Cannabis as a Class A drug?

[Bromptonaut]

I don't understand how you think the two are different.

Do you think that there are two groups of people, one group who take cannabis to develop a psychosis and one group who won't develop a psychosis because they are only taking it recreationally?

You will be able to make a fortune if you can predict who falls in to which group.

No I'm asking how many of those who take cannabis recreationally end up with psychosis.

In much the same way one might ask how many recreational drinkers end up with cirrhosis.

It's quite simple; measure how big the problem is.

Even if a very large percentage of those taking a spliff now and then end up with psychosis would making cannabis Class A help?

 

[PaulB]

Paul McCartney and Willie Nelson don't seem to have had too many side effects considering their long association with cannabis. As John Lennon said about this song, Paul wrote it himself and the thing he's got to get into his life was, indeed, cannabis. And then he gets to do it in front of the President of the United States of America!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uA4sh9lcZE

 

[AuroraSaab]

'Drunk herself to death ... on water'. Isn't it the ecstasy that causes the raging thirst though? Isn't that why a bottle of spring water is €10 in the clubs in Ibiza?

Saying that Macca and Willie Nelson haven't suffered ill effects is the same as the 'My grandad smoked til he was 90' thing, surely? I'd rather look at the science, which seems to be swinging the other way and suggesting that heavy use, especially amongst the young, can be dangerous. I wonder if your brain not fully maturing til you're 25 has something to do with it, or it's just easier to find younger people to study.

 

[PaulB]

'Drunk herself to death ... on water'. Isn't it the ecstasy that causes the raging thirst though? Isn't that why a bottle of spring water is €10 in the clubs in Ibiza?

Saying that Macca and Willie Nelson haven't suffered ill effects is the same as the 'My grandad smoked til he was 90' thing, surely? I'd rather look at the science, which seems to be swinging the other way and suggesting that heavy use, especially amongst the young, can be dangerous. I wonder if your brain not fully maturing til you're 25 has something to do with it, or it's just easier to find younger people to study.

Yes, she died of hypernatremia after drinking about nine pints of water in a short space of time. Probably not to do with a raging thirst but was scared of scary stories about what it COULD do and aware water would dilute its effects, went too much the other way.

All scientific papers have to be validated for possible outside influence so only believe those that don't have a political or financial reason for existence. Many states in the US and more and more countries - having studied the actual science - have decided it's safer legal than illegal.

 

[AndyRM]

'Drunk herself to death ... on water'. Isn't it the ecstasy that causes the raging thirst though? Isn't that why a bottle of spring water is €10 in the clubs in Ibiza?

Saying that Macca and Willie Nelson haven't suffered ill effects is the same as the 'My grandad smoked til he was 90' thing, surely? I'd rather look at the science, which seems to be swinging the other way and suggesting that heavy use, especially amongst the young, can be dangerous. I wonder if your brain not fully maturing til you're 25 has something to do with it, or it's just easier to find younger people to study.

Not directly, no. It doesn't make you thirsty either. Getting sweaty from dancing around like a nutter is what ultimately dehydrates you.

That said, not all ecstasy tablets are created equal, they don't all make you want to dance your face off. You get ones which have a much more chilled effect. Depends what they're cut with at the end of the day. MDMA as a powder is a much safer bet. Less brutal a come-down too.

 

[stowie]

'Drunk herself to death ... on water'. Isn't it the ecstasy that causes the raging thirst though? Isn't that why a bottle of spring water is €10 in the clubs in Ibiza?

Saying that Macca and Willie Nelson haven't suffered ill effects is the same as the 'My grandad smoked til he was 90' thing, surely? I'd rather look at the science, which seems to be swinging the other way and suggesting that heavy use, especially amongst the young, can be dangerous. I wonder if your brain not fully maturing til you're 25 has something to do with it, or it's just easier to find younger people to study.

Leah Betts took Ecstasy in a home, and drank around 7 litres of water in 90 minutes, having taken note of the advice to drink water given to people who took the drug. But this was given out for people dancing and was to mitigate the effects of exertion, not the effects of the drug itself.

In a horrible irony, Ecstasy doesn't give a raging thirst, in fact it often does the opposite - people taking the drug will not notice dehydration. Hence the advice given at the time for users to make sure they are drinking water.

Now the advice also notes the dangers of excessive water drinking as well sometimes recommending using isotonic type drinks which have balanced salts and lessens the chances of brain swelling.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hmm. You're still not selling it to me guys. I can see the value in having these drugs available on prescription under medical supervision, if indeed they have some therapeutic benefit. But legalising them just seems a bit reckless and would be very hard to undo. I'm not really seeing a good argument for legalising them for unregulated use, other than 'People enjoy taking them'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Leah Betts took Ecstasy in a home, and drank around 7 litres of water in 90 minutes, having taken note of the advice to drink water given to people who took the drug. But this was given out for people dancing and was to mitigate the effects of exertion, not the effects of the drug itself.

In a horrible irony, Ecstasy doesn't give a raging thirst, in fact it often does the opposite - people taking the drug will not notice dehydration. Hence the advice given at the time for users to make sure they are drinking water.

Now the advice also notes the dangers of excessive water drinking as well sometimes recommending using isotonic type drinks which have balanced salts and lessens the chances of brain swelling.

Sounds like a pretty dangerous drug to be made available without supervision, just for fun use. If it's use is mainly recreational and it requires several caveats when you take it, it seems to require quite a bit of responsibility on the part of the purchaser. It would just add to the issues we already have with reckless use of alcohol.

 

[PaulB]

Hmm. You're still not selling it to me guys. I can see the value in having these drugs available on prescription under medical supervision, if indeed they have some therapeutic benefit. But legalising them just seems a bit reckless and would be very hard to undo. I'm not really seeing a good argument for legalising them for unregulated use, other than 'People enjoy taking them'.

People are ALWAYS going to take them. Have done throughout all of time. Don't you think it would be better if there was some sort of control over this use or do you think the pushers will somehow get concerned as to the age of the buyer, the frequency they're buying or the purity of their product?

 

[winjim]

"Frequent use of cannabis, especially the start of use at a younger age, doubles the risk of schizophrenia development in the future [16]. Daily use of marijuana increases the risk of psychotic illness development with as much as five times higher risk in person using high potency THC"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7442038/#:~:text=Frequent use of cannabis, especially,high potency THC [18].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042048/

Conclusions: Findings support the view that cannabis use may act to decrease educational achievement in young people. It is likely that this reflects the effects of the social context within which cannabis is used rather than any direct effect of cannabis on cognitive ability or motivation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14651500/#:~:text=Conclusions: Findings support the view,on cognitive ability or motivation.


Yep, nowhere near as damaging

I can't see that either of those papers support the case for raising the classification of cannabis to the same level as heroin or cocaine. The first article, even disregarding it being poorly written and published in a questionable journal, comes to the conclusion that

...cannabis use, primarily THC in cannabis, in genetically predisposed or at-risk populations, leads to earlier diagnosis of psychosis/schizophrenia. This tells us that THC in cannabis has a small causative effect on schizophrenia...​

...there is still more harm from cannabis than benefits, and adolescent cannabis usage should be discouraged at all costs. We still need more extensive studies for more detailed data about cannabis and its effects...​

​

While the passage you quoted from the second seems to suggest that cannabis itself is less of a problem than the social context and environment in which it is taken. The paper also uses the term 'association' which does not imply causation. It also links heavy cannabis use with heavy smoking, risky drinking, and makes no comment regarding moderate cannabis use in adults beyond 'late adolescence'.


Taken together they would suggest to me, no expert on drug classification, that in terms of harm, cannabis is closer to alcohol than it is to heroin. The take home message, if there even is one, seems to be don't let kids and adolescents smoke a lot of weed. Same as booze, really.

That first article was really not well written though.

 

[winjim]

Leah Betts was arguably a victim of the war on drugs fuelled by tabloid hysteria.

*hyponatraemia btw

 

[PaulB]

Leah Betts was arguably a victim of the war on drugs fuelled by tabloid hysteria.

*hyponatraemia btw

Mea culpa! I always get them two mixed up so it's probably a good job I'm not a medic!

 

[BoldonLad]

To the best of my knowledge, the “war on drugs” has not exactly been successful. I don’t really see how adding another drug to the list of Class A drugs will improve the outcome. IMHO it is a token gesture which will have zero effect on illegal drug use.

 

[newfhouse]

To the best of my knowledge, the “war on drugs” has not exactly been successful. I don’t really see how adding another drug to the list of Class A drugs will improve the outcome. IMHO it is a token gesture which will have zero effect on illegal drug use.

Yes, but we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, but we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.

True, on that basis, it is an excellent idea