Re-classification Of Cannabis

Originally Posted by Sociable

I will (if I get time) try to read through the various books I have on the subject and see if I can find appropriate refs though.

Thanks for the offer, the books I have on the subject are from my degree so will all now be about 10 years out of date.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

By mentioning the action upon reward-related structures it would push the research more in the direction of a psychological effect. That may be mediated by a physical structure in the brain, ie. the receptors upon which THC acts (as are all emotions), but the end result is still psychological dependence.

I'll go with that but a psychological dependance instigated by a primary physical dependance.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'll go with that but a psychological dependance instigated by a primary physical dependance.

As I mentioned previously, this is only the abstract, but going from what you've posted, and I assume you are mainly referring to the bit you've put in bold, it does not to me suggest a physical dependence. I`m reading it that the cannabis activates the reward centres of the brain, and it is the desire to get that reward that is stimulating continued use, not a change in the underlying physical mechanisms.

Strictly speaking this really low level stuff isn`t my field of expertise within psychology, so if I`ve obviously misinterpreted something let me know.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Still doesn`t necessarily make it a bad thing. I do, and have for as long as I can remember and even as a child, suffered from terrible insomnia. Unless I`m exhausted to the point of dropping I`m lucky if I get 3 or 4 hours sleep a night.

About 18 months back I was prescribed sleeping pills, but no longer as the doctor is concerned that I will become "addicted" to them. As far as I am concerned, the insomnia is a result of a chemical imbalance in my brain, the sleeping pills help deal with that. I personally have no qualms about taking them for life, even if the official label put upon it is "addiction". I see no difference between this situation and someone taking insulin to deal with diabetes, both are chemical imbalances dealt with the administration of drugs.

I feel that addiction is an easy label to slap upon things which automatically gives it negative connotations.

I think I'd go back to Sociable's question "Why?"

You say that you have insomnia. You say that you feel that it is caused by a chemical imbalance of the brain, but is that what the doctor has actually confirmed.

For example, many of my family take thyroxine to combat a failure of their thyroids to produce enough of the hormone. This was confirmed by tests undertaken by the doctor and his/her staff.The treatment was to be put on thyroxine for life at a level that compensates for the loss i.e. to restore the natural level of a hormone.The same is true when a diabetic takes insulin.

If your doctor has established that there is a chemical imbalance and that for some reason it's not possible to adjust the chemical imbalance of the brain back to its natural state, then it's possible that sleeping tablets are the doctor's workaround to get you the sleep you need as prolonged sleep-deprivation is harmful to health sometimes fatally. Given that I don't know your medical circumstances, that would be my perception of the situation.

The sad thing about sleeping tablets is that unlike normal sleep hormones they are not natural and have side effects and sadly addiction is one of them.It's not an enviable position to be placed in and I sympathise greatly.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Sociable

I think this is the point others have been trying to make, cannabis should be treated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, where the illegality is not in the substance but in its abuse as this applies equally to cannabis for the very reasons you state.

Legalise it, but regulate and tax it on the same basis as alcohol and tobacco.

This is what is being advocated for cannabis, not a "free for all" anything goes attitude, a sensible recognition that, in many ways, cannabis is actually far less harmful to the user than either alcohol or tobacco and even less so when one considers its impact on innocent third parties.

The hypocrisy of government is treating alcohol and tobacco differently simply because they raise vast amounts of money for the exchequer. The hypocrisy of many individuals lies in the fact they smoke or drink themselves, but do not see either as †œdrugâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ � use.

Why can't you extend that argument to class A drugs though?

As for canibis being less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, you're more likely to get lung cancer from smoking canibis than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco.
And don't most people smoke canibis with tobacco rather than instead of?

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why can't you extend that argument to class A drugs though?

As for canibis being less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, you're more likely to get lung cancer from smoking canibis than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco.
And don't most people smoke canibis with tobacco rather than instead of?

To extend the argument to class "A" drugs shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of class "A" drugs and the completely different nature of them. Would you class a child's pea-shooter in the same classification as an AK47?

The link between cancer and spliffs is not due to cannabis, but rather the nature of the way they are smoked with more nicotine being inhaled and more deeply than when smoking a "Normal" cigarette and in addition the lack of any filter also increasing the tar intake too. These same links to cancer are therefore not shown when cannabis is not used in conjunction with tobacco AFAIK, unless you are aware of conclusive research that disproves this.

Notwithstanding this, the key point I was making was that the tobacco content is known to be more harmful but that element of a spliff is actually legal, whereas the less harmful element, cannabis, is illegal and thereby pointing out the irony of that situation.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And don't most people smoke canibis with tobacco rather than instead of?

I think that's to help the drug burn at an 'acceptable' level. Allegedly

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

As I mentioned previously, this is only the abstract, but going from what you've posted, and I assume you are mainly referring to the bit you've put in bold, it does not to me suggest a physical dependence. I`m reading it that the cannabis activates the reward centres of the brain, and it is the desire to get that reward that is stimulating continued use, not a change in the underlying physical mechanisms.

Strictly speaking this really low level stuff isn`t my field of expertise within psychology, so if I`ve obviously misinterpreted something let me know.

Not my area either, I could be wrong.

How about this paper:1: Rev Med Liege. 2003 Jan; 58(1): 19-21. Related Articles, Links


[Effects of nicotine and cannabinoids on the central nervous system]

[Article in French]

Seutin V.

Departement de Sciences precliniques BP (service de Pharmacologie), Centre de Recherches en Neurobiologie Cellulaire et Moleculaire (CNCM), Universite de Liege.

We describe the molecular mechanisms of action of nicotine and delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most potent component of cannabis. Like other drugs of abuse, these compounds enhance dopamine release in a precise area of the limbic system when administered acutely. It has recently been shown that the cannabinoid receptors on which delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol acts are also activated by endogenous ligands such as anandamide. This unconventional neurotransmitter appears to have important physiological effects in the central nervous system. Both preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that nicotine is more addictive than delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol. However, the intimate interactions that exist between cannabinoid and opioid systems within the brain suggest that cannabinoids should not be considered as harmless drugs of abuse.
PMID: 12647593 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

...and this one::

Bull Acad Natl Med. 2002; 186(2): 319-28; discussion 329. Related Articles, Links


[Recent neurobiological data on cannabis]

[Article in French]

Costentin J.

Unite de Neuropsychopharmacologie, UMR 6036 CNRS, Faculte de Medecine et Pharmacie, 22 Bd Gambetta, 76183 Rouen.

The alarming increase in cannabis abuse has triggered a renewed interest in the neurobiological mechanisms which underlie its effects, particularly as regards its addictive properties either intrinsic or when crossed with other narcotics as well as its subsequent damage. We here report an evaluation of experimental data which reveal in animals a psychological dependence, common to all addictive drugs; a physical dependence, which is considered up to now as the characteristic of "hard addictive drugs"; the incentive effect that cannabis should exert on the inclination to abuse other addictive drugs, especially heroin; and finally the close relationships which seem to exist between cannabis and schizophrenia. Most of these recent data are far from reassuring as regards cannabis psychotoxicity. Furthermore they underline its potential danger and prompt increased caution.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 12145839 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Originally Posted by dezzo

I think that's to help the drug burn at an 'acceptable' level. Allegedly

afaik it's mainly for convenience - e.g. roll a couple before you go out - lots of people use methods of smoking it 'neat' such as pipes, chillums, 'hot knives', bongs etc (depending on whether bush or resin), but it's not usually convenient to carry the paraphanalia around.

I don't know if any research has been done on the effect on the lungs of smoking 'neat' cannabis in this way?

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by dezzo

I think that's to help the drug burn at an 'acceptable' level. Allegedly

Actually for most I think itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s more a case of the alternatives being somewhat less than pleasant to smoke and the overriding need to maintain nicotine levels at the same time too.

To my shame I have even been known to have a cigarette on the go same time as a J for that very reason.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Not my area either, I could be wrong.

Many thanks for posting those abstracts, I`ll have to see if I can get the full articles through work.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Sociable

To extend the argument to class "A" drugs shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of class "A" drugs and the completely different nature of them. Would you class a child's pea-shooter in the same classification as an AK47?

Class A drugs still enable to you escape from the world.
They still get you high.
It's only if you take too much that they kill.
Isn't that the same as drink?

Isn't part of the problem with the gov bringing in a law banning tobacco, that they get plenty of funds from taxing it, but more so, it would be political suicide?
Tobacco was introduced before it's harm was known, as such people have grown up thinking it isn't that bad. I know several people who run risks of strokes, or have lost limbs due to smoking, but still keep doing it. Like opium it was considered a taxable comodoty, heck we even went to war to keep the opium flowing, but people eventually realised the harm and dangers of it, and so it was banned, but unlike tobacco, there were fewer users of opium, so much less of a backlash.

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Class A drugs still enable to you escape from the world.
They still get you high.
It's only if you take too much that they kill.
Isn't that the same as drink?

I get the feeling from your earlier posts you are opposed to the legalisation of cannabis yes?

As I said before, there are clear distinctions between class "A" drugs and the other categories and I stand by what I said earlier in this respect.

But you seem to be arguing for ALL drugs to be treated identically presumably on the basis that would invalidate any arguments linked to comparisons with other "legal" substances providing a case for the legalisation of cannabis.

Or are you perhaps arguing tobacco, alcohol and any other substance capable of being abused should also be banned and their use or possession be made a criminal offence?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I know several people who have gone from canabis and speed to heroine. Normally by it being offered to them by their dealers as either free or extremely cheap.

Yes, but this does *not* mean there's a logical connection between the usage of cannabis and harder drugs.

The dealer is only interested in keeping their market going and getting a bigger profit, so it's in their interest to push harder/ more addictive drugs.

However were cannabis to be decriminalised and available as in Holland *AND* that hard drug usage be treated as a *medical* rather than a *criminal* matter with detox programmes available to hard drug users, also as in Holland, I think the number of people who subsequently get hooked on hard drugs would drop.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Sociable

I get the feeling from your earlier posts you are opposed to the legalisation of cannabis yes?

As I said before, there are clear distinctions between class "A" drugs and the other categories and I stand by what I said earlier in this respect.

But you seem to be arguing for ALL drugs to be treated identically presumably on the basis that would invalidate any arguments linked to comparisons with other "legal" substances providing a case for the legalisation of cannabis.

Or are you perhaps arguing tobacco, alcohol and any other substance capable of being abused should also be banned and their use or possession be made a criminal offence?

I'm just trying to show that the argument to legalise canibis by comparing it to the legality of tobacco and alcohol may be logical, but that doesn't mean it should be legalised. Logically that argument can be extended to all drugs, in that alcohol and tobacco are legal harmful drugs.