Your Privacy Settings
Our website uses cookies to personalise content, keep contents in your shopping cart and as part of the checkout experience.- Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
- You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
Allow cookies for
- Sale on Now Purchase today
Forums > Social Discussion > Bad news for cannabis smokers
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4363075.stm
What are your opinions on what has been done?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4363075.stm
What are your opinions on what has been done?
Posted:
So it's got no known benefits, and, if you're deficient, there's no known symptoms?!?
The only use mentioned is in homeopathy, an alternative health system which is based on the principle of diluting the 'active' element used in its medicines to the extent that they are completely undetectable by scientific methods.
(I'm not dissing homeopathy here, simply pointing out that any of its remedies that do contain arsenic, would, according to scientific testing methods, contain zero quantities of it).
I don't think from this article we can conclude that arsenic is good for you
Written by:
Overview:
Arsenic is thought to be essential in trace amounts, however the benefits are not known. It is used in homeopathic treatments for some digestive problems
Written by:
Symptoms of Deficiency:
No known symptoms exist
So it's got no known benefits, and, if you're deficient, there's no known symptoms?!?
The only use mentioned is in homeopathy, an alternative health system which is based on the principle of diluting the 'active' element used in its medicines to the extent that they are completely undetectable by scientific methods.
(I'm not dissing homeopathy here, simply pointing out that any of its remedies that do contain arsenic, would, according to scientific testing methods, contain zero quantities of it).
I don't think from this article we can conclude that arsenic is good for you
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
I hate to be this terse, but, beefy, this is wrong. Plain and simiple.
'Now can drug use agrivate schizophrenic episodes? Yes of course it can. So does stress like moving, bad relationships, etc. The environmental triggers are not CAUSAL though is what I'm saying.'
No, sorry: triggers have got to be causal. That's what the word means. The trigger on a gun causes the gun to fire, if you want an analogy. This is a serious misunderstanding, and one which pervades most of your discussion of this topic.
Furthermore:
'Cause-effect is only one POSSIBLE relationship. The others are reverse cause-effect (schizophrenia causes marijuana use, unlikely here), they are not really related, but happen to only to be common in given situations, possible, and they are BOTH outcroppings of an underlying cause (say personality disposition). I reject that marijuana is a major cause of schizophrenia outright. I believe instead the last one.'
Why do you believe the last one? Do you have any evidence? Or do you just like to cling to your belief that the studies don't indicate that marijuana's to blame?
And there's an inconsistency in your view: you hold both that the studies are inconclusive (i.e. there's not enough evidence to adequately assess the nature of the correlation, you think, even though you haven't read the research), *and* you think you've got enough evidence to claim that schizophrenia and drug use are BOTH outcroppings of an underlying cause. Well, which is it - is there enough evidence, or isn't there?
I have several problem with your comments on this issue: you don't cite evidence, you ignore the fact that 'environmental triggers' have to be causal, and you dismiss other [professional] research out-of-hand without even having looked at it. Sorry, but I find that kind of strategy very hard to take seriously.
I hate to be this terse, but, beefy, this is wrong. Plain and simiple.
'Now can drug use agrivate schizophrenic episodes? Yes of course it can. So does stress like moving, bad relationships, etc. The environmental triggers are not CAUSAL though is what I'm saying.'
No, sorry: triggers have got to be causal. That's what the word means. The trigger on a gun causes the gun to fire, if you want an analogy. This is a serious misunderstanding, and one which pervades most of your discussion of this topic.
Furthermore:
'Cause-effect is only one POSSIBLE relationship. The others are reverse cause-effect (schizophrenia causes marijuana use, unlikely here), they are not really related, but happen to only to be common in given situations, possible, and they are BOTH outcroppings of an underlying cause (say personality disposition). I reject that marijuana is a major cause of schizophrenia outright. I believe instead the last one.'
Why do you believe the last one? Do you have any evidence? Or do you just like to cling to your belief that the studies don't indicate that marijuana's to blame?
And there's an inconsistency in your view: you hold both that the studies are inconclusive (i.e. there's not enough evidence to adequately assess the nature of the correlation, you think, even though you haven't read the research), *and* you think you've got enough evidence to claim that schizophrenia and drug use are BOTH outcroppings of an underlying cause. Well, which is it - is there enough evidence, or isn't there?
I have several problem with your comments on this issue: you don't cite evidence, you ignore the fact that 'environmental triggers' have to be causal, and you dismiss other [professional] research out-of-hand without even having looked at it. Sorry, but I find that kind of strategy very hard to take seriously.
ture na sig
Posted:
Oi vey my boy...
Triggers are not causal in this medical sense though. The problem was already there, smoking marijuana did not CAUSE the illness. I mispoke a bit I spose by not clarifying that this is what I meant, though I thought it followed from the rest of the post. They may be causal of the illnesses manifestation, but not of its preexistence. Its quite simple: marijuana does not cause the kinds of physical brain physicality changes that are apparent in schizophrenic cases.
As for your evidence, I already told you I dont have the time right now to evaluate the other ten articles you left here. Im referring to the parent article in question. In the parent article, it does not lend itself to fully controlling for what it says it does, and eliminating the other options of interpetation. As I said, the physical changes in the brain, which are currently suspected of being responsible for some of the hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia, is just simply not caused by marijuana use. Here's three for ya: https://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/3-mj-myths
And from Erowid: https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth8.shtml
Your argument is like saying because a serial killer killed someone, its the persons own fault for causing it by provoking him. A trigger is not a cause in the strict sense, and is not limited to only a few simple things (ie marijuana use). ANYTHING can trigger it depending on how the person reacts to something mentally.
What Im surprised about really is that you havn't caught my whole dopamine thing yet... Whether or not dopamine levels are a cause of schizophrenia like symptoms would lend support to you for long term abusers of marijuana, as it messes with such chemicals. If high dopamine levels are responsible then you might be able to draw that link.... if of course high dopamine levels weren't common for many other disorders that are completely unlike schizophrenia too. None-the-less, anti-psychotics are dopamine receptor blockers... and do work in some schizophrenic cases (though not all). In addition, dopamine levels are linked somehow with the frontal / parietal lobe functioning levels similar to schizophrenia.
The difference is, those differences go away when someone who is not schizophrenic stops smoking, and dont when they are schizophrenic. And this is important because it draws the line between saying cannabis is a CAUSE and a TRIGGER, just like alcohol is not a CAUSE of domestic abuse.
"Symptoms of schizotypy precede cannabis use" - March issue of Psychiatry Research
"Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users" - American Journal of Addictions
"Cannabis use unlikely to be a cause of schizophrenia" - The Lancet - John Macleod
Theres a couple of "professional research" articles I found out of hand. It isnt hard to come up with source that say what you want them to. The literature, especially on this particular topic, is quite vast and all over the place. Your right to ask for proof, Im just not taking this all as seriously as you are thats all... quite frankly its very time consuming to write this stuff over and over... hehe
Cheers!
EDITED_BY: i8beefy2 (1115272704)
Oi vey my boy...
Triggers are not causal in this medical sense though. The problem was already there, smoking marijuana did not CAUSE the illness. I mispoke a bit I spose by not clarifying that this is what I meant, though I thought it followed from the rest of the post. They may be causal of the illnesses manifestation, but not of its preexistence. Its quite simple: marijuana does not cause the kinds of physical brain physicality changes that are apparent in schizophrenic cases.
As for your evidence, I already told you I dont have the time right now to evaluate the other ten articles you left here. Im referring to the parent article in question. In the parent article, it does not lend itself to fully controlling for what it says it does, and eliminating the other options of interpetation. As I said, the physical changes in the brain, which are currently suspected of being responsible for some of the hallmark symptoms of schizophrenia, is just simply not caused by marijuana use. Here's three for ya: https://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/3-mj-myths
And from Erowid: https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth8.shtml
Your argument is like saying because a serial killer killed someone, its the persons own fault for causing it by provoking him. A trigger is not a cause in the strict sense, and is not limited to only a few simple things (ie marijuana use). ANYTHING can trigger it depending on how the person reacts to something mentally.
What Im surprised about really is that you havn't caught my whole dopamine thing yet... Whether or not dopamine levels are a cause of schizophrenia like symptoms would lend support to you for long term abusers of marijuana, as it messes with such chemicals. If high dopamine levels are responsible then you might be able to draw that link.... if of course high dopamine levels weren't common for many other disorders that are completely unlike schizophrenia too. None-the-less, anti-psychotics are dopamine receptor blockers... and do work in some schizophrenic cases (though not all). In addition, dopamine levels are linked somehow with the frontal / parietal lobe functioning levels similar to schizophrenia.
The difference is, those differences go away when someone who is not schizophrenic stops smoking, and dont when they are schizophrenic. And this is important because it draws the line between saying cannabis is a CAUSE and a TRIGGER, just like alcohol is not a CAUSE of domestic abuse.
"Symptoms of schizotypy precede cannabis use" - March issue of Psychiatry Research
"Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users" - American Journal of Addictions
"Cannabis use unlikely to be a cause of schizophrenia" - The Lancet - John Macleod
Theres a couple of "professional research" articles I found out of hand. It isnt hard to come up with source that say what you want them to. The literature, especially on this particular topic, is quite vast and all over the place. Your right to ask for proof, Im just not taking this all as seriously as you are thats all... quite frankly its very time consuming to write this stuff over and over... hehe
Cheers!
EDITED_BY: i8beefy2 (1115272704)
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
1. I wouldn't trust Erowid or the Lycaeum for unbiased drug advice; both tend to be quite evangelical.
2. Even if you think that the drug is causal of the illness' manifestation, rather than its preexistence, then it is still true to say that the drug will make things significantly worse. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one jot whether it renders a latent problem patent, or whether it creates a new problem. The upshot is the same, and could constitute a reason to avoid the drug in question.
3. Similarly with alcohol: the terminological point is moot. What matters is that alcohol abuse can be immensely damaging to relationships; stopping drinking will make matters better in many cases. For instance, domestic abuse often happens when one party is inebriated.
3b. I think that this supports the notion that alcohol is a causal factor. Certainly the right counterfactuals hold true; if alcohol abuse wasn't present, at least some of the domestic violence wouldn't have occured; where the alcohol abuse is present, you would expect an increase in domestic violence.
4. My argument is entirely *unlike* saying 'because a serial killer someone, it's the persons own fault.' Why? Firstly, there's a difference between strict causation and responsibility. Secondly, I'm not trying to apportion blame entirely to the drug (the analogy would be the person who provoked the killer); I'm claiming that a) marijuana is a causal factor in the manifestation of at least some severe mental illness, and b) anything which causes such manifestations should be avoided.
5. Even if 'anything' can trigger such-and-such, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be wary of obvious triggers. People with severe allergic reactions to peanuts may also have severe allergic reactions to other substances; but they should still avoid peanuts. Yes, the allergy was there to begin with; yes, the problem is latent; no, that doesn't mean anything as to whether or not they should steer clear of peanuts.
6. I covered the dopamine hypothesis two years ago, and I'm aware of the possible connections. However, unlike you, I'm not going to make any direct claims about the neurophysiology of schizophrenia and marijuana unless I can cite the evidence to back it up - and I don't currently have the time to do this.
7. If you don't have time to read the papers which I've cited, then you have no grounds on which to dismiss them. So don't.
8. Yes, I like to point fingers: as you may have gathered from my posts in other threads, one thing which irritates me is strong, unsubstantiated claims. For instance:
'I reject that marijuana is a major cause of schizophrenia outright.'
But you gave neither sound reasoning nor references in support of this.
1. I wouldn't trust Erowid or the Lycaeum for unbiased drug advice; both tend to be quite evangelical.
2. Even if you think that the drug is causal of the illness' manifestation, rather than its preexistence, then it is still true to say that the drug will make things significantly worse. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one jot whether it renders a latent problem patent, or whether it creates a new problem. The upshot is the same, and could constitute a reason to avoid the drug in question.
3. Similarly with alcohol: the terminological point is moot. What matters is that alcohol abuse can be immensely damaging to relationships; stopping drinking will make matters better in many cases. For instance, domestic abuse often happens when one party is inebriated.
3b. I think that this supports the notion that alcohol is a causal factor. Certainly the right counterfactuals hold true; if alcohol abuse wasn't present, at least some of the domestic violence wouldn't have occured; where the alcohol abuse is present, you would expect an increase in domestic violence.
4. My argument is entirely *unlike* saying 'because a serial killer someone, it's the persons own fault.' Why? Firstly, there's a difference between strict causation and responsibility. Secondly, I'm not trying to apportion blame entirely to the drug (the analogy would be the person who provoked the killer); I'm claiming that a) marijuana is a causal factor in the manifestation of at least some severe mental illness, and b) anything which causes such manifestations should be avoided.
5. Even if 'anything' can trigger such-and-such, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be wary of obvious triggers. People with severe allergic reactions to peanuts may also have severe allergic reactions to other substances; but they should still avoid peanuts. Yes, the allergy was there to begin with; yes, the problem is latent; no, that doesn't mean anything as to whether or not they should steer clear of peanuts.
6. I covered the dopamine hypothesis two years ago, and I'm aware of the possible connections. However, unlike you, I'm not going to make any direct claims about the neurophysiology of schizophrenia and marijuana unless I can cite the evidence to back it up - and I don't currently have the time to do this.
7. If you don't have time to read the papers which I've cited, then you have no grounds on which to dismiss them. So don't.
8. Yes, I like to point fingers: as you may have gathered from my posts in other threads, one thing which irritates me is strong, unsubstantiated claims. For instance:
'I reject that marijuana is a major cause of schizophrenia outright.'
But you gave neither sound reasoning nor references in support of this.
ture na sig
Posted:
As a causal agent, yes, and I HAVE given reasoning which I feel is sound. As a TRIGGER I will except, but do not except that this means that marijuana is a cause of the underlying problem, and that IS a big difference, as I believe you'll accept.
Note here that I am not saying that everyone should smoke pot. Actually there has been research into marijuana being a treatment option for some schizophrenics, as cannabidiol, one of cannabis's ingredients, has been shown to a powerful antipsychotic effect. (https://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300) Of course it doesn't work for a good number of them, but for some it actually does help. Also directly from that page: "We're not saying that cannabis is the major cause of schizophrenia," says Murray, who led the study. "But it's a risk factor."
Actually that article is quite good, and points out most of what I already have. Not proving cause-effect, the broad definition of "psychosis" used in many of these studies, the small sample sizes, the fact that as marijuana use has gone up, schizophrenic cases have not, genetic effects from the COMT gene, the limited nature of some of these quasi-experimental (non random group assignment) threats to validity. Overall a good read.
And what's wrong with my Erowid references? They are based on real empirical evidence just as your own are. They are not erowid's research, just collected by erowid for their findings... just provided an easy place to gleen some quick studies from. And the other references were journal articles...
Here's some more:
https://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Thought_Disorders/schizo/news/marijuana_3.asp
https://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~pmwhite/Diathesis%20Stress%20in%20the%20news.doc
The COMT gene I was talking about has two different forms, basically regular and damaged. Two regular genes and your cool, One damaged gene and your slightly more likely to develop psychosis, both genes messed up and your chances really go up to about 20%. Here is an article ab out a Dutch study: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12283
which also implies what I Ive been arguing: that marijuana only has this sort of effect in people predisposed to schizophrenia by genetics and would have gotten it anyway.(their words, not mine)
So there, plenty of little research articles in support of my theory, and plenty in support of yours. Its quite obvious that the research is FAR from saying one way or the other which interpetation is right. So can we stop throwing studies which are mutually contradictory and supportable and get back to the discussion?
As a causal agent, yes, and I HAVE given reasoning which I feel is sound. As a TRIGGER I will except, but do not except that this means that marijuana is a cause of the underlying problem, and that IS a big difference, as I believe you'll accept.
Note here that I am not saying that everyone should smoke pot. Actually there has been research into marijuana being a treatment option for some schizophrenics, as cannabidiol, one of cannabis's ingredients, has been shown to a powerful antipsychotic effect. (https://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300) Of course it doesn't work for a good number of them, but for some it actually does help. Also directly from that page: "We're not saying that cannabis is the major cause of schizophrenia," says Murray, who led the study. "But it's a risk factor."
Actually that article is quite good, and points out most of what I already have. Not proving cause-effect, the broad definition of "psychosis" used in many of these studies, the small sample sizes, the fact that as marijuana use has gone up, schizophrenic cases have not, genetic effects from the COMT gene, the limited nature of some of these quasi-experimental (non random group assignment) threats to validity. Overall a good read.
And what's wrong with my Erowid references? They are based on real empirical evidence just as your own are. They are not erowid's research, just collected by erowid for their findings... just provided an easy place to gleen some quick studies from. And the other references were journal articles...
Here's some more:
https://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Thought_Disorders/schizo/news/marijuana_3.asp
https://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~pmwhite/Diathesis%20Stress%20in%20the%20news.doc
The COMT gene I was talking about has two different forms, basically regular and damaged. Two regular genes and your cool, One damaged gene and your slightly more likely to develop psychosis, both genes messed up and your chances really go up to about 20%. Here is an article ab out a Dutch study: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12283
which also implies what I Ive been arguing: that marijuana only has this sort of effect in people predisposed to schizophrenia by genetics and would have gotten it anyway.(their words, not mine)
So there, plenty of little research articles in support of my theory, and plenty in support of yours. Its quite obvious that the research is FAR from saying one way or the other which interpetation is right. So can we stop throwing studies which are mutually contradictory and supportable and get back to the discussion?
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
1. I'm not proposing any particular theory of the relationship between pot and schizophrenia: what I *am* doing is pointing out that some of your claims are unsubstantiated.
2. The debate so far has centred, largely, around whether the relation between pot and mental illness is a) such that we should give it consideration (i.e., whether smoking pot can be harmful), and b) whether this would call for legislation. Given this, _it is a moot point whether it's a 'cause' or a 'trigger'_, provided that we agree that it is a risk factor: that is, in some cases it may make people's lives significantly worse.
3. Like I said, the problem with Erowid and the Lycaeum is that they are distinctly pro-drug in their approaches. I don't mean that the evidence is flawed: I mean that that the way in which it is presented will include bias.
4. On the issue of causation (I suspect we may have reached something of an impasse on this, so I'll keep it short): there are cases where hastening the onset of an event (or a latent illness) counts as causation. For instance, cells grow old, or grow cancerous, eventually, regardless of whether we smoke or not. But smoking hastens this: the paraphrase 'smoking causes cancer' is both appropriate and true.
5. Even if we abandon this cause/trigger distinction, THAT DOES NOT MATTER: the key point is that smoking pot may well be ill-advised, or harmful. Whether you say it 'triggered' schizophrenia, or 'caused' it: that's a taxonomical point, and not what we're concerned with.
6. On a distinct issue: you argued that correlational study can indicate one of four possible relationships between the two variables: cause-effect, reverse-cause, independence, and co-causality. How does 'triggering' fit into this?
1. I'm not proposing any particular theory of the relationship between pot and schizophrenia: what I *am* doing is pointing out that some of your claims are unsubstantiated.
2. The debate so far has centred, largely, around whether the relation between pot and mental illness is a) such that we should give it consideration (i.e., whether smoking pot can be harmful), and b) whether this would call for legislation. Given this, _it is a moot point whether it's a 'cause' or a 'trigger'_, provided that we agree that it is a risk factor: that is, in some cases it may make people's lives significantly worse.
3. Like I said, the problem with Erowid and the Lycaeum is that they are distinctly pro-drug in their approaches. I don't mean that the evidence is flawed: I mean that that the way in which it is presented will include bias.
4. On the issue of causation (I suspect we may have reached something of an impasse on this, so I'll keep it short): there are cases where hastening the onset of an event (or a latent illness) counts as causation. For instance, cells grow old, or grow cancerous, eventually, regardless of whether we smoke or not. But smoking hastens this: the paraphrase 'smoking causes cancer' is both appropriate and true.
5. Even if we abandon this cause/trigger distinction, THAT DOES NOT MATTER: the key point is that smoking pot may well be ill-advised, or harmful. Whether you say it 'triggered' schizophrenia, or 'caused' it: that's a taxonomical point, and not what we're concerned with.
6. On a distinct issue: you argued that correlational study can indicate one of four possible relationships between the two variables: cause-effect, reverse-cause, independence, and co-causality. How does 'triggering' fit into this?
ture na sig
Posted:
All evidence is open to interpetation though. What this evidence does (that is, all correlational study) is show there is a correlation. The statistical significance states that there is a very slim chance that the correlation arrose from statistical error, and the numerous studies that have found the correlation seem to support that there is a correlation.
What the relationship is however DOES matter. If marijuana CAUSED schizophrenia, that would be scary. But it doesn't. It just TRIGGERS it in people who are already predisposed to develop it genetically. I forget which one of those articles I cited had this in it, but its in one of em. Why are other people getting it who aren't predisposed? Because psychosis is defined in such a way in these studies that several people will be diagnosed that are not really psychotic. This is to be expected with this kind of research design.
Of course smoking pot is going to be ill advisable for those with mental illnesses. So are many other activities that shouldnt be made illegal simply because a few people have problems with it.
Well obviously I disagree strongly on the legislation part for the whole body control thing. I dont care about age restrictions because I am not underage anymore.
More later maybe...
All evidence is open to interpetation though. What this evidence does (that is, all correlational study) is show there is a correlation. The statistical significance states that there is a very slim chance that the correlation arrose from statistical error, and the numerous studies that have found the correlation seem to support that there is a correlation.
What the relationship is however DOES matter. If marijuana CAUSED schizophrenia, that would be scary. But it doesn't. It just TRIGGERS it in people who are already predisposed to develop it genetically. I forget which one of those articles I cited had this in it, but its in one of em. Why are other people getting it who aren't predisposed? Because psychosis is defined in such a way in these studies that several people will be diagnosed that are not really psychotic. This is to be expected with this kind of research design.
Of course smoking pot is going to be ill advisable for those with mental illnesses. So are many other activities that shouldnt be made illegal simply because a few people have problems with it.
Well obviously I disagree strongly on the legislation part for the whole body control thing. I dont care about age restrictions because I am not underage anymore.
More later maybe...
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
So you're saying:
1. If marijuana caused schizophrenia, that would be scary. [agreed]
2. If it just 'triggers' it, then that wouldn't be?
Because of course people know when they have underlying mental health problems?
A friend of mine went mad for six months after one drug experience. She had to be forcibly restrained during that period. We thought we might never get her back. Quite frankly, I don't give a toss whether the drugs caused it or triggered it; it was still scary, we had no way of predicting it, and we can definitely point a finger at drugs as being the culprit. If she hadn't taken them, she would have been fine.
Again: what substantive difference does this trigger/cause distinction which you are invoking make? It can't be that mere triggers are nothing to worry about, as my example above indicates.
6. On a distinct issue: you argued that correlational study can indicate one of four possible relationships between the two variables: cause-effect, reverse-cause, independence, and co-causality. How does 'triggering' fit into this?
answers on the back of a post-card, please
So you're saying:
1. If marijuana caused schizophrenia, that would be scary. [agreed]
2. If it just 'triggers' it, then that wouldn't be?
Because of course people know when they have underlying mental health problems?
A friend of mine went mad for six months after one drug experience. She had to be forcibly restrained during that period. We thought we might never get her back. Quite frankly, I don't give a toss whether the drugs caused it or triggered it; it was still scary, we had no way of predicting it, and we can definitely point a finger at drugs as being the culprit. If she hadn't taken them, she would have been fine.
Again: what substantive difference does this trigger/cause distinction which you are invoking make? It can't be that mere triggers are nothing to worry about, as my example above indicates.
6. On a distinct issue: you argued that correlational study can indicate one of four possible relationships between the two variables: cause-effect, reverse-cause, independence, and co-causality. How does 'triggering' fit into this?
answers on the back of a post-card, please
ture na sig
Posted:
On the back of a postcard? Is it a big postcard?
I think it does make a substantive difference. If someone is already predisposed to mental illness (granted, that is hard to know until an issue occurs), sure they shouldnt be doing any drugs. That does not mean that the rest of us should be demanded to do so. Schizophrenia effects 1% of the population (granted, psychosis in the broad sense used in many of these studies effects a great deal more).
If it is a CAUSE of schizphrenia in 100% of cases, then there would be room for worry. If it is merely a trigger, then there is a huge substantive difference. No one knows what causes schizophrenia, but, like this, there are many theories. None of them fits 100%. Once we know what causes it, we can look at how marijuana might cause those things: something which I have made the case for that it will not do (based on currently available data about physical changes in the brain and assuming that these physical changes are the source of symptoms, the current paradigm view). In the strict sense, marijuana is not in that case a cause, but only a trigger. Sure this means people with psychosis predispositions shouldnt take it, and yes a few people who try it may trigger a psychotic episode because they dont know about their own condition. If I have a heart attack because I dont know i have a condition and I go running, is it running's fault?
Im sure better analogies can be found, but Im lazy.
Hmmm thats a tough question, as obviously Im predisposed to stay away from the cause-effect answer. I would say it does fall under cause effect, but in a qualified way, as it is definitely different than strict IF-THEN cause-effect. Also, because it is clearly not this kind of relationship (not a correlation of 1, or even statistically CLOSE to 1) I would argue that the EVIDENCE for this type of relationship is weak. Marijuana is not a silver bullet answer, obviously. Also, trigger can fall under independence as the two are not really related in such a way. They are somewhat independent. Also I would argue that while the "trigger" effect may be poignant for some people, it clearly isn't for all people, so there may be other confounding variables involved that would indicate reverse-caused or a third possible cause for both (say predisposition).
On the back of a postcard? Is it a big postcard?
I think it does make a substantive difference. If someone is already predisposed to mental illness (granted, that is hard to know until an issue occurs), sure they shouldnt be doing any drugs. That does not mean that the rest of us should be demanded to do so. Schizophrenia effects 1% of the population (granted, psychosis in the broad sense used in many of these studies effects a great deal more).
If it is a CAUSE of schizphrenia in 100% of cases, then there would be room for worry. If it is merely a trigger, then there is a huge substantive difference. No one knows what causes schizophrenia, but, like this, there are many theories. None of them fits 100%. Once we know what causes it, we can look at how marijuana might cause those things: something which I have made the case for that it will not do (based on currently available data about physical changes in the brain and assuming that these physical changes are the source of symptoms, the current paradigm view). In the strict sense, marijuana is not in that case a cause, but only a trigger. Sure this means people with psychosis predispositions shouldnt take it, and yes a few people who try it may trigger a psychotic episode because they dont know about their own condition. If I have a heart attack because I dont know i have a condition and I go running, is it running's fault?
Im sure better analogies can be found, but Im lazy.
Hmmm thats a tough question, as obviously Im predisposed to stay away from the cause-effect answer. I would say it does fall under cause effect, but in a qualified way, as it is definitely different than strict IF-THEN cause-effect. Also, because it is clearly not this kind of relationship (not a correlation of 1, or even statistically CLOSE to 1) I would argue that the EVIDENCE for this type of relationship is weak. Marijuana is not a silver bullet answer, obviously. Also, trigger can fall under independence as the two are not really related in such a way. They are somewhat independent. Also I would argue that while the "trigger" effect may be poignant for some people, it clearly isn't for all people, so there may be other confounding variables involved that would indicate reverse-caused or a third possible cause for both (say predisposition).
Posted:
Sorry to interrupt, I haven't read the whole thread or the articles, so I'll keep it to simple little bullet-points:
> If you don't know whether you are predisposed to mental illness, you don't know whether you ought to avoid doing drugs.
> If you do not know who is predisposed to mental illness, it is impossible to know in which cases it is just to demand that drugs ought not be used.
> While some people may know the risk that they are taking - ie. they may incur mental health problems if they already have the disposition towards them - others will not. They will gamble their sanity when they just thought they were having a good time.
>By demanding that nobody does drugs you are erring on the side of caution. Is this wrong?
Written by: i8beefy2
If someone is already predisposed to mental illness (granted, that is hard to know until an issue occurs), sure they shouldnt be doing any drugs. That does not mean that the rest of us should be demanded to do so.
Sorry to interrupt, I haven't read the whole thread or the articles, so I'll keep it to simple little bullet-points:
> If you don't know whether you are predisposed to mental illness, you don't know whether you ought to avoid doing drugs.
> If you do not know who is predisposed to mental illness, it is impossible to know in which cases it is just to demand that drugs ought not be used.
> While some people may know the risk that they are taking - ie. they may incur mental health problems if they already have the disposition towards them - others will not. They will gamble their sanity when they just thought they were having a good time.
>By demanding that nobody does drugs you are erring on the side of caution. Is this wrong?
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
re: beefy: 'I think it does make a substantive difference. If someone is already predisposed to mental illness (granted, that is hard to know until an issue occurs), sure they shouldnt be doing any drugs. That does not mean that the rest of us should be demanded to do so. Schizophrenia effects 1% of the population (granted, psychosis in the broad sense used in many of these studies effects a great deal more). '
the point is that you DO NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE PREDISPOSED
in terms of what it's rational to do, your point is irrelevant
EDITED_BY: quiet (1115579897)
re: beefy: 'I think it does make a substantive difference. If someone is already predisposed to mental illness (granted, that is hard to know until an issue occurs), sure they shouldnt be doing any drugs. That does not mean that the rest of us should be demanded to do so. Schizophrenia effects 1% of the population (granted, psychosis in the broad sense used in many of these studies effects a great deal more). '
the point is that you DO NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE PREDISPOSED
in terms of what it's rational to do, your point is irrelevant
EDITED_BY: quiet (1115579897)
ture na sig
Posted:
I give up. there isn't enough research out there to make a decent comparrison of long term effects of cannabis v's the medication they put you on once diagnosed. I have also beed trying to find research into the affects of other "Legal"
drugs on mental illness, and there isn't enough on that either.
also have had a split reaction by a couple of the pcyh team at our local mental health hospital. One recomended that some one came off cannabis but continued taking the meds prescribed by the doc. For another person another recomended completely the opposite (Which made me happy)
the way i see it..... the only way you could truley tell if it has had a drastic effect on someone is if you had the chance to study the smae person doing exactly the same things for a long period of time. once on cannabis and once without. but its something that can not be done. so i am sticking with my natural (or as near as damnit) happy sticks rather than the happy pills which make me worse.
*Disclamer.... on pain killers so if it doesn't make sence blame the drugs
I give up. there isn't enough research out there to make a decent comparrison of long term effects of cannabis v's the medication they put you on once diagnosed. I have also beed trying to find research into the affects of other "Legal"
drugs on mental illness, and there isn't enough on that either.
also have had a split reaction by a couple of the pcyh team at our local mental health hospital. One recomended that some one came off cannabis but continued taking the meds prescribed by the doc. For another person another recomended completely the opposite (Which made me happy
)the way i see it..... the only way you could truley tell if it has had a drastic effect on someone is if you had the chance to study the smae person doing exactly the same things for a long period of time. once on cannabis and once without. but its something that can not be done. so i am sticking with my natural (or as near as damnit) happy sticks rather than the happy pills which make me worse.
*Disclamer.... on pain killers so if it doesn't make sence blame the drugs
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
Posted:
you can go round forever on this arguement.....
for more info and education try coming to the canabis march/festival sun 15th may @ 1pm russell square, london. march to trafalgar square for talks, lectures etc for more info visit:
www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk
maybe see you there
you can go round forever on this arguement.....
for more info and education try coming to the canabis march/festival sun 15th may @ 1pm russell square, london. march to trafalgar square for talks, lectures etc for more info visit:
www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk
maybe see you there
"I dont want no fatty bumbum, i want a lean mean shagging machine" anon
"I'm sweet and wholesome with a little bit of filth thrown in"
What would you do if you knew you could not fail?
Posted:
Is that the best place to go to get impartial and objective information on the issue then
Is that the best place to go to get impartial and objective information on the issue then
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:
probably not, but no website or info is going to be impartial because it all depends on the opinons of the people who publish them.
the only thing i can suggest to anyone is try and do whats best for you and safest for you on the subject....and to keep an open mind.
probably not, but no website or info is going to be impartial because it all depends on the opinons of the people who publish them.
the only thing i can suggest to anyone is try and do whats best for you and safest for you on the subject....and to keep an open mind.
"I dont want no fatty bumbum, i want a lean mean shagging machine" anon
"I'm sweet and wholesome with a little bit of filth thrown in"
What would you do if you knew you could not fail?
analytic503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
nome, apologies - i should have credited you for nailing that issue firmly on the head
re: partiality: granted, there's always going to be some degree of bias - but i think you're going to get much heavier bias from an evangelical pot-smoker, or 'cannabis site' (erowid, the lyceum, cannabis fest, etc.) than you are from a peer-reviewed journal.
why? well, peer-reviewed journals are subject to peer review (duh). none of the rest are.
I know where I'd go for my information. . .
nome, apologies - i should have credited you for nailing that issue firmly on the head
re: partiality: granted, there's always going to be some degree of bias - but i think you're going to get much heavier bias from an evangelical pot-smoker, or 'cannabis site' (erowid, the lyceum, cannabis fest, etc.) than you are from a peer-reviewed journal.
why? well, peer-reviewed journals are subject to peer review (duh). none of the rest are.
I know where I'd go for my information. . .
ture na sig
BRONZE Memberremembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom
Posted:
*bump*
That time has passed:
Cannabis chocolate trio convicted
THC4MS website
One of the most interesting points about this case is that, if I remember correctly, each recipient of the chocolate was supplied not upon production of a medical note as mentioned, but more specifically a letter from their GP confirming that cannabis would help alleviate the symptoms of their MS.
Hopefully that will at least prove to be useful ammunition to the group in their new role as a pressure group.
*bump*
*bump*
Written by: SpannerWritten by: Bram
And after Biz Ivol's case last year, I would expect to be seeing reforms in the medical marijuana scene at least to be happening very much so with in the next while. I know that so far, the marijuana chocolates company that Biz started before her passing, R.I.P. Biz, has not been bothered by local authorities and they also only use organic, or extremely well flushed cannabis for their products.
The company may not have been bothered by the authorities so far, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they did the same again when the time is right. While the company may continue, I don't think there's as much protection on the recipient's end, whoever the supplier is.
That time has passed:
Cannabis chocolate trio convicted
THC4MS website
One of the most interesting points about this case is that, if I remember correctly, each recipient of the chocolate was supplied not upon production of a medical note as mentioned, but more specifically a letter from their GP confirming that cannabis would help alleviate the symptoms of their MS.
Hopefully that will at least prove to be useful ammunition to the group in their new role as a pressure group.
*bump*
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
Posted:
Hey Just spotted this thread and had to jump in, I "suffer" from MS myself and I do use cannabis and it really really helps, luckily I have Relapsing Remitting MS so when I'm well I can do everything poi : ) etc but when I'm sick I can't do a bloody thing, I've been paralyzed from the waist down, my arms below the elbows have been paralyzed and I won't go into the pain aspect but let's just say it's not fun and the one thing that helps is cannabis, I'm not generally sadistic but I'd love to see the people in charge (i.e. the government policy maker that make cannabis illegal) go through what I go through, they'd definately change the law. It makes me so angry that other people have the power to make me go through such misery, luckily I don't have much of a conscience and I break the law and smoke it anyway. My god I am so feckin angry right now, this subject freaks me out, so I'm going to go get some hugs off my friends.
Later.
Hey Just spotted this thread and had to jump in, I "suffer" from MS myself and I do use cannabis and it really really helps, luckily I have Relapsing Remitting MS so when I'm well I can do everything poi : ) etc but when I'm sick I can't do a bloody thing, I've been paralyzed from the waist down, my arms below the elbows have been paralyzed and I won't go into the pain aspect but let's just say it's not fun and the one thing that helps is cannabis, I'm not generally sadistic but I'd love to see the people in charge (i.e. the government policy maker that make cannabis illegal) go through what I go through, they'd definately change the law. It makes me so angry that other people have the power to make me go through such misery, luckily I don't have much of a conscience and I break the law and smoke it anyway. My god I am so feckin angry right now, this subject freaks me out, so I'm going to go get some hugs off my friends.
Later.
You can only be young once but you can always be immature.
Posted:
That makes me angry too, the fact that it is forbidden for medical use, where it could help a great number of suffering people, simply on the grounds that some other people choose to use it for recreational reasons.
The whole thing makes me angry really, so I'm going to stop now before I go off on a serious rant (as I have done several years ago on this very same thread!)
That makes me angry too, the fact that it is forbidden for medical use, where it could help a great number of suffering people, simply on the grounds that some other people choose to use it for recreational reasons.
The whole thing makes me angry really, so I'm going to stop now before I go off on a serious rant (as I have done several years ago on this very same thread!)
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
member70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
Posted:
Bad news?
it moved from class b to c, thats a good thing......
Bad news?
it moved from class b to c, thats a good thing......
Love is Life
Carpal \'Tunnel7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
BAD NEWS for UK weed smokers..............
Warning to drug users
BEN KENDALL
02 January 2007 06:00
Drugs users across East Anglia were last night warned to exercise extreme caution after research showed cannabis supplies are being contaminated with harmful glass particles.
Campaign bodies lobbying for the legalisation of cannabis claim small glass beads - believed to be an industrial spray used for glass frosting - are being added to herbal cannabis in a bid to increase its weight and making deals more expensive.
Norwich-based group Cannaprag says police raids during the summer of 2006 which saw large scale cannabis farms - including several in Norwich, Yarmouth and King's Lynn - closed down have created a shortage of the drug meaning dealers are contaminating supplies in a bid to meet demand.
But this could have serious health consequences for thousands of users with some already reporting mouth ulcers, sore throats and chesty persistent coughs.
Cannaprag spokesman Derek Williams said the cannabis using community has had suspicions about contamination for about six months but has only now obtained evidence by analysing samples of the drug. At first the substance was thought to be a relatively harmless material such as sands but the results are far more worrying.
Mr Williams added: What has become clear through this incident is that the government has no method of warning illegal drug users of dangers such as this and seemingly has no desire to do so.
Government policy towards illegal drugs should not act in such a way as to increase the danger of using them by adding unknown risks.
Cannaprag is calling for public information campaign to raise awareness of this contamination as a matter of urgency. It will be affecting a huge number of people. A public health warning is urgently needed to inform users that they should not smoke this contaminated cannabis and dealers should not sell it.
Mr Williams said that such contamination is a result of prohibition and legalising cannabis would allow the government to ensure the safety of supplies.
The reality is that people are going to use cannabis and, if that is the case, the government should have some way of ensuring their safety. The only way of doing this is through legalisation, he said.
Magnification of three samples shows small beads 50 - 120 micrometers diameter, made of non-soluble high melting point glass like substance.
If smoked without a filter - as is common - these glass beads are drawn into the lungs.
The author of the research has remained anonymous but Cannaprag and other legalisation campaign groups are calling on the government to conduct its own research.
i myself have had this rancid stuff a few times
BAD NEWS for UK weed smokers..............
Warning to drug users
BEN KENDALL
02 January 2007 06:00
Drugs users across East Anglia were last night warned to exercise extreme caution after research showed cannabis supplies are being contaminated with harmful glass particles.
Campaign bodies lobbying for the legalisation of cannabis claim small glass beads - believed to be an industrial spray used for glass frosting - are being added to herbal cannabis in a bid to increase its weight and making deals more expensive.
Norwich-based group Cannaprag says police raids during the summer of 2006 which saw large scale cannabis farms - including several in Norwich, Yarmouth and King's Lynn - closed down have created a shortage of the drug meaning dealers are contaminating supplies in a bid to meet demand.
But this could have serious health consequences for thousands of users with some already reporting mouth ulcers, sore throats and chesty persistent coughs.
Cannaprag spokesman Derek Williams said the cannabis using community has had suspicions about contamination for about six months but has only now obtained evidence by analysing samples of the drug. At first the substance was thought to be a relatively harmless material such as sands but the results are far more worrying.
Mr Williams added: What has become clear through this incident is that the government has no method of warning illegal drug users of dangers such as this and seemingly has no desire to do so.
Government policy towards illegal drugs should not act in such a way as to increase the danger of using them by adding unknown risks.
Cannaprag is calling for public information campaign to raise awareness of this contamination as a matter of urgency. It will be affecting a huge number of people. A public health warning is urgently needed to inform users that they should not smoke this contaminated cannabis and dealers should not sell it.
Mr Williams said that such contamination is a result of prohibition and legalising cannabis would allow the government to ensure the safety of supplies.
The reality is that people are going to use cannabis and, if that is the case, the government should have some way of ensuring their safety. The only way of doing this is through legalisation, he said.
Magnification of three samples shows small beads 50 - 120 micrometers diameter, made of non-soluble high melting point glass like substance.
If smoked without a filter - as is common - these glass beads are drawn into the lungs.
The author of the research has remained anonymous but Cannaprag and other legalisation campaign groups are calling on the government to conduct its own research.
i myself have had this rancid stuff a few times
Posted:
oooh good thing i hate that stuff
should go run off after work and warn my friends
does this apply to american supplies or just over there
oooh good thing i hate that stuff
should go run off after work and warn my friends
does this apply to american supplies or just over there
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Carpal \'Tunnel7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
just over here i think, because of all the raids last summer dealers have been importing any old stuff and messing about with it.
just over here i think, because of all the raids last summer dealers have been importing any old stuff and messing about with it.
Posted:
oh similiar stuff is happening in milwaukee but not with weed
they busted a bunch of gang members for cocaine trafficking...it may be why violence has gone up around here too
huh more stuff to go look in the newspapers about
oh similiar stuff is happening in milwaukee but not with weed
they busted a bunch of gang members for cocaine trafficking...it may be why violence has gone up around here too
huh more stuff to go look in the newspapers about
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:
Unfortunately, dealers mixing other crap with weed is nothing new, stuff to make the weight more, crystal meth etc
You name they typically will try it.
For anyone who smokes it, buy off a "trusted" dealer, someone you know who you know doesn't add anything.
(If that is at all possible)
Unfortunately, dealers mixing other crap with weed is nothing new, stuff to make the weight more, crystal meth etc
You name they typically will try it.
For anyone who smokes it, buy off a "trusted" dealer, someone you know who you know doesn't add anything.
(If that is at all possible)
Are you up for it?
;)
Carpal \'Tunnel7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
YUCK cocain is dutty stuff (i should know i did used to do a bit)
in the UK it's kind of flooded the market so the price of a wrap has gone down but the ammount of junk people are cutting it with is a joke...............cheap and nasty springs to mind
i have to say in the last 18 months i've come to realise ok there are drugs about but WHY make it a mission to go out EVERY weekend and get trashed on them??
you may laugh but i cant honestly remember the last time i took ANY class A's
i still smoke a bit of weed now and then but i can't afford it most of the time and i'm not wasting my money on some dud stuff thats been sprayed with glass/sand/sugar.
YUCK cocain is dutty stuff (i should know i did used to do a bit)
in the UK it's kind of flooded the market so the price of a wrap has gone down but the ammount of junk people are cutting it with is a joke...............cheap and nasty springs to mind
i have to say in the last 18 months i've come to realise ok there are drugs about but WHY make it a mission to go out EVERY weekend and get trashed on them??
you may laugh but i cant honestly remember the last time i took ANY class A's
i still smoke a bit of weed now and then but i can't afford it most of the time and i'm not wasting my money on some dud stuff thats been sprayed with glass/sand/sugar.
BRONZE Memberremembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom
Posted:
If you read this thread, you'll understand why it may not be:
Written by: Pinkadelic
Bad news?
it moved from class b to c, thats a good thing......
If you read this thread, you'll understand why it may not be:
Written by: me
Basically, upgrading it to Class B again would mean the maximum penalty for possession would rise from 2 years inprisonment to 5 years inprisonment and a fine. The maximum penalty for supply (or intent to supply) is 14 years inprisonment and an unlimited fine for both Class B and C. I seem to remember that this was because the Class C penalties were upgraded around the time that cannabis was downgraded, so it wasn't as good a deal as some might think.
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
Posted:
I've been coming across seriously contaminated supplies of weed too... generally I try and have a good look before I waste my money on nasty sand/glass etc and I won't buy it if it's cut...
yeah, contaminating supplies to increase bulk has been going on for years but nothing like on this scale. If you've spent a lot of years smoking a lot of fresh weed and taking the time to find a decent supplier (someone who loves their plants and doesn't tend to get involved in other criminal activity) it's surprisingly easy to tell if it's been cut by the appearance, taste and sometimes just how it burns. I know of people in Belgium near the Dutch border who've been having the same problem.
Problem is, lots of people are still buying this stuff and smoking it, it's really quite worrying. I know a lot of people who would rather ingest this crap than go without a smoke.
It's again made me feel really angry with government policy and convinced me further of the many benefits legalisation/decriminalisation would bring.
I've been coming across seriously contaminated supplies of weed too... generally I try and have a good look before I waste my money on nasty sand/glass etc and I won't buy it if it's cut...
yeah, contaminating supplies to increase bulk has been going on for years but nothing like on this scale. If you've spent a lot of years smoking a lot of fresh weed and taking the time to find a decent supplier (someone who loves their plants and doesn't tend to get involved in other criminal activity) it's surprisingly easy to tell if it's been cut by the appearance, taste and sometimes just how it burns. I know of people in Belgium near the Dutch border who've been having the same problem.
Problem is, lots of people are still buying this stuff and smoking it, it's really quite worrying. I know a lot of people who would rather ingest this crap than go without a smoke.
It's again made me feel really angry with government policy and convinced me further of the many benefits legalisation/decriminalisation would bring.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
Carpal \'Tunnel7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
i had that attitude for a long time tea fairy, but if people are dumb enough and desperate enough to smoke contaminated weed it proves they truly know nothing about weed
personally since i started to get to know the true hippies around my way i've not had bad stuff in a while but they only supply small ammounts and DON'T deal in the stuff as it is their own personal stash.
also having grown a few plants in my youth i can tell if the plant was force grown (with chemicals) as there is a metallic taste to it, or it makes you cough but this weed that has been sparayed with sand is NOT true weed, it has had ALL the T.H.C spun off it so effectively it is useless and worthless.
it' the same with ressin, you can get some lovely stuff, but when "solid" is mentioned people assume you mean "soap" which is the dirtiest stuff you can get..................hell it's not even marijuana!!!!
they mix all kinds of contaminants in with it, like plastic bags, rubber and god knows what else. there is a saying "it's not real soap unless there's a carryer bag in it"
i had that attitude for a long time tea fairy, but if people are dumb enough and desperate enough to smoke contaminated weed it proves they truly know nothing about weed
personally since i started to get to know the true hippies around my way i've not had bad stuff in a while but they only supply small ammounts and DON'T deal in the stuff as it is their own personal stash.
also having grown a few plants in my youth i can tell if the plant was force grown (with chemicals) as there is a metallic taste to it, or it makes you cough but this weed that has been sparayed with sand is NOT true weed, it has had ALL the T.H.C spun off it so effectively it is useless and worthless.
it' the same with ressin, you can get some lovely stuff, but when "solid" is mentioned people assume you mean "soap" which is the dirtiest stuff you can get..................hell it's not even marijuana!!!!
they mix all kinds of contaminants in with it, like plastic bags, rubber and god knows what else. there is a saying "it's not real soap unless there's a carryer bag in it"
Posted:
Agreed!
I grew up with hippies, I know exactly what you mean concerning quality of weed and hash. Most of the people I used to pick up from grew themselves for personal use and would pass on their excess to friends (i.e. me!).
I had the shock of my life when I first moved to London, nobody seemed to know anything about quality and 2 - 3 grams always passed as an 8th with no complaints, which I found absurd! It took me ages to find a decent supplier who had the same attitude towards weed as me, who would refuse to buy or sell poor quality goods and didn't overcharge/undercut the weight and who didn't deal for profit.
My brother in law grows plants in Spain. He says it's great over there, apparently the police never bother him and if you claim you're an addict then you won't go to jail (although I'm not sure how true this is). I've seen some great pictures of him on his roof patio sat among all these huge plants. Maybe I should move to Spain... or Holland.... *sigh*
Agreed!I grew up with hippies, I know exactly what you mean concerning quality of weed and hash. Most of the people I used to pick up from grew themselves for personal use and would pass on their excess to friends (i.e. me!).
I had the shock of my life when I first moved to London, nobody seemed to know anything about quality and 2 - 3 grams always passed as an 8th with no complaints, which I found absurd! It took me ages to find a decent supplier who had the same attitude towards weed as me, who would refuse to buy or sell poor quality goods and didn't overcharge/undercut the weight and who didn't deal for profit.
My brother in law grows plants in Spain. He says it's great over there, apparently the police never bother him and if you claim you're an addict then you won't go to jail (although I'm not sure how true this is). I've seen some great pictures of him on his roof patio sat among all these huge plants. Maybe I should move to Spain... or Holland.... *sigh*
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
© 1998 - 2019 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.