms from injecting and a long history of drug use. After being homeless, living in squats, hostels etc and coming from that background its a subject I care about. That's why I support harm reduction in a meaningful sense. Drug dealers will always exist whilst there is a market of supply and demand to exploit. For me are current drug strategy fails miserably and in many ways we exasperate the issues when hysteria replaces reason and evidence. Take all the campaigns around cannabis and mental health. Whilst these harms and dangers should be known the result of upgrading the cannabis classification was to further criminalise the very people the campaign sought to protect. Since when was having a criminal record or going to prison advantageous to a vulnerable person? If cannabis didn't exist there is every chance those people would be in a cycle of self destruction with another harmful substance. Logically that means it isn't about the cannabis but the underlying issues. I think we agree but come from different directions. Making people informed and giving those who need help the options is a good thing but be minded by the reason and ethics and just who loses out when people lose sight of their own stated aims and goals.

[Universal Credit]

Just like with attempted suicide it is the opportunity, the situation, that needs to be considered. Counterintuitive but the problem may be over-supply rather than demand. Certainly other things need to be considered. However, a generation ago which isn't long, drugs were not a major social problem here in the UK. And people who took them or their alternatives like glue sniffers were considered the lowest of the low by the majority. You can argue whether everyone on drugs deserved the pariah title but it was a choice and very many fewer took that choice when it was seen as a morally wrong one. If you had any drug dealing and ended up in the nick you'd have the same reaction muslims get today. There are many social problems but street drugs just like the profiteering overuse of legal ones are a unnecessary addition that destroys critical thinking necessary to overcome difficult situations. The only people who benefit are the pushers, big pharma or little pharma it's all the same game. In a small minority of cases, like pain relief or a reduction in hyper-anxious states, this is not the case but such things should be seen as a reason to examine and isolate what works without a profit motive..and prescribed by people who are not gonna be tempted to prescribe Zyclon B next week.

[I am an Aardvark]

[Universal Credit]

[ghost]

Slightly off topic but whilst discussing reason, science and evidence in relation to drugs and relative arm. This documentary covers the largest ever study into Britains most dangerous drugs, its informative- 20 most dangerous drugs

Quote

A team of leading scientists have spent two years analysing the effects of 20 of Britain’s most widely used drugs, and have devised a scientifically rigorous – and controversial – new ranking for them.

The BBC’s Horizon programme has followed their research and looks at the science behind the headlines.

How do the brain and body react to each stimulant as it passes into the bloodstream, and what are the long-term effects of drugs relative to their classification?

If the current classification should be changed in view of the latest findings, what exactly is Britain’s most dangerous drug?

[Universal Credit]

I've said all I've got to say on the issue really, it isn't that big a thing for me, I like a clear mind when I'm well and hate to think of others wasting what some haven't got in the first place. Yep, drink is bad but that is down to popularity and social expectations not so much affect IMO. I'm opposed to alchopops and think drink should taste like the sewer the stronger it gets, as by tradition. A great way of maintaining a healthy population in the past, mead. Tea contains caffeine. It isn't considered harmful except by mormons. Take the money out of the equation and drugs wouldn't be supplied except for mead.

[ghost]

Spartikus Rex, on 10 November 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

Take the money out of the equation and drugs wouldn't be supplied except for mead.

Mead... Mead sir, with this and your avatar I fear that you are indeed from another time

[I am an Aardvark]