Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Meds Lies About Pot and Other Reefer Madness

There is little I dislike more than people wrapping themselves in the flag of "protect the children" to justify their campaign for imposing their personal views on the rest of us.

I'm sure I will catch a lot of shit for this, but to people like this Godfrey fellow, I often want to say that the USA is not one large nursery for your spawn. Rearing YOUR child is YOUR responsibility.

Cheers
It is such bullshit isn't it man!

How many parents do we spy giving their underaged children a drink of their carcinogenic, toxic, not-safe-when-consumed-in-any-amount (that is straight from the WHO! See http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237 ) alcohol? How many of those same parents would cry out to 'protect the children' from cannabis? The hypocrisy is staggering.

Cannabis is among the safest of medicinal/recreational product that a parent could leave around the house for a child to find. No amount of it will kill their child. The same cannot be said for aspirin or alcohol! Usually, most IME are very careful to store cannabis in locked containers or spaces if they have kids too, the same cannot be said for alcohol in a house with children generally!

Just more prohibitionist bullshit.
 
boobs
In campaigning against two citizen-led initiatives to legalize medical cannabis in his state, Arkansas Surgeon General Dr. Gregory Bledsoe claimed marijuana makes men grow breasts. His source? His “friend” who is a plastic surgeon in Colorado.

“He used to do one to two male breast reductions a year, before [legalization] passed. Now, he does anywhere from one to two reductions per week,” Bledsoe told Arkansas press last week.

Let’s dissect this, it’s important to the rest of the lies to follow. First, who is “the friend” and where are all these men who had to have their marijuana breasts removed?! Besides them not existing, the concept that marijuana makes men grow boobs could only be based on one of two stupid unscientific theories. On its face, it’s an unproven and ridiculous statement that any ethical medical professional would not make, let alone a state’s surgeon general.

The first theory would be that marijuana makes people fat, which in men would cause them to grow breasts. Cannabis does not cause obesity, processed, junk and fast foods do. Even though cannabis can cause increased appetite in some users, scientifically speaking it cannot possibly lead to obesity. Incidentally, cannabis users are more likely to be thinner than non-users anyway.

The second theory would be that somehow the chemical compounds in cannabis make otherwise healthy slender men grow breasts. If this were true, it would also be true for women. If this were true, women who wanted larger breasts could skip the implants. If this were true, transgender women could skip the hormones and/or surgery and just smoke marijuana. But, there is no way this could be true and Dr. Bledsoe either already knows that and is lying or is a poorly educated medical professional not qualified to speak to the effects of any substance.

But without even bringing science into the mix, let’s look at history. Humans have used cannabis for 10,000 years. Men in Colorado certainly have been using high potency modern cannabis before legalization. If marijuana made any humans grow breasts it sure wouldn’t be a new phenomenon.

Another lie

Pharmaceutical marijuana is safer
A central tenant of Project SAM is that pharmaceuticals derived from the cannabis plant is the safer, saner route to utilizing the positive effects of cannabis.

Not only has this already been debunked by the 30-year history of Marinol and the discovery of the “entourage effect”, this concept is key to Project SAM’s motivations. They are, in an indirect way, being funded by pharmaceutical companies.

This is a dangerous lie, because real people are using real pharmaceuticals with really dangerous side effects. They could be consuming a safer plant instead.

“Medicine probably shouldn’t be voted on, it should go through some sort of scientific system,” Kevin Sabet concluded at his $80-a-ticket forum in San Luis Obispo, California.

This comment conveniently forgets that cannabis is a part of nature, it should have never been made illegal in the first place. It’s not some designer drug or pharmaceutical invented in a lab.

Where Kevin and I agree is that Big Marijuana is real and trying to write the laws in many states. What he again conveniently forgets to mention is that he is trying to “pump the brakes” on botanical cannabis access to make room for Bigger Marijuana (aka pharmaceuticals).

All of the lies Kevin and the terrorists are telling hinge on the notion that cannabis hasn’t been an essential part of human civilization from the beginning, tens of thousands of years before American corporate-backed drug prohibition. It’s always been here and always will be, regardless of any law.
 
Pharmaceutical marijuana is safer
A central tenant of Project SAM is that pharmaceuticals derived from the cannabis plant is the safer, saner route to utilizing the positive effects of cannabis.

Not only has this already been debunked by the 30-year history of Marinol and the discovery of the “entourage effect”, this concept is key to Project SAM’s motivations. They are, in an indirect way, being funded by pharmaceutical companies.

This is a dangerous lie, because real people are using real pharmaceuticals with really dangerous side effects. They could be consuming a safer plant instead.

“Medicine probably shouldn’t be voted on, it should go through some sort of scientific system,” Kevin Sabet concluded at his $80-a-ticket forum in San Luis Obispo, California.

This comment conveniently forgets that cannabis is a part of nature, it should have never been made illegal in the first place. It’s not some designer drug or pharmaceutical invented in a lab.

Where Kevin and I agree is that Big Marijuana is real and trying to write the laws in many states. What he again conveniently forgets to mention is that he is trying to “pump the brakes” on botanical cannabis access to make room for Bigger Marijuana (aka pharmaceuticals).

All of the lies Kevin and the terrorists are telling hinge on the notion that cannabis hasn’t been an essential part of human civilization from the beginning, tens of thousands of years before American corporate-backed drug prohibition. It’s always been here and always will be, regardless of any law.
I hate to make a myth of a myth, but we should note that sativex, a pharma product derived from cannabis contains the requisite compounds to achieve the entourage/ensemble effect. Sativex contains THC, CBD and a variety of terps etc.
 
A central tenant of Project SAM is that pharmaceuticals derived from the cannabis plant is the safer, saner route to utilizing the positive effects of cannabis.
Which is, of course an obvious lie in itself.

If they believed it, they would grow it and extract those cannabinoids like they said. Oh wait, you can't patent NATURALLY occuring thc, cbd, etc.

They need a synthetic version they can patent.

Remember that Marinol, Sativex, and whatever else might be coming are SYNTHETIC thc and cbd molecules NOT the natural version from the plant. (In addition, I believe sativex actually uses the synthetic thc molecule license from Marinol - someone else may know precisely.)

The pharmaceutical industry has NOT released a natural version of thc OR cbd. Nor will they.

:thumbsup:

Peace!
 
Which is, of course an obvious lie in itself.

If they believed it, they would grow it and extract those cannabinoids like they said. Oh wait, you can't patent NATURALLY occuring thc, cbd, etc.

They need a synthetic version they can patent.

Remember that Marinol, Sativex, and whatever else might be coming are SYNTHETIC thc and cbd molecules NOT the natural version from the plant. (In addition, I believe sativex actually uses the synthetic thc molecule license from Marinol - someone else may know precisely.)

The pharmaceutical industry has NOT released a natural version of thc OR cbd. Nor will they.

:thumbsup:

Peace!

And, this is why Big Pharm fights medical cannabis so fervently!
 
Remember that Marinol, Sativex, and whatever else might be coming are SYNTHETIC thc and cbd molecules NOT the natural version from the plant. (In addition, I believe sativex actually uses the synthetic thc molecule license from Marinol - someone else may know precisely.)
Actually this is a very persistent myth. Sativex actives are plant derived cannabinoids, terps and other resin derived compounds in a tincture designed for oral-mucosal absorption as a spray.

Sativex starts out as bubble hash, then the bubble is distilled, homogenized and mixed with PG and ethanol (50% ethanol V/V!!!!!) as a carrier for effective spray dispersion. In fact, without GW pharma, we may not have had bubble tek. For that, I gotta give credit where it is due.
 
I adore finding out something like this.

Being wrong has taught me more than being right.

:thumbsup:

Peace hb!
 
I adore finding out something like this.

Being wrong has taught me more than being right.

:thumbsup:

Peace hb!
Always a pleasure to shoot the shit with you my friend, I was surprised too when I heard how Sativex is made for the first time. Fascinating stuff!
 
Well @herbivore21 , it certainly makes me more apt - if I got stuck by a doc with only a prescription as a choice - to go with Sativex vs Marinol. If those were my only two choices. Of course, Sativex isn't available in the U.S. anyway.

I am always angry at Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia that facilitates it.

Peace!
 
Well @herbivore21 , it certainly makes me more apt - if I got stuck by a doc with only a prescription as a choice - to go with Sativex vs Marinol. If those were my only two choices. Of course, Sativex isn't available in the U.S. anyway.

I am always angry at Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia that facilitates it.

Peace!
Oh for sure, I'm sure that you and me both have got reasons to be angry at big pharma, holy shit have they prescribed some poison to me for my disabilities in the past! :doh:

I suppose I have to give credit for the pharma that does work too, some of that shit has definitely kept me alive to this point :thinker:
 
Last edited:
I have nightmare memories about the DARE program when my kids were young. I still remember the DARE officer's name some 20 years later.

Could D.A.R.E. Quit Lying About Marijuana?
Nov 08, 2012 DARE, education, GAO, Mike Riggs, reason, Rolling Stone, schools, Virginia Phillips

The infamous school drug-education program known as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) may be removing marijuana from its curriculum. D.A.R.E. officer Mike Meyer of Kennewick, Washington explains that program’s materials for December make no mention of the substance, though he says he does not know why.

If true, this is a welcome step, although eliminating D.A.R.E. altogether would be preferable. All credible studies of the program, including a report from the Government Accountability Office, have failed to find any decrease in drug use connected with participation in D.A.R.E. Officials with the organization have apparently been slow in admitting this, however. In a libel suit brought by D.A.R.E. against Rolling Stone magazine, Federal Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that allegations printed in the magazine, including that D.A.R.E. had actually tried to suppress scientific research critical of the program, were “substantially true.” D.A.R.E. appealed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the ruling.

Although D.A.R.E. officials admitted their failure in 2001 and proposed a new, less hysterical curriculum, research since then has still failed to demonstrate any success. The “new” curriculum, as it is described on the website, does not seem to involve any increased commitment to facts, but rather now involves “role-playing sessions” and “discussion groups.” The summary of the new program, revealingly, makes insinuations that drug use is connected to terrorism, and in place of facts, explains that officers will be using “stunning brain imagery” as “tangible proof of how substances diminish mental activity, emotions, coordination and movement.”

Although they have possibly abandoned the anti-marijuana crusade in their school curriculum, D.A.R.E. still disseminates dishonest information on their website. An ironically named “fact sheet” repeats claims that marijuana “has a high potential for abuse,” and although it is short on the details or prevalence of this abuse, it does claim that marijuana can weaken the immune system and cause insanity and lung disease. The “fact sheet” categorically denies the medical benefits of marijuana, suggesting that it causes only “inebriation.” At the same time, it admits that THC, which the page describes as “the psychoactive [in other words mind-altering or “inebriating”] ingredient in marijuana,” has medical benefits. It implicitly denies the countless cases of experiences of medical marijuana patients who tried conventional treatments without success, claiming simply that “existing legal drugs provide superior treatment for serious medical conditions,” and “the FDA has approved safe and effective medication for the treatment of glaucoma, nausea, wasting syndrome, cancer, and multiple sclerosis.” The page even quotes the Institute of Medicine study, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” the very same study which confirms the medical usefulness of marijuana and refutesclaims that it poses a major proven risk of addiction or lung cancer, or that it causes brain damage, amotivational syndrome, suppression of the immune system, use of other illicit drugs, or premature death from any cause. The study further points out the shortcomings of existing legal medications for the relevant medical conditions, including the slow and unreliable action of synthetic THC pills.

According to Mike Riggs at Reason, D.A.R.E. headquarters has neither confirmed nor denied any shift in policy.
 
I have nightmare memories about the DARE program when my kids were young. I still remember the DARE officer's name some 20 years later.

Could D.A.R.E. Quit Lying About Marijuana?
Nov 08, 2012 DARE, education, GAO, Mike Riggs, reason, Rolling Stone, schools, Virginia Phillips

The infamous school drug-education program known as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) may be removing marijuana from its curriculum. D.A.R.E. officer Mike Meyer of Kennewick, Washington explains that program’s materials for December make no mention of the substance, though he says he does not know why.

If true, this is a welcome step, although eliminating D.A.R.E. altogether would be preferable. All credible studies of the program, including a report from the Government Accountability Office, have failed to find any decrease in drug use connected with participation in D.A.R.E. Officials with the organization have apparently been slow in admitting this, however. In a libel suit brought by D.A.R.E. against Rolling Stone magazine, Federal Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that allegations printed in the magazine, including that D.A.R.E. had actually tried to suppress scientific research critical of the program, were “substantially true.” D.A.R.E. appealed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the ruling.

Although D.A.R.E. officials admitted their failure in 2001 and proposed a new, less hysterical curriculum, research since then has still failed to demonstrate any success. The “new” curriculum, as it is described on the website, does not seem to involve any increased commitment to facts, but rather now involves “role-playing sessions” and “discussion groups.” The summary of the new program, revealingly, makes insinuations that drug use is connected to terrorism, and in place of facts, explains that officers will be using “stunning brain imagery” as “tangible proof of how substances diminish mental activity, emotions, coordination and movement.”

Although they have possibly abandoned the anti-marijuana crusade in their school curriculum, D.A.R.E. still disseminates dishonest information on their website. An ironically named “fact sheet” repeats claims that marijuana “has a high potential for abuse,” and although it is short on the details or prevalence of this abuse, it does claim that marijuana can weaken the immune system and cause insanity and lung disease. The “fact sheet” categorically denies the medical benefits of marijuana, suggesting that it causes only “inebriation.” At the same time, it admits that THC, which the page describes as “the psychoactive [in other words mind-altering or “inebriating”] ingredient in marijuana,” has medical benefits. It implicitly denies the countless cases of experiences of medical marijuana patients who tried conventional treatments without success, claiming simply that “existing legal drugs provide superior treatment for serious medical conditions,” and “the FDA has approved safe and effective medication for the treatment of glaucoma, nausea, wasting syndrome, cancer, and multiple sclerosis.” The page even quotes the Institute of Medicine study, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” the very same study which confirms the medical usefulness of marijuana and refutesclaims that it poses a major proven risk of addiction or lung cancer, or that it causes brain damage, amotivational syndrome, suppression of the immune system, use of other illicit drugs, or premature death from any cause. The study further points out the shortcomings of existing legal medications for the relevant medical conditions, including the slow and unreliable action of synthetic THC pills.

According to Mike Riggs at Reason, D.A.R.E. headquarters has neither confirmed nor denied any shift in policy.
Hi Carol - I see that this article is from 2012. Do you have any more recent experience/info on this program and how it may have morphed (or not, as the case may be)?
 
@Baron23 That is a pretty old article.
The DARE program still exists in some areas. A little newer article. This is also from WA state. Curious how the southern non medical cannabis states treats cannabis in their DARE programs.

D.A.R.E. program quietly removes marijuana from list of 'gateway drugs'?
WRITTEN BY EMILY GRAY BROSIOUS POSTED: 02/25/2016, 12:42PM

Update: Content originally published on the D.A.R.E. webpage that we’ve linked to in the first paragraph of this story is no longer available. Here’s a link to the cached page view from Feb. 9, 2016.
.

(Photo credit: Inventorchris/Compfight cc)
The Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (D.A.R.E.), one of the largest anti-drug groups in the world, no longer lists marijuana as a so-called “gateway drug” on its website*, as one Redditor recently pointed out.

The gateway theory basically claims that people who start using “soft” substances, such as marijuana, then go on to use “hard” drugs like heroin or cocaine.

It’s a fairly common argument made to support marijuana prohibition.

As many will recall, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently took some heat for electing to describe pot as a dangerous gateway drug during a recent interview.

D.A.R.E. has been teaching this theory to grade-school children across the world for years. It’s also been putting out a steady stream of exaggerated scary weed stories.

Here’s one passage from an Oct. 2014 article posted to D.A.R.E.’s website:

While the drug [marijuana] is being legalized in some states for medicinal and, in some cases, recreational purposes, there are many experts who still consider it the path to a life of ruin.

Numerous studies that disprove the marijuana-gateway theory have been published in recent years, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that “most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, ‘harder’ substances.”

Now in 2016, even D.A.R.E. seems to have removed marijuana from its list of gateway drugs. The program’s website specifically mentions only tobacco and alcohol as gateway drugs now.

Whether or not alcohol and tobacco qualify as gateway drugs is another area of debate. But if D.A.R.E. is taking small steps to reduce the amount of marijuana propaganda it puts out, that would represent a significant change for the organization.


Below article was on the DARE website just recently.

4 Things You and Your Teen May Not Know About Marijuana — But Should
Posted on March 13, 2017 by D.A.R.E. in Drug Legalization and Student Drug Use, Officers, Parents, Spotlight


Massachusetts is now among eight U.S. states to legalize marijuana for adult (21+) recreational use, a decision that’s created a relaxed stance on use of the drug and left many parents worried. The simple, clear and empowering message we suggest parents share with teens is that avoidance of marijuana is best and here’s why.



Marijuana is harmful to adolescents.
Repeated use of marijuana during the critical windows of brain growth and development of adolescence is associated with anatomic changes in the brain, drops in IQ, serious mental-health disorders and overall poorer functioning. While these harms are dose dependent, there is no known “safe” level of use for adolescents, and some studies have found poor outcomes in teens that used marijuana 50 times in their life — an average of just once a month during high school.



Anyone can overdose on marijuana.
Marijuana can cause acute psychotic reactions, particularly among inexperienced users or in high doses. In today’s marketplace, where the term “marijuana” can refer to anything from dried plant leaves to highly concentrated oils, overdose is becoming more common. Unfortunately, psychotic reactions can lead to suicide or injury, and in some cases, psychotic symptoms do not fully resolve.



Marijuana is addictive.
Marijuana is addictive, although the clinical picture is distinct from other drugs. The long half-life of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, results in only mild withdrawal symptoms. And, like nicotine, overdose is not common. Nonetheless, many marijuana users find they are unable to quit beyond a few weeks. Some adolescents who use marijuana heavily feel as if a short period of abstinence “proves” that they are in control of their use, but in most cases, continuation of marijuana use after a short period more likely indicates just the opposite.



Marijuana is not necessarily safer than alcohol.
Comparing the health effects of different substances is like comparing apples to oranges. Each substance has its own risk profile. Alcohol use results in injuries, accidents and can result in brain changes when used over time; tobacco use is associated with physical-health problems that are well known; and for marijuana, the action is in the brain. The relationships between marijuana use and mental-health disorders and poorer functional outcomes are well established, although they can be harder to recognize than alcohol overdose or lung cancer.

But even if we accept one set of health consequences as better or worse than another, suggesting that teens use marijuana instead of alcohol is a misguided strategy. Marijuana and alcohol use go together. While one substance may be substituted for another on a given occasion, teens that use marijuana are much more likely to also drink alcohol and use other drugs.
 
Last edited:
Debunking the Latest Viral Pot Paranoid Theory

Legal marijuana is not sending teens to the ER, contrary to scaremongering headlines.

"Legalized pot sends more teens to the ER in Colorado, study finds." So claimed CBS News and numerous other mainstream media outlets this month in response to a May 4 American Academy of Pediatrics press release. But in actuality, no published study exists. And the data highlighted in the AAP presser provides little evidence to substantiate these alarmist headlines.

In fact, what headline writers across the country inaccurately referred to as a "study" was no more than preliminary data presented during the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco. These data sets, which assessed year-over-year trends in the prevalence of marijuana use among patients ages 13 to 21 who were admitted to the emergency room of a Colorado children’s hospital, have yet to be peer-reviewed or accepted for publication in a scientific journal. Yet one would have to skip to the final sentence of mainstream media coverage like this in order to be aware of these facts.

Furthermore, despite the misleading headlines, the data never addressed the question of whether marijuana played a causal role in patients’ ER admissions. Rather, researchers simply reported an increase in the number of ER patients who acknowledged either having used pot in the past or who tested positive for it on a hospital authorized urine screen. But this result is likely because Colorado hospital staff is placing a greater emphasis on marijuana detection today than they did a decade ago. Furthermore, it is likely that patients are more willing to acknowledge their use of cannabis to hospital employees now, post-legalization, than they were when pot was illegal.

Nevertheless, researchers opined that their data provides new evidence to support the claim that the legalization and regulating of marijuana for adults is having a “significant public health impact on adolescent populations.”

But more well established research casts serious doubt on this claim. For example, state survey data compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment dismisses the notion that teens’ use of marijuana has increased in the years following legalization. In fact, youth marijuana use rates in Colorado are lower today than they were in 2009 — several years prior to the establishment of adult use regulations. National survey data similarly refutes allegations that more young people are engaging in the problematic use of cannabis. According to a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the number of adolescents reporting marijuana-related problems declined by 24 percent from 2002 to 2013.

In addition, legal cannabis products sold by Colorado retailers are seldom making their way to the underage market. According to a 2016 study published in the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, licensed retailers strictly adhere to statewide regulations forbidding sales to minors. It determined, "Compliance with laws restricting marijuana sales to individuals age 21 years or older with a valid ID was extremely high and possibly higher than compliance with restrictions on alcohol sales.” Authors concluded, "The retail market at present may not be a direct source of marijuana for underage individuals.” Studies from other jurisdictions also report no link between the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries and increased pot use by teens.

Moreover, studies have largely failed to identify a significant causal link between marijuana use and ER visits. Specifically, researchers at the University of Michigan analyzed patterns and correlates of drug-related ER visits in a nationally representative survey of 43,093 residents age 18 or older. They reported, "[M]arijuana was by far the most commonly used (illicit) drug, but individuals who used marijuana had a low prevalence of drug-related ED [emergency department] visits.” A Canadian study published this month in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence determined that marijuana use did not increase subjects’ likelihood of hospitalization in the hours immediately following its use. Other studies assessing drug use patterns in smaller cohorts have even reported that cannabis use is inversely associated with injury risk.

This is not to say that cannabis use is without potential risk, particularly in instances where it is consumed by younger or more naive subjects. Marijuana can elevate blood pressure and in some users trigger tachycardia (rapid heart beat). Higher potency cannabis may also cause paranoia and other feelings of dysphoria. In patients with certain pre-existing psychiatric disorders, there also lies the potential for pot to exacerbate a psychotic episode. Any of these side effects may result in an ER visit. However, these sort of severe adverse reactions to cannabis are atypical. Further, none of these conditions are life-threatening and the symptoms almost always subside after a few hours.

Nevertheless, retailers and regulators in legal cannabis states ought to take steps to try and mitigate consumers’ risk of experiencing such unpleasant reactions, many of which are the result of overconsumption. These steps include better product labeling, potential limits on THC potency per serving in edible products, and greater efforts to encourage consumers to moderate their cannabis intake — particularly if they are consuming pot-infused edibles or concentrates. Such efforts are not only in the best interest of public safety, but they will also result in greater consumer satisfaction and awareness.
 
Debunking the Latest Viral Pot Paranoid Theory

Legal marijuana is not sending teens to the ER, contrary to scaremongering headlines.

"Legalized pot sends more teens to the ER in Colorado, study finds." So claimed CBS News and numerous other mainstream media outlets this month in response to a May 4 American Academy of Pediatrics press release. But in actuality, no published study exists. And the data highlighted in the AAP presser provides little evidence to substantiate these alarmist headlines.

In fact, what headline writers across the country inaccurately referred to as a "study" was no more than preliminary data presented during the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco. These data sets, which assessed year-over-year trends in the prevalence of marijuana use among patients ages 13 to 21 who were admitted to the emergency room of a Colorado children’s hospital, have yet to be peer-reviewed or accepted for publication in a scientific journal. Yet one would have to skip to the final sentence of mainstream media coverage like this in order to be aware of these facts.

Furthermore, despite the misleading headlines, the data never addressed the question of whether marijuana played a causal role in patients’ ER admissions. Rather, researchers simply reported an increase in the number of ER patients who acknowledged either having used pot in the past or who tested positive for it on a hospital authorized urine screen. But this result is likely because Colorado hospital staff is placing a greater emphasis on marijuana detection today than they did a decade ago. Furthermore, it is likely that patients are more willing to acknowledge their use of cannabis to hospital employees now, post-legalization, than they were when pot was illegal.

Nevertheless, researchers opined that their data provides new evidence to support the claim that the legalization and regulating of marijuana for adults is having a “significant public health impact on adolescent populations.”

But more well established research casts serious doubt on this claim. For example, state survey data compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment dismisses the notion that teens’ use of marijuana has increased in the years following legalization. In fact, youth marijuana use rates in Colorado are lower today than they were in 2009 — several years prior to the establishment of adult use regulations. National survey data similarly refutes allegations that more young people are engaging in the problematic use of cannabis. According to a 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the number of adolescents reporting marijuana-related problems declined by 24 percent from 2002 to 2013.

In addition, legal cannabis products sold by Colorado retailers are seldom making their way to the underage market. According to a 2016 study published in the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, licensed retailers strictly adhere to statewide regulations forbidding sales to minors. It determined, "Compliance with laws restricting marijuana sales to individuals age 21 years or older with a valid ID was extremely high and possibly higher than compliance with restrictions on alcohol sales.” Authors concluded, "The retail market at present may not be a direct source of marijuana for underage individuals.” Studies from other jurisdictions also report no link between the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries and increased pot use by teens.

Moreover, studies have largely failed to identify a significant causal link between marijuana use and ER visits. Specifically, researchers at the University of Michigan analyzed patterns and correlates of drug-related ER visits in a nationally representative survey of 43,093 residents age 18 or older. They reported, "[M]arijuana was by far the most commonly used (illicit) drug, but individuals who used marijuana had a low prevalence of drug-related ED [emergency department] visits.” A Canadian study published this month in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence determined that marijuana use did not increase subjects’ likelihood of hospitalization in the hours immediately following its use. Other studies assessing drug use patterns in smaller cohorts have even reported that cannabis use is inversely associated with injury risk.

This is not to say that cannabis use is without potential risk, particularly in instances where it is consumed by younger or more naive subjects. Marijuana can elevate blood pressure and in some users trigger tachycardia (rapid heart beat). Higher potency cannabis may also cause paranoia and other feelings of dysphoria. In patients with certain pre-existing psychiatric disorders, there also lies the potential for pot to exacerbate a psychotic episode. Any of these side effects may result in an ER visit. However, these sort of severe adverse reactions to cannabis are atypical. Further, none of these conditions are life-threatening and the symptoms almost always subside after a few hours.

Nevertheless, retailers and regulators in legal cannabis states ought to take steps to try and mitigate consumers’ risk of experiencing such unpleasant reactions, many of which are the result of overconsumption. These steps include better product labeling, potential limits on THC potency per serving in edible products, and greater efforts to encourage consumers to moderate their cannabis intake — particularly if they are consuming pot-infused edibles or concentrates. Such efforts are not only in the best interest of public safety, but they will also result in greater consumer satisfaction and awareness.
I have never, ever seen a response to cannabis use that justified a visit to the ER. I know that sometimes, people freak out on too many edibles and get taken to the ER by concerned bystanders or even go there themselves due to the panic. However, I have never met an emergency care worker who would tell you that this is justifiable use of emergency resources. Just what medical emergency has taken place that couldn't be equally well treated with a cup of tea and lying down somewhere quiet and comfortable?

If we are only talking about people with an existing psychotic illness being at risk of ER visits here, that is a miniscule proportion of teenaged Americans. Even in those cases, I would argue that the ER is no better a place to get through a non-violent, non-self-harming psychotic episode than the patient's own home with a trusted person to keep them company (and be sure that the psychosis does not escalate to something that may place the patient or others around them at risk)!
 
I have never, ever seen a response to cannabis use that justified a visit to the ER. I know that sometimes, people freak out on too many edibles and get taken to the ER by concerned bystanders or even go there themselves due to the panic. However, I have never met an emergency care worker who would tell you that this is justifiable use of emergency resources. Just what medical emergency has taken place that couldn't be equally well treated with a cup of tea and lying down somewhere quiet and comfortable?

If we are only talking about people with an existing psychotic illness being at risk of ER visits here, that is a miniscule proportion of teenaged Americans. Even in those cases, I would argue that the ER is no better a place to get through a non-violent, non-self-harming psychotic episode than the patient's own home with a trusted person to keep them company (and be sure that the psychosis does not escalate to something that may place the patient or others around them at risk)!
Science reveal's that cannabis is harmless.
Grow up people!
 
Preach it brother!
Remember by the BEATLES?
I Had ROSIN on my coils.
EJUICE and KEIF in my TANK!
38 watts on my Little' p 100 watt MOD.
I was safe however HAPPY!

KNOWABLE is a smart way to live!
OK, at least try?
RQzUnYl.jpg

I bought another one.
My wife think's I lost it?
Actually I found it!

THC LEVEL = 55% perfect dose for ataxia. After nap and before swimming.
20% in the morning's for reading.
26650 battery = CIVILIZED
 
Last edited:
THE DIN: A DOCTOR’S DANGEROUS SAFETY NET

DIANNA DONNELLY * JUNE 19, 2017

I work at a Cannabis Clinic that follows all of the rules. Our Doctors get paid through the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (aka OHIP) to assess patients only after copious amounts of supporting documents are received. Heck, sometimes I think we ask for more just to ask for more!

This is because our Doctors are also overly scrutinized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (aka CPSO). Capping THC and limiting grams per day keeps them on their toes and ever-aware that they’re risking their license to help strangers use a plant.

A friend has been going through a stressful time at work. Depression is ever close at hand in times like these so he went to his Doctor for help. His Doctor couldn’t see him, so another stepped in. She gave him Clonazepam for immediate effect.

Immediate effect or immediate addiction?

What’s more curious is this friend hadn’t been to the Doctor this one replaced in 25 years. There was no relevant medical history, no supporting documents to prove diagnosis or need for medication at all, and she gave him one of the most addictive, sedative, and damaging meds created.

Zombie-pills.

If this guy came to my Cannabis Clinic, he would never have been booked for an assessment. We’d make a file for him and we’d send requests for information to his Doctor, but no visits means no treatment notes, no medical history at all. To be prescribed medical Cannabis you need relevant medical history and a clear diagnosis even though by toxicity cannabis is safer than water.

What’s the difference between Clonazepam and Cannabis? A Drug Identification Number or DIN.

The DIN is the medical industry’s way of identifying drugs. To get a DIN, the drug has to go through rigorous testing and studies so that its effects, side effects, and contraindications are known.

So she knew Clonazepam is highly addictive, and that still didn’t deter this Doctor from prescribing it to my friend. Why is that? Because with that DIN all she has to say is that the patient needed an anxiolytic, which means it treats anxiety. The DIN protects the Doctor and the Pharmacist goes over risks and contraindications. Easy-peasy.

The DIN is a dangerous safety net that allows too many of us to be harmed and addicted to meds that do no good.

Cannabis on the other hand doesn’t have a DIN and if you talk to most Doctors outside of the Cannabis industry, they’ll tell you there are no studies. Absolute nonsense. Humanity has been doing a Cannabis study for the past 5000 years. And guess what? By toxicity, Cannabis is the safest medication known to man.

Then why the fiery hoops? Why do the Cannabis-curious have to prove diagnosis, list past meds, and give a urine sample to be given permission to try this uber safe plant while my friend got a highly addictive benzodiazepine that is incredibly difficult to withdraw from?

When you’re stressed and on the verge of the dark hole of depression, you’re like a hungry Sunfish biting at any therapy thrown at you.

But who questions the white-coats?

We do, every single day through search engines and family friends, online forums and support groups. As a member of this pack I feel that we are obligated to warn our fellow human about medications like this, and share the good news about Cannabis.

Lastly, only we can change Canada and these archaic prescribing mindsets. When Cannabis was mentioned my friend says the Doctor acted like she didn’t hear him. She could have prescribed him Cannabis and capped his THC at 10%, recommending high CBD and 1:1 strains only. But the evil you know is better than … a plant that has never killed anyone I guess and it’s because of that stupid DIN.

Write your MP and your MPP and demand respect, research, and better access for Cannabis-curious Canadians.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top