Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

[Beef]

Over the last 20 years this has become quite a hot topic. Especially in the medical sense. Marijuana has been proven to help all types of medical conditions such as glaucoma,cancer, & binge drinking? Yes, now they say marijuana can help protect the brain from some of the effects of binge drinking which can be really great news to some of us.

http://localwireless.com/wap/news/te...ational%20News

So honostley- should marijuana be legalized?

[thank mr skeltal]

Ok so you want to start a thread on a serious topic of drug reform, yet you call it "mary-jane" in the thread title, use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do) and use "localwireless.com" as your source?

In an attempt to save the thread, I'll bite on your topic - the problem with the marijuana legalization movement is because those who most avidly support it are retarded potheads that cannot make a good traditional argument. They come off as stupid potheads and no one pays any attention to them.

My personal position is that ALL drugs should be legalized, in the sense that they are not illegal to consume or possess. You should have the right to do whatever harm to your body you want as long as it does not endanger others. Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production. It is much safer than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs and many more things I'd guess, even safer than caffeine or aspartame. If a kid can buy a diet coke and get two drugs in it that have proven harmful in lab rats, why can't a legal adult buy a joint? Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat? About 20 pounds... dropped on the rat's head. (I didn't make that up, I paraphrased it from something I heard).

[Shinysides]

Where's Killuminati when I need him?

[gismo]

I don't think it is as simple a matter as saying "ok, you are legal", I would imagine the process of legalisation would bring with it many challenges - all of which I feel are worth the effort. I would support legalisation, here is why I would.

First off, the legal status of marijuana is inconsistent with the legal status of other substances such as tobacco and alcohol, two substances significantly more dangerous and harmful. Tobacco smoking is essentially a process of slow, legal poisoning and its health destroying effects are common knowledge. Alcohol not only does untold damage to the brain and internal organs, the social damage it can cause is even more severe. In the UK for instance, something like 60% of all A+E admissions are alcohol related over the weekend period, costing the NHS billions each year. The cost of policing town and city centres also runs into the millions because so many people do not drink in a responsible manner.

That it should be ok to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, yet not smoke marijuana or take other drugs is just nonsensical, it is inconsistant and it sends out a very misleading message.

Secondly, the act of criminalisation almost certainly causes more problems than it solves. If you drive a product or service underground, where it can be afforded no legal protection, it will get into the hands of thugs. Drug dealers, not being able to use the legal system to protect their business often have to resort to violence and intimidation, drugs being one of the main sources of the UK's gun crime problem. Having the industry in the hands of thugs, with no legal duty of care to the consumer means there is no way of being sure what you buy is a quality product, there is also no way of protecting the consumer from inscrupulous dealers which in itself can lead to other criminal acts i.e., revenge attacks since there is no legal recourse.

Imprisoning people who take these drugs, and indeed in some cases people who sell them, especially when there is no evidence of violence ends up creating an unjust criminal class. People who are addicts, especially to harder drugs like heroin will not get clean if you jail them. And that someone can get a criminal record, which in itself can have a terrible impact on a persons job prospects just for getting high on an unsanctioned substance is so mind bogglingly unfair and stupid it staggers me that such a system is in place.

Thirdly, attitudes need to change. I can only speak for the UK, but there has been a massive and very successful campaign of misinformation by the state, meaning popular opinion of drugs is often very innacurate in relation to facts. It seems that drug policy is developed more with the use of muisinformed popular opinion and fear mongering than it is from facts and evidence, a classic example being a few months ago when an Oxbridge proffessor who advises the UK government on drug policy advised that esctacy be downgraded from a class A as it was no more harmful than horse riding, advice promptly ignored by the then home secratary and lampooned by certain interest groups on the media, primarily parents who lost kids to drugs.

It struck me as disgusting that an Oxbridge scientist, whose opinion is formed using evidence could be so hastily disregarded, and indeed have his opinion clouded out because it doesn't fit with popular opinion. Things need to change, I do honestly think we should strive as a society to form opinions etc using as many facts as possible, I know humans do not have a good track record with such things, but none the less it would be nice to see if we as a society could do this as it would mean we would "grow up" and stop being so childish around the drugs issue.

[John Galt]

use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do)

Irony ITT.

[Beef]

Ok so you want to start a thread on a serious topic of drug reform, yet you call it "mary-jane" in the thread title, use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do) and use "localwireless.com" as your source?


My personal position is that ALL drugs should be legalized, in the sense that they are not illegal to consume or possess. You should have the right to do whatever harm to your body you want as long as it does not endanger others. Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production. It is much safer than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs and many more things I'd guess, even safer than caffeine or aspartame. If a kid can buy a diet coke and get two drugs in it that have proven harmful in lab rats, why can't a legal adult buy a joint? Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat? About 20 pounds... dropped on the rat's head. (I didn't make that up, I paraphrased it from something I heard).

Regardless of my spelling,grammar,or source you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~ I can understand how you feel or why you might feel that way.. However a bunch of heroin or pcp addicts biting the eyes out of little children just doesn't fly with me. Yes that's where becoming a danger to others comes in. I understand that an addict in itself is a danger to others (robbing,stealing,mugging,littering AIDS infested needles everywhere). However MARY JANE alone tends not to cause these types of problems. In fact it has had some very important breakthroughs medicinaly in the last 20 years. And although you may be richer (BAHAH!) and more educated than myself I find your response complete JACKASSERY~ but to each their own. I hope you voted.

[Shinysides]

Regardless of my spelling,grammar,or source you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~ I can understand how you feel or why you might feel that way.. However a bunch of heroin or pcp addicts biting the eyes out of little children just doesn't fly with me. Yes that's where becoming a danger to others comes in. I understand that an addict in itself is a danger to others (robbing,stealing,mugging,littering AIDS infested needles everywhere). However MARY JANE alone tends not to cause these types of problems. In fact it has had some very important breakthroughs medicinaly in the last 20 years. And although you may be richer (BAHAH!) and more educated than myself I find your response complete JACKASSERY~ but to each their own. I hope you voted.

You sir, are an idiot.

[Mach 5]

Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production.

They should regulate it and tax it, if they offered a better deal than drug dealers then that would drive them out of business, or at least reduce their income significantly.

It would also make it a lot safer, im not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK there was/is a problem with contamination, people adding stuff such as sand, glue and even some reports of lead to increase their profit.

[sailor jack]

you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~

*chortles quietly*



this isn't flames, mon ami

normally i would object but hes banned so he got what he deserved already

object in flames, or contribute and object there really isn't any other alternative here

yes sir mr coq sir

that's better

[TheGreatSocrates]

One topic that no one has addressed is the economy. Marijuana posses a violent threat to many other products that basically run the global economy. To make it legal would require billions of dollars spent lobbying the senators and Reps that are backed by the paper companies, the pharmaceutical company's and others that contribute a huge percentage to their reelection. If they were to suddenly legalize it, there would be a multitude of new products that would effectively annihilate other products from the market.

Family Guy actually touched on this during their 420 episode, how Hearst had run the smear campaign to protect his interests in the timber industry. This remains true today, how much money is brought in through the timber industry, and now with that logging show on Nat-Geo or whatever there is more money than ever coming out of the rain forest. If marijuana were to be legalized, farms would be set up where it wouldn't be the bud, but rather the stalks of hemp that could be cultivated and sold at a cheaper and more efficient price than timber.

Also, By legalizing Marijuana you are effectively announcing that the government was wrong. And in modern society that causes a lot of uneasiness between voters and the elected officials. If suddenly everyone were to change their minds about this, then perhaps they could suddenly change their minds about religion or about gun control. It allows for too much instability within the political arena for it to just HAPPEN like that.

[UnreasonablyReasonable]

One topic that no one has addressed is the economy. Marijuana posses a violent threat to many other products that basically run the global economy. To make it legal would require billions of dollars spent lobbying the senators and Reps that are backed by the paper companies, the pharmaceutical company's and others that contribute a huge percentage to their reelection. If they were to suddenly legalize it, there would be a multitude of new products that would effectively annihilate other products from the market.

So basically you're saying that the government is artificially altering what succeeds in the market so that things that make less sense end up winning out. This will fix that. Sounds like a pretty good thing that should have happened awhile ago.

As for the government "admitting that it was wrong." I think a lot more people have a bigger problem with the government's LACK of willingness to admit that it gets things wrong. It would be a nice breath of fresh air. Very rarely does the government make any steps to let us have more control of our own lives though instead of the extremely common practice of intruding into our lives more and more; I'd be really surprised if this happens anytime soon.

[Beef]

They should regulate it and tax it, if they offered a better deal than drug dealers then that would drive them out of business, or at least reduce their income significantly.

It would also make it a lot safer, im not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK there was/is a problem with contamination, people adding stuff such as sand, glue and even some reports of lead to increase their profit.

I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does. I just don't see the downfall for medical marijuana.

[ShitFace]

I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does. I just don't see the downfall for medical marijuana.

ehm lol
people shouldn't be driving after a 12 pack anyway. if everyone drove after a 12 pack of beer, your highways would be a graveyard anyway.

[Syme]

I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does.

Please. I agree that driving while high is dangerous, but it's less dangerous than driving while drunk, and alcohol is already legal for recreational use. So legalizing recreational marijuana use is not going to push us over the brink into some driving-safety nightmare where the highways are graveyards. It's not going to make that much of a difference.

So basically you're saying that the government is artificially altering what succeeds in the market so that things that make less sense end up winning out. This will fix that. Sounds like a pretty good thing that should have happened awhile ago.

Yes, he's not denying that it's a good thing, he's pointing out the political difficulties that will nevertheless the attend to it due to the substantial size of the industries that legalized marijuana and hemp cultivation would compete with. He's not offering an argument against legalization, he's pointing out an obstacle to legalization. Although I think he's exaggerating. Industrial hemp farming will not "annihilate" other textile products or lumber-derived paper products, for instance; the US is the only country in the world that bans industrial hemp farming, so we can look to other countries for insight on this matter, and see that despite the legality of industrial hemp farming in those countries, non-hemp products have no problem existing in the market along with similar hemp-derived products. The same is true of the pharmaceuticals industry. Marijuana has some interesting applications but it is never going to "annihilate" a large portion of the pharma industry's profits.

[Shinysides]

I'd rather see decriminalization versus legalization. I don't like the drug cartels, but I actually dislike the tobacco industry more. And the tobacco industry would be mass producing cheap, poor quality marijuana. I'd prefer to go to my dealer and spend a little more on the good stuff knowing that the tobacco industries won't see a dime of it.

Also, this may or may not have been mentioned yet, but do you know who the main people contributing to anti-drug movements are? The alcohol companies. Legalization would take a massive chunk of their profits, and they know it. So they support any propaganda to get people to vote against it.

Marijuana is proven to be safer than alcohol. That's really a non-issue. It cannot be disputed. Driving while high is less safe than driving sober, but not even on the same level as driving even buzzed. From a recreational viewpoint, few drugs are both as harmful and addicting as alcohol. Alcohol withdrawals from addiction are only surpassed by those from a benzodiazepine addiction. Alcohol withdrawals can actually kill you. There is not one recorded case of physical withdrawals from marijuana. Whether marijuana is safer than alcohol is a point that has been decided for years. there really is no dispute on it.

[Syme]

I'd rather see decriminalization versus legalization. I don't like the drug cartels, but I actually dislike the tobacco industry more. And the tobacco industry would be mass producing cheap, poor quality marijuana. I'd prefer to go to my dealer and spend a little more on the good stuff knowing that the tobacco industries won't see a dime of it.

You know that it's still possible to buy good-quality tobacco from suppliers who specialize in it, despite the fact that the big cigarette companies are also making a lot of cheap crappy tobacco, right? The same would presumably hold true for marijuana. A huge portion of the marijuana user base wants good stuff, so if it was legalized, that demand is going create a large market for high-quality marijuana that many suppliers will get into. You'd still be able to get the good stuff, and you wouldn't have to give any of your money to big tobacco companies if you didn't want to (it'd go to smaller niche suppliers, many of them probably totally unconnected to the tobacco industry), AND that good stuff would cost substantially less than you are paying to your dealer for it now. It's not like legalizing weed will make good stuff harder to get, or mean that the only available weed will be low-quality.

[Sheepz]

Yes I think it should be made legal but fat chance of that happening in America or Britain.

I think the governments just have the worst case scenario in mind (legalizing it and a good portion of the population becoming lazy stoners, among other inconclusive health issues). Not everyone's gonna smoke it if it's legal, and not every smoker will become lazy or crazy. It's the smoker's fault (albeit assisted by the weed) if they lose motivation or fuck up their perception and that's when it's time to take responsibility for themselves and cut it out (some will, some won't). It's the same with alcohol, people handle it in different ways, some use responsibly and some don't. I think the effects are much more drastic with alcohol though. Irresponsible drinkers just need to keep themselves away from it but that doesn't mean that by law, everyone else has to. I'm sure the amount of drunken hooligans driving recklessly, endangering themselves/others, losing friends etc would outweigh the amount of people affected negatively by weed.

My personal opinion, smoking weed recreationally is a much healthier hobby than a lot of things. Extreme sports are legal and people get killed participating, people get killed in all sorts of ways, that's life. If it's their personal choice to smoke weed then why not? And if it's legal then it 'kills the dealer' so to speak and regulations would benefit people in a lot of ways. We wouldn't get contaminated hash mixed with plastic and boot polish etc, and kids wouldn't be able to get hold of it so easily with the age restrictions (but they still would, I mean alcohol proves that).

I'd make the 1st paragraph a little less confusing but I don't have the time to go back and re-write it all. I will post again later though.

[sailor jack]

Extreme sports are legal and people get killed participating, people get killed in all sorts of ways, that's life.

being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed

[Killuminati]

being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed

Smoking marijuana is not very bad for you and as you know there are other ways of taking it. Between smoking and other forms of consumption there are plenty of [ame=http://www.drugsandbooze.com/showthread.php?t=29722]benefits.[/ame] It shouldn't matter anyway, what I choose to do in the privacy of my home is my business and the government has no right to tell me what I can or can't do.

[Syme]

being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed

"Responsibility to maintain the health of the nation"... This is nanny-state crap. By this logic fatty foods, cigarettes, and a host of other things should be illegal as well. They are far more unhealthy than marijuana, especially since marijuana can be taken without smoking it, which in fact totally removes the unhealthy part of marijuana consumption. I can't believe I'm actually hearing you say that something should be illegal because it's unhealthy. Killuminati is right, people have the right to decide what they are going to put into their own bodies.

[Sheepz]

being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.
The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.

smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed

Right. You missed my point though. Extreme sports have risks and so does smoking weed, and it's upto the person if they take the risk. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who basejumps goes splat. Not a very good comparison I know because extreme sports take practice, but anything could be around the corner.

Same with the government though, I think with the length of time weed has been outlawed they're thinking 'better safe than sorry'.

[sailor jack]

Smoking marijuana is not very bad for you and as you know there are other ways of taking it. Between smoking and other forms of consumption there are plenty of benefits. It shouldn't matter anyway, what I choose to do in the privacy of my home is my business and the government has no right to tell me what I can or can't do.

"Responsibility to maintain the health of the nation"... This is nanny-state crap. By this logic fatty foods, cigarettes, and a host of other things should be illegal as well. They are far more unhealthy than marijuana, especially since marijuana can be taken without smoking it, which in fact totally removes the unhealthy part of marijuana consumption. I can't believe I'm actually hearing you say that something should be illegal because it's unhealthy. Killuminati is right, people have the right to decide what they are going to put into their own bodies.

Right. You missed my point though. Extreme sports have risks and so does smoking weed, and it's upto the person if they take the risk. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who basejumps goes splat. Not a very good comparison I know because extreme sports take practice, but anything could be around the corner.

Same with the government though, I think with the length of time weed has been outlawed they're thinking 'better safe than sorry'.

I agree that people have the right to put mind altering substances into their own bodies. However, there is already a widely avaliable substance that alters the mind with premisies deticated to its distributon. Alcohol causes many problems in every nation and I personally doubt that had it been discovered yesterday, it would be heavily restricted and probably illegal. But something else would be avaliable where the bars and pubs and restaurants are.

My point is that I believe one is enough. Legilisation of marijana would only add to the problems we already have with mind altering substances.

I do, however, believe that legilisation would lead to a drop in demand for the stronger, more dangerous strains but not altogether. Some people would not be satisfied. Like Everclear, stronger and stronger examples of a legal substance that if are freely avaliable and totally uncontrolled could be extremely dangerous not only to the consumer but the people around them. I think one is enough.

[Killuminati]

I agree that people have the right to put mind altering substances into their own bodies. However, there is already a widely avaliable substance that alters the mind with premisies deticated to its distributon. Alcohol causes many problems in every nation and I personally doubt that had it been discovered yesterday, it would be heavily restricted and probably illegal. But something else would be avaliable where the bars and pubs and restaurants are.

My point is that I believe one is enough. Legilisation of marijana would only add to the problems we already have with mind altering substances.

I do, however, believe that legilisation would lead to a drop in demand for the stronger, more dangerous strains but not altogether. Some people would not be satisfied. Like Everclear, stronger and stronger examples of a legal substance that if are freely avaliable and totally uncontrolled could be extremely dangerous not only to the consumer but the people around them. I think one is enough.

So everyone who smokes pot should just drink alcohol instead? Plus you said one drug is enough? What about nicotine or caffeine then? Both are much more dangerous than weed is, nicotine is like a fucking supertoxin to humans. How do you even compare the dangers of drinking alcohol to smoking weed anyway, there is no comparison.

[sailor jack]

You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured

[coqauvin]

drug induced psychosis through marijuana is an incredible rarity. i'm relatively certain that it's possible to reach a state of psychosis through consuming enough thc (bceause I glanced at the DSM-IV once), but the limit is beyond what you'd get if you were smoking/vaporizing the drug. You'd actually have to eat a shitload of concentrated thc, so much that you couldn't really do it by accident unless you were some special kind of stupid. So what's your point again?

[gismo]

You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured

The odds of getting this are slim. Any study looking at the relationship between weed and mental illness always say the same, usually reported as a small footnote - it is rare, indeed in most cases only those with genetic pre dispositions are really at risk, if they smoke lots over a prolonged period of time.

Indeed as coqauvin points out, the ingredient which causes the damage isn't abundant enough in the actual drug, this is the same with other drugs and I do believe that many studies looking at these compounds often use them in concentrated doses, isolated from the acual product you buy off the street (i.e., you don't smoke some weed, but instead take a concentrated dosage of the part of the drug they suspect can cause problems), I know they do this with ecstacy and I am pretty sure it is the same with weed.

Also, I am assuming by this comment that you have never met a full blown alcoholic, whilst they might not have psychosis, they clearly are not fully mentally able.

[sailor jack]

the odds of you becoming addicted to alcohol are slim. the odds of you being struck by lightning are slim. the odds that you will get so pissed off with a teacher you shoot her in the face are slim

but it still happens. Surely a government has a responsibility to prevent even the rarest of chances not only because of the individual involved but the people they come into contact with

[coqauvin]

No, that's the concept of the nanny state. The government shouldn't be required to completely look after our well being - I am perfectly intelligent and responsible enough to do so for myself. I don't want the government enforcing its or someone else's sense of morality on me, simply because there is an astronomically low chance of me hurting myself by doing something. All I want the government to do is maintain order where I live, and take care of taking money from me and spending it on infrastructure to improve my quality of life.

Also, the odds for getting addicted to alcohol aren't necessarily slim. It's either a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition to crave the effects of alcohol. Native Americans are particularly susceptible to this, theoretically because they have no genetic history of dealing with alcohol (although, from personal experience, some are certainly working hard on making up for millenia of not getting drunk). Not to mention that calculating odds of committing murder, premeditated or otherwise, is an exercise in foolishness and futility at best.

Here let me summarize my thoughts on this: People should be allowed to smoke up if they want simply because there is a precedent set of drugs with a greater detrimental effect on our personal lives (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) that is already legal and widely regulated. It is not the responsibility nor the right of the government to enforce this sort of morality, and it is foolishness to expect it of them.

[Killuminati]

You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you talking about the supposed link between cannabis use and Schizophrenia? Because if you are then read this.

article
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...mental-illness

abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

[coqauvin]

For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.

Cannabis-Related Disorders

This section includes problems that are associated with substances that are derived from the cannabis plant (cannabinoids) and chemically similar synthetic compound When the upper leaves, tops, and stems of the plant are cut, dried, and rolled into cigarettes, the product is usually called marijuana or bhang. Hashish is the dried, resinous exudate that seeps from the tops and undersides of cannabis leaves; hashish oil is a concentrated distillate of hashish. In recent years, another high-potency form of cannabis, sensimilla, has been produced in Asia, Hawaii, and California. Cannabinoids are usually smoked, but they may be taken orally, usually mixed with tea or food. The cannabinoid that has been identified as primarily responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC, or delta-9-THC), a substance that is rarely available in a pure form. The cannabinoids have diverse effects in the brain, prominent among which are actions on CBI and CB2 cannabinoid receptors that are found throughout the central nervous system. Endogenous ligands for these receptors, anandamide and N-palmitoethanoiamide, behave essentially like neurotransmitters. The THC content of the marijuana that is generally available varies greatly. The THC content of illicit marijuana has increased significantly since the late 1960s from an average of approximately 1%-5% to as much as 10%-15%. Synthetic delta-9-THC has been used for certain general medical conditions (e.g., for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, for anorexia and weight loss in individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome IAIDS)). This section contains discussions specific 10 the Cannabis-Related Disorders. Texts and criteria sets have already been provided 10 define the generic aspects of Substance Dependence (p. 192) and Substance Abuse (p. 198) that apply across all substances. The application of these general criteria to Cannabis Dependence and Abuse is provided below. However, there are no unique cri teria sets for Cannabis Dependence or Cannabis Abuse. A specifiC text and criteria set for Cannabis Intoxication is also provided below. Symptoms of possible cannabis withdrawal (e.g., irritable or anxious mood accompanied by physiological changes such as tremor, perspiration, nausea, change in appetite, and sleep disturbances) have been described in association with the use of very high doses, but their clinical significance is uncertain. For these reasons, the diagnosis of cannabis withdrawal is not included in this manual. The Cannabis-Induced Disorders (other than Cannabis Intoxication) are described in the sections of the manual with disorders with which they share phenomenology (e.g., Cannabis-Induced Mood Disorder is included in the "Mood Disorders" section). Listed below are the Cannabis Use Disorders and the Cannabis-Induced Disorders.

Cannabis Use Disorders

304.30 Cannabis Dependence (see p. 236)
305.20 Cannabis Abuse (see p. 236)

Cannabis-Induced Disorders

292.89 Cannabis Intoxication (see p. 237) Specify if: With Perceptual

Disturbances

292.81 Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (see p. 143)
292.]] Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Delusions (see p. 338)
Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292_11 Cannabis·lnduced Psychotic Disorder, With Hallucinations
(see p. 338) Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292.89 Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder (see p. 479)
Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (sec p. 241)

Cannabis Use Disorders

304.30 Cannabis Dependence

Refer, in addition, to the text and criteria for Substance Dependence (see p. 192). Individuals with Cannabis Dependence have compulsive use and associated problems. Tolerance to most of the effects of cannabis has been reported in individuals who use cannabis chronically. There have also been some reports of withdrawal symptoms, but their clinical significance is uncertain. There is some evidence that a majority of chronic users of cannabinoids report histories of tolerance or withdrawal and that these individuals evidence more severe drug-related problems overall. Individuals with Cannabis Dependence may use very potent cannabis throughout the day over a period of months or years, and they may spend several hours a day acquiring and using the substance. This often interferes with family, school, work, or recreational activities. Individuals with Cannabis Dependence may also persist in their use despite knowledge of physical problems (e.g., chronic cough related to smoking) or psychological problems (e.g., excessive sedation and a decrease in goal-oriented activities resulting from repeated use of high doses).

Specifiers

The following specifiers may be applied to a diagnosis of Cannabis Dependence (see p. 195 for more details):

With Physiological Dependence
Without Physiological Dependence
Early Full Remission
Early Partial Remission
Sustained Full Remission
Sustained Partial Remission
In a Controlled Environment

305.20 Cannabis Abuse

Refer, in addition, to the text and criteria for Substance Abuse (see p. 198). Periodic cannabis use and intoxication can interfere with performance at work or school and may be physically hazardous in situations such as driving a car. Legal problems may occur as a consequence of arrests for cannabis possession. There may be arguments with spouses or parents over the possession of cannabis in the home or its use in the presence of children. When psychological or physical problems are associated with cannabis in the context of compulsive use, a diagnosis of Cannabis Dependence, rather than Cannabis Abuse, should be considered.

Cannabis-Induced Disorders

292.89 Cannabis Intoxication

Refer, in addition, to the text and criteria for Substance Intoxication (see p. 199). The essential feature of Cannabis Intoxication is the presence of clinically significant maladaptive behavioral or psychological changes that develop during, or shortly after, cannabis use (Criteria A and B). Intoxication typically begins with a "high" feeling followed by symptoms that include euphoria with inappropriate laughter and grandiosity, sedation, lethargy, impairment in short term memory, difficulty carrying out complex mental processes, impaired judgment, distorted sensory perceptions, impaired motor performance, and the sensation that time is passing slowly. Occasionally, anxiety (which can be severe), dysphoria, or social withdrawal occurs. These psychoactive effects are accompanied by two or more of the following signs, developing within 2 hours of cannabis use: conjunctival injection, increased appetite, dry mouth, and tachycardia (Criterion C). The symptoms must not be due to a general medical condition and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (Criterion D). Intoxication develops within minutes if the cannabis is smoked, but may take a few hours to develop if ingested orally. The effects usually last 3-4 hours, the duration being somewhat longer when the substance is ingested orally. The magnitude of the behavioral and physiological changes depends on the dose, the method of administration, and the individual characteristics of the person using the substance, such as rate of absorption, tolerance, and sensitivity to the effects of the substance. Because most cannabinoids, induding delta-9-THC, are fat soluble, the effects of cannabis or hashish may occasionally persist or reoccur for 12- 24 hours due to a slow release of psychoactive substances from fatty tissue or to enterohepatic circulation.

Specifier

The following specifier may be applied to a diagnosis of Cannabis Intoxication: With Perceptual Disturbances. This specifier may be noted when hallucinations with in tact reality testing or auditory, visual, or tactile illusions occur in the absence of a delirium. Illtact reality testing means that the person knows that the halluci nations are induced by the substance and do not represent external reality. When hallucinations occur in the absence of intact reality testing, a diagnosis of Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Hallucinations, should be considered.

Diagnostic criteria for 292.89 Cannabis Intoxication

A. Recent use of cannabis.
B. Clinically significant maladaptive behavioral or psychological changes (e .g., impaired motor coordination, euphoria, anxiety, sensation of slowed time, impaired judgment, social withdrawal) that developed during, or shortly after, cannabis use.
C. Two (or more) of the following signs, developing within 2 hours of cannabis use:
(1) conjunctival injection
(2) increased appetite
(3) dry mouth
(4) tachycardia
D. The symptoms are not due to a general medical condition and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder.

Specify if:

With Perceptual Disturbances

Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders

The following Cannabis-Induced Disorders are described in other sections of the manual with disorders with which they share phenomenology: Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (p. 143), Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder (p . 338), and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder (p. 479). These disorders are diagnosed instead of Cannabis Intoxication only when the symptoms are in excess of those usually associated with Cannabis Intoxication and when the symptoms are sufficiently severe to warrant independent clinical attention.

Additional Information on Cannabis-Related Disorders

Associated Features and Disorders

Associated descriptive features and mental disorders. Cannabis is often used with other substances, especially nicotine, alcohol, and cocaine. Cannabis (especially marijuana) may be mixed and smoked with opioids, phencyclidine (PCP), or hallucinogenic drugs. Individuals who regularly use cannabis often report both physical and mental lethargy and anhedonia. Mild forms of depression, anxiety, or irritability are seen in about one-third of individuals who regularly use cannabis (daily or almost daily). When taken in high doses, cannabinoids have psychoactive effects that can be similar to those of hallucinogens (e.g., lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD)), and individuals who use cannabinoids can experience adverse mental effects that resemble hallucinogen-induced "bad trips." These range from mild to moderate levels of anxiety (e.g., concern that the police will discover the substance use) to severe anxiety reactions resembling Panic Attacks. There may also be paranoid ideation ranging from suspiciousness to frank delusions and hallucinations. Episodes of depersonalization and derealization have also been reported. Fatal traffic accidents have been found to occur more often in individuals who test positive forcannabinoids than in the general population. However, the significance of these findings is unclear because alcohol and other substances are often also present.

Associated laboratory findings.

Urine tests generally identify cannabinoid metabolites. Because these substances are fat soluble, persist in bodily fluids for extended periods of time, and are excreted slowly, routine urine tests for cannabinoids in individuals who use cannabis casually can be positive for 7-10 days; urine of individuals with heavy use of cannabis may test positive for 2-4 weeks. A positive urine test is only consistent with past use; it does not establish Intoxication, Dependence, or Abuse. Biological alterations include temporary (and probably dose-related) suppression of immunological function and suppressed secretion of testosterone and luteinizing hormone (LH), although the clinical Significance of these alterations is unclear. Acute cannabinoid use also causes diffuse slowing of background activity on EEG and rapid eye movement (REM) suppression.

Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions.

Cannabis smoke is highly irritating to the nasopharynx and bronchial lining and thus increases the risk for chronic cough and other signs and symptoms of nasopharyngeal pathology. Chronic cannabis use is sometimes associated with weight gain, probably resulting from overeating and reduced physical activity. Sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis with persistent cough, emphysema, and pulmonary dysplasia may occur with chronic, heavy use. Marijuana smoke contains even larger amounts of known carcinogens than tobacco.

Specific Culture, Age, and Gender Features

Cannabis is probably the world's most commonly used illicit substance. It has been taken since ancient times for its psychoactive effects and as a remedy for a wide range of medical conditions. It is among the first drugs of experimentation (often in the teens) for all cultural groups in the United States. As with most other illicit drugs, Cannabis Use Disorders appear more often in males, and prevalence is most common in persons between ages 18 and 30 years.

Prevalence

Cannabinoids, especially cannabis, are also the most widely used illicit psychoactive substances in the United States. Although the lifetime prevalence figures slowly decreased in the 1980s, modest increases were reported between 1991 and 1997, especially among youth. A 1996 national survey of drug use noted that 32% of the US. population reported ever having used a cannabinoid. Almost 1 in 11 had used it in the prior year, and around 5% had used it in the past month. The age span with the highest lifetime prevalence was 26 to 34 years (50%), but use in the last year (24%) and last month (13%) was most common in 18- to 25-year-olds. Among those who used in the prior year, 5% had taken a cannabinoid at least 12 times, and 3% had laken one on more than 50 days. Regarding use of cannabis in adolescents and young adults, a 1995 survey found that 42% of high school seniors had ever used a cannabinoid, including 35% in the prior year. Because the surveys assessed patterns of use rather than disorders, it is not known how many of those who used marijuana had symptoms that met criteria for Dependence or Abuse.

A 1992 national survey conducted in the United States reported lifetime rates of Cannabis Abuse or Dependence of almost 5%, including 1.2% in the prior year.

Course

Cannabis Dependence and Abuse usually develop over an extended period of time, although the progression might be more rapid in young people with pervasive conduct problems. Most people who become dependent typically establish a pattern of chronic use that gradually increases in both frequency and amount. With chronic heavy use, there is sometimes a diminution or loss of the pleasurable effects of the substance. Although there may also be a corresponding increase in dysphOric effects, these are not seen as frequently as in chronic use of other substances such as alcohol, cocaine, or amphetamines. A history of Conduct Disorder in childhood or adolescence and Antisocial Personality Disorder are risk factors for the development of many Substance-Related Disorders, induding Cannabis-Related Disorders. Few data are available on the long-term course of Cannabis Dependence or Abuse. As with alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine, cannabinoid use appears early in the course of substance use in many people who later go on to develop Dependence on other substances -an observation that has led to speculation that cannabis might be a "gateway drug." However, the social, psychological, and neurochemical bases of this possible progression are not well understood, and it is not clear that marijuana actually causes individuals to go on to use additional types of substances.

Differential Diagnosis

For a general discussion of the differential diagnosis of Substance-Related Disorders, see p. 207. Cannabis-Induced Disorders may be characterized by symptoms (e.g., anxiety) that resemble primary mental disorders (e.g., Generalized Anxiety Disorder versus Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder, With Generalized Anxiety, With Onset During Intoxication). See p. 210 for a discussion of this differential diagnosis. Chronic intake of cannabis can produce a lack of motivation that resembles Dysthymic Disorder. Acute adverse reactions to cannabis should be differentiated from the symptoms of Panic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Delusional Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, or Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type. Physical examination will usually show an increased pulse and injected conjunctivas. Urine toxicological testing can be helpful in making a diagnosis.

In contrast to Cannabis Intoxication, Alcohol Intoxication and Sedative, Hypnotic, or Anxiolytic Intoxication frequently decrease appetite, increase aggressive behavior, and produce nystagmus or ataxia. Hallucinogens in low doses may cause a clinical picture that resembles Cannabis Intoxication. PCP, like cannabis, can be smoked and also causes perceptual changes, but Phencyclidine Intoxication is much more likely to cause ataxia and aggressive behavior. Cannabis Intoxication is distinguished from the other Cannabis-Induced Disorders (e.g., Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder, With Onset During Intoxication) because the symptoms in these latter disorders are in excess of those usually associated with Cannabis Intoxication and are severe enough to warrant independent clinical attention.

The distinction between occasional use of cannabis and Cannabis Dependence or Abuse can be difficult to make because social, behavioral, or psychological problems may be difficult to attribute to the substance, especially in the context of use of other substances. Denial of heavy use is common, and people appear to seek treatment for Cannabis Dependence or Abuse less often than for other types of Substance-Related Disorders.

292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder

Not Otherwise Specified

The Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified category is for disorders associated with the use of cannabis that are not dassifiable as Cannabis Dependence, Cannabis Abuse, Cannabis Intoxication, Cannabis Intoxication Delirium, Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, or Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder.

[Syme]

Surely a government has a responsibility to prevent even the rarest of chances not only because of the individual involved but the people they come into contact with

This is just... utterly terrible.

[TwoStoopid]

For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.

This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana. Also, see Kulluminiti's post.

And just for kicks:
Cannabis Stimulates brain cell growth

Cannibis can help get rid of tumors

[coqauvin]

This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana. Also, see Kulluminiti's post.

And just for kicks:
Cannabis Stimulates brain cell growth

Cannibis can help get rid of tumors

I have my doubts that it's filled with myths - this is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Admittedly, it's dated by about 9 years, but the next revision is supposed to be available sometime in 2012. This is, essentially, an encyclopedia entry on cannabis and it's use that doctors around the world rely on.

In all honesty, I remembered reading a section about consumption levels of thc that can induce a psychotic state, but I couldn't seem to find it in this entry.

[Syme]

This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana.

Uhh, anything that's in the DSMMD is pretty well supported by a lot of hard medical fact and research. As coq says, it's basically an encyclopedia for doctors and medical scientists. This doesn't mean everything in there is automatically guaranteed to be totally correct in every detail (as coq also points out, it's several years old at the moment), but it's not "myths". That stuff about cannabis dependence isn't just made up; it's taken directly from observation of patients, so if it's in there, then there are people who are dependent upon cannabis. This doesn't mean the dependence is physical--you are right, becoming physically dependent on cannabis in the same way that one might be physical dependent on nicotine or opioids is not possible. Nevertheless cannabis dependency does exist and is possible. Not all substance dependence is physical dependence. You will note that the section on cannabis dependence doesn't state that it's a physical dependence.

[Killuminati]

There were no myths in the DSMMD article, everything that I read sounded accurate.

[TwoStoopid]

This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence

Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder

[coqauvin]

Now, I'm just running on memory here, and I'm pretty sure I've said this already - it is possible to induce a state of psychosis by consuming enough thc. You cannot, however, cross that threshold if your method of getting high is smoking or vaporizing the pot; you'll black out well before that happens. But consider cookies or brownies that are made by leaching the thc out of the plant and having it absorb into butter. The thc levels in that butter could be concentrated and higher than anything you'd find in the plant, or even in other forms of concentrate, like hashish or hash oil. Consuming vast quantities of those levels of thc can induce a psychotic state in a person (a cannabis induced psychotic disorder), but it's not referring to a permanent psychosis based on one episode of consuming the drug. On this website, there are two people who can provide anecdotal evidence of what happens when you eat too much thc, but then anecdotal evidence, especially over the internet is questionable.

There is, however, evidence that those who suffer or have latent paranoid schizophrenia are more likely to have a psychotic episode if they use marijuana, and that consistent marijuana use brings forward symptoms of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. This isn't something that will happen to everybody - just people who have a pre-existing medical condition. A small group of vulnerable individuals. The key distinction with such an episode that gets doctors concerned is the length of time the psychotic episode persists. In most people, it will last a couple hours and eventually fade away with 0 chance of remission. In a small group of vulnerable individuals, the symptoms can persist past a 48 hour mark, but that's more indicitive of larger medical/mental issues in the person in question, and studies haven't really been done in this particular area too much because there are too many variables to control easily.

[TwoStoopid]

If anyone consumes enough THC in one sitting to make that happen to them they deserve it.

[Syme]

TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510

The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.

I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.

EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.

[TwoStoopid]

TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510

The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.

I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.

EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.

Your forgetting that your authoritative text is 9 years old. Just because it is an authoritative text does not necessarily mean it is true. Although this time you have provided support for the claim in this instance it does not mean all instances are true. As an example (I'll use the CIA for shits and giggles): There were many "Authoritative Texts" released on studies and experiments conducted by the CIA. Today we are finding that some of these were previously thought "facts" are entirely false. An intellectual should challenge ideas not follow them.