Busty St Clare
Ex-Bluelighter
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' 
-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
Channel 7 Sunday program: 28/2/10 - Reefer Madness
- Thread starter TripppAR
- Start date
De quincy
Bluelighter
From Demanufacturer This story prompted me to look for an unbiased report on some of the things they brought up in the story. All I could find was conflicting research and arguments being presented by both sides: Drug users in denial and Anti-drug users spitting out the same myths they have for decades. Could anyone point me to an unbiased (as unbiased as possible) source. i really would like to know how damaging my habits are.[/QUOTE said:
De quincy
Bluelighter
Also, this report is ideal, even if you just read the summary page:
The Beckley Foundation
Global Cannabis Commission Report
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/policy/cannabis_commission.html
Quote: There is a clear need for change, and yet the international drug control system seems increasingly paralyzed and immobile. There is no doubt that moving forward will be difficult, but it is not impossible. In this Report, the aim has been to draw on the available evidence to offer some possible paths forward to a more realistic and effective global regime for cannabis control.
The Beckley Foundation
Global Cannabis Commission Report
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/policy/cannabis_commission.html
Quote: There is a clear need for change, and yet the international drug control system seems increasingly paralyzed and immobile. There is no doubt that moving forward will be difficult, but it is not impossible. In this Report, the aim has been to draw on the available evidence to offer some possible paths forward to a more realistic and effective global regime for cannabis control.
helohihello
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 107
The main problem is that most of the weed in Aus is Sativa.
This is well known to cause panic attacks because of the higher THC to CBD ratio.
Some peole can't handle it. Most likely the people who are already prone to that way of thinking. Meaning schizophrenics or just generally anxious people.
We need more Indica weed and thus higher CBD content. This is much more relaxing and CBD has been proven to counteract the psychotic effects of THC.
CBD by itself, extracted from the plant also has been shown to reduce schizophrenic symptoms.
Search granny storm crow's list for the studies. She did have a website with a great section layout, but it appears to have been taken down.
This is well known to cause panic attacks because of the higher THC to CBD ratio.
Some peole can't handle it. Most likely the people who are already prone to that way of thinking. Meaning schizophrenics or just generally anxious people.
We need more Indica weed and thus higher CBD content. This is much more relaxing and CBD has been proven to counteract the psychotic effects of THC.
CBD by itself, extracted from the plant also has been shown to reduce schizophrenic symptoms.
Search granny storm crow's list for the studies. She did have a website with a great section layout, but it appears to have been taken down.
Last edited by a moderator:
Demanufacturer
Bluelighter
thanks for the links guys!
reading time...
reading time...
Verybuffed
Bluelighter
Do you have a source for that claim?
chugs
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,026
sigh.
if Cannabis is so innocent and great then why bitch the negative reporting of it on an online forum, preaching thoroughly to the converted? Why aren't you all out there, in the squares, starting up organisation, yelling from your soap boxes?
Sunday, and for that matter, all other media organisation run either their own agenda or those who are paying (or playing) the game. Being mad at the media is like being made at your cat for knocking a fish off the bench and then eating it. Of course its going to do what it does. The only thing that can be done is to get to a position where you dictate that your cat knocks some other guys fish off the counter.
Look we all strongly believe that alcohol is far worse then cannabis but imagine if they were seeking to criminalise (again) alcohol?
All of the demonising, the use of extremes as examples to support their banal claims that alcohol was bad. Imagine all the more the howls and protests in bluelight about how its not alcohol that was bad but rather the poor behaviour and knowledge of those who abuse it for their ever wretched stories of pain and denial, that only if harm minimisation, education and other programs were in place etc. Imagine the demonising of research that revealed alcohol was wrong. the arguments of semantics and inane points of order on statistics and other research methodology.
Sure the media may have used an extreme example but what else are they meant to do. find someone who smokes pot once a month and somehow connect memory loss and other negative outcomes to the cannabis use? I don't doubt smoking dope causes some issues. Not as bad as those portrayed but certainly factors that the individual need to be fully informed about. Yet an extreme case allows for a straight forward correlation. Certainly if a media story is hung on the back of a 6 year study in 20-24 year olds. (surprised that none of the bluelighter crew are not aware of those involved in the study).
On a broader point I still don't know how we can justify the decriminalisation of cannabis, or for that matter any drug until we can give a frame work, a regime of regulation and management that will avoid completely the failures that surround alcohol. Such a drug has had hundreds of millions poured into education and health programs, and yet, the drug is the bane of this country and many others (look at Russia to see a country that has drown itself).
If we as a society have fucked up so badly when it comes to alcohol then how can we be so glib when it comes to a story about cannabis use? As if nullifying the media's campaign and argument somehow justifies the decriminalisation of cannabis?
Lastly re bluelight in general. It would seem to me that bluelight doesn't necessary condone drug use but rather is simply here to allow for the dissemination of information which will prevent harm and death, a very apolitical stance.
yet contradicting that, and allowing such a contradictory position to fester, is the belief that legislation of drugs will somehow result in no deaths, no harm (or very little). Its all well in good to believe that criminalisation of narcotics is wrong, and to that end, stories in the media which further substantiate that position, however what are you going to replace it with? A free market drug market economy? Look at how "responsible" the brewers of various alcohol containing products are? No better then the Zeta's in mexico (nearly as corrupting, just without the guns).
The real problem with the drug debate is how decriminalisation crowd really has no position, no detail. No substance. It is the decriminlisation crowd that allow the vacuum to be filled with the bigoted replies of those who have taken the agenda by the balls and are firmly twisting it to their own ends.
And yet, no constructive action from the decriminalisation crew, just lots of howls from the sideline about how the other side doesn't play fair.
if Cannabis is so innocent and great then why bitch the negative reporting of it on an online forum, preaching thoroughly to the converted? Why aren't you all out there, in the squares, starting up organisation, yelling from your soap boxes?
Sunday, and for that matter, all other media organisation run either their own agenda or those who are paying (or playing) the game. Being mad at the media is like being made at your cat for knocking a fish off the bench and then eating it. Of course its going to do what it does. The only thing that can be done is to get to a position where you dictate that your cat knocks some other guys fish off the counter.
Look we all strongly believe that alcohol is far worse then cannabis but imagine if they were seeking to criminalise (again) alcohol?
All of the demonising, the use of extremes as examples to support their banal claims that alcohol was bad. Imagine all the more the howls and protests in bluelight about how its not alcohol that was bad but rather the poor behaviour and knowledge of those who abuse it for their ever wretched stories of pain and denial, that only if harm minimisation, education and other programs were in place etc. Imagine the demonising of research that revealed alcohol was wrong. the arguments of semantics and inane points of order on statistics and other research methodology.
Sure the media may have used an extreme example but what else are they meant to do. find someone who smokes pot once a month and somehow connect memory loss and other negative outcomes to the cannabis use? I don't doubt smoking dope causes some issues. Not as bad as those portrayed but certainly factors that the individual need to be fully informed about. Yet an extreme case allows for a straight forward correlation. Certainly if a media story is hung on the back of a 6 year study in 20-24 year olds. (surprised that none of the bluelighter crew are not aware of those involved in the study).
On a broader point I still don't know how we can justify the decriminalisation of cannabis, or for that matter any drug until we can give a frame work, a regime of regulation and management that will avoid completely the failures that surround alcohol. Such a drug has had hundreds of millions poured into education and health programs, and yet, the drug is the bane of this country and many others (look at Russia to see a country that has drown itself).
If we as a society have fucked up so badly when it comes to alcohol then how can we be so glib when it comes to a story about cannabis use? As if nullifying the media's campaign and argument somehow justifies the decriminalisation of cannabis?
Lastly re bluelight in general. It would seem to me that bluelight doesn't necessary condone drug use but rather is simply here to allow for the dissemination of information which will prevent harm and death, a very apolitical stance.
yet contradicting that, and allowing such a contradictory position to fester, is the belief that legislation of drugs will somehow result in no deaths, no harm (or very little). Its all well in good to believe that criminalisation of narcotics is wrong, and to that end, stories in the media which further substantiate that position, however what are you going to replace it with? A free market drug market economy? Look at how "responsible" the brewers of various alcohol containing products are? No better then the Zeta's in mexico (nearly as corrupting, just without the guns).
The real problem with the drug debate is how decriminalisation crowd really has no position, no detail. No substance. It is the decriminlisation crowd that allow the vacuum to be filled with the bigoted replies of those who have taken the agenda by the balls and are firmly twisting it to their own ends.
And yet, no constructive action from the decriminalisation crew, just lots of howls from the sideline about how the other side doesn't play fair.
Last edited:
De quincy
Bluelighter
Chugs Please Read: 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint download.htm
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint download.htm
hyroller
Bluelighter
Yeah, it was on in the background while I was cooking
I thought some of it seemed to make sense - I have known certain choof users to become pretty aggressive, particularly if they can't get their fix
I wouldn't be surprised if he was mixing other things with his 1-2 ounce a week habit, either
I thought some of it seemed to make sense - I have known certain choof users to become pretty aggressive, particularly if they can't get their fix
I wouldn't be surprised if he was mixing other things with his 1-2 ounce a week habit, either
chemi
Bluelighter
1-2 ounces a week whoa!! I don't know anyone that smokes even CLOSE to that much, personally 4 ounces a year is enough to keep me smoking "full-time"...
Verybuffed
Bluelighter
It is pretty easy to burn through that much when it is low quality.
thestudent14
Bluelighter
I know some people who would go through an ounce a week , but its way way more then I do. But i'm not a big smoker.
chemi
Bluelighter
^ out of interest, do you smoke daily? If not, how many days a week, and how many cones each session? Just trying to gauge what a "big smoker" is to different people
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
Well when I was smoking I could easily go through an ounce of top quality Adelaide bud a week.
This would be smoking nearly 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Would smoke around 7-9 cones per session, with a morning one, lunch one and 2-3 night ones.
This would be smoking nearly 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Would smoke around 7-9 cones per session, with a morning one, lunch one and 2-3 night ones.
Smoking pot CAN be detrimental to some people's health, just as cow's milk can be. But, as we know, the detrimental effects certainly are not reduced by criminalization. If it causes a health issue, it should be dealt with accordingly. The justice system is here to protect us from others, not ourselves.
As an adult, I feel I should have the right to make choices about MY body and what I do with it as long as I hurt nobody, etc.... Freedom is THE issue!
As an adult, I feel I should have the right to make choices about MY body and what I do with it as long as I hurt nobody, etc.... Freedom is THE issue!
thestudent14
Bluelighter
@chemi
I normally have a session once during the week and then once on the weekend after i've been out wherever. had 3 grams between me and a mate just the other nite and that was the perfect amount, so 1.5g's to a night. 3 - 5 through the week.
Note: This is some pretty average weed, when I get my good stuff off my other guy I don't need as much but would go through more because it's so much better and would have more during the week.
I normally have a session once during the week and then once on the weekend after i've been out wherever. had 3 grams between me and a mate just the other nite and that was the perfect amount, so 1.5g's to a night. 3 - 5 through the week.
Note: This is some pretty average weed, when I get my good stuff off my other guy I don't need as much but would go through more because it's so much better and would have more during the week.
Last edited:
helohihello
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 107
Nah I don't. There hasn't been any studies. I'm going on experience. Plus it's obvious dealers would try to grow Sativa coz ya get more bud off each plant.
Doctor Robert
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 55
This doco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR3gIuWYnQo does actually rate marijuana far above ecstasy for personal harm and harm to society. Also talks about links with mental illinesses.
Lists Britain's 20 most dangerous drugs.
Lists Britain's 20 most dangerous drugs.
Verybuffed
Bluelighter
Pure Sativas take a lot longer to finish. "Dealers" don't grow pure Sativas, they grow fast finishing commercial Indica dominant hybrids. Connoisseur growers are the ones who are more likely to grow a Sativa dominant hybrid.
You will find that the majority of cannabis in Australia are hybrids and not pure Sativas.