CANNABIS is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, according to a report by a British research charity today, which called for a "serious rethink" of drug policy.

The Beckley Foundation, a charity which numbers senior British and other academics among its advisers, said banning cannabis has no impact on supply and turns users into criminals.

"Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco," says the report by the Foundation's Global Cannabis Commission.

The British Government is pressing for cannabis to be re-classified in law as a Class B drug compared with its current, less serious, Class C classification.

Authorities are concerned notably by the growing prevalence of the potent "skunk" form of the drug.
About 80 per cent of cannabis seizures are of this strain, said to be linked to mental health problems, official figures show.

The Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, claimed only two deaths worldwide have been attributed to cannabis, while alcohol and tobacco use together kill an estimated 150,000 people in Britain alone.

"Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment," it said.

"It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the ever more potent forms of dope."

The decision to reclassify cannabis upwards into the more punitive Class B category - which includes amphetamines - is a U-turn for Britain's Labour Government.

Cannabis was downgraded from Class B when Tony Blair was prime minister, but Gordon Brown announced a review of its status soon after taking over in June last year.

An earlier review of the cannabis classification, at the time of the last 2005 general election, resulted in it remaining Class C.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24438033-5003402,00.html

The most harmful practice in life is actually breathing. Research shows that breathers have a much higher chance of getting sick or dying.

There is also a strong correlation between people who brush their teeth regularly and heart disease. A recent survey showed that 99% of heart patients regularly brushed their teeth.
;)

While I have no issues with regulation, I do have issues with hypocritical drug policies.

Well duhhh!, Of course dope is less dangerous than booze, I don't know why, but you can surf, snowski etc., which takes a fair amount of concentration and balance, when you are stoned off your nut on pot, you would have no hope pissed.

I used to love my dope, but that was in the dim dark days of my youth, and while not familiar with skunk myself, I do know that even in my day there were strains of superdope called zombie, or tripping grass, which was much more potent, and I still believe today, as I did when I used to smoke, that it should be legalised and controlled.
Taxed and monitored for strength and then we could at least stop the epidemic crossover between drugs which occurs when pot smokers are made into criminals.

mozzaok - that would be amongst the biggest  benefits for decriminilisation of pot.

Quote:

Taxed and monitored for strength and then we could at least stop the epidemic crossover between drugs which occurs when pot smokers are made into criminals.

it'ld stop the crims revenue cold

Blah - The risk to society of a drug depends on the exposure (how many people are taking it), the severity or the consequences of overdosing and the likelihood that overdosing resulting in a fatality could occur.

The highest fatality rate is secondary - usually motor vehicle accident or drowning in vomit.  There are also chronic effects, such as effects on cardiovascular health. mental health etc, and suicide/deliberate overdosing is also common with harder drugs.

You can kill yourself with alcohol, cigarettes and heroin. The most common way for all but cigarettes is via a motor vehicle accident. The point is that there are fewer people taking heroin, so the overall risk to society is lower. A much higher proportion of road deaths are caused by alcohol compared to other drugs.

A Royal Adelaide Hospital Study in April 2007 based on trauma admissions from road traffic accidents involving intoxicating substances showed :

Alcohol came first at 22.6%,
THC came second at 17.5%,
Benzodiazepines (sleeping pills) 14.7%
Amphetamines at 6.9% and
Opiates at 3.3%.

Interesting stats there, muso.
THC came in much higher than I would have expected, but, without seeing the actual methodology used, I would fathom a guess that many of the victims had multiple readings, ie; alcohol, AND, THC, so that makes me wonder if it is a true indicator of the dangers of THC on it's own, or not?
Do you perhaps know the answer?

Also interesting is that THC is used a lot less than alcohol, which would indicate that it is a far more dangerous drug to be driving on.

If the stats given are for people with only one intoxicant in their system, then perhaps, but as I already said, we do not have enough info to make an informed analysis, do we?

I can tell you as someone who has driven many, many thousands of k's stoned, and quite a few pissed, pissed is way more dangerous.

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 2:52pm:

Also interesting is that THC is used a lot less than alcohol, which would indicate that it is a far more dangerous drug to be driving on.

I was surprised at that too. The data was presented by Dr Peter Simpson at the Australian Industry Group National OHS conference this year, which I attended. I don't think the paper is anywhere on the internet.

Actually he also spoke about high levels of THC in Police roadsite checks, but the numbers are understated because the saliva based tests used by the Police miss about 60% (?). He added something like don't be surprised if we have roadside urine testing within the next 5 years.  

Sorry Mozz, I don't know the answer to your question on drug cocktails.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:

I can tell you as someone who has driven many, many thousands of k's stoned, and quite a few pissed, pissed is way more dangerous.

I understand that is actually true, but I can't remember the details.

Roadside urine tests? What if you can't perform in front of people? Somehow I doubt that is going to take off.

THC stays in your cells and is detectable for a much longer period than alcohol. They can detect it up to three months after consumption.

Doesn't mean you are stoned for three months.

And yeah, hydro is the devil drug.

http://www.reachout.com.au/default.asp?ti=70

Some of the more immediate effects of cannabis use may include: ·

A feeling of euphoria
A loss of concentration
Relaxation
A feeling of confidence
Wanting to eat more
Red eyes
Wanting to talk and/or laugh more than usual
Loosing balance and coordination
Feelings of anxiety or paranoia

AH MOZZ...  some of these are the reasons you FEEL it's safer to drive with Cannabis than Alcohol. in your system.

Some of the possible long-term effects of cannabis use are:
Lung problems (e.g. chronic bronchitis, lung cancer) - Cannabis smoke contains ingredients that can damage the lungs, affect your physical health and fitness and possibly cause cancer. If cannabis is smoked over many years it may impair lung functioning, which increases the chances of developing lung disease.  

Difficulties with memory and attention - It has been shown that cannabis use over the longer term can cause problems with memory, attention and processing of complex information. This may affect everyday life when you are learning something new or doing something difficult.

Development of dependence - Most people who use cannabis don't go on to use it regularly, or develop problems with it. However, there are a number of people who will become dependent on cannabis.

The chance of becoming dependent on cannabis is similar to the chance of becoming dependent on alcohol. If someone is dependent on cannabis they may experience a difficulty controlling their use or be spending a lot of time involved in cannabis and less time on other things in their life.

Increased risk of mental health problems - Some people have a greater risk of developing mental health problems than others. Cannabis use may trigger problems if, for example, you have a family history of serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia or depression), or you are vulnerable to developing it. If you already have a serious mental illness, cannabis use usually makes some of your symptoms worse.

There are morere detailed and up to date studies on this and the news isn't good.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating drug use,for driving, but I also am far more aware of the effects of drugs than most, because I have had far more than most. :D Hence while all the studies can give you some indication of the effects, it is in reference to which drug is more harmful that we entered this discussion, and alcohol is far worse than pot, no contest.

Also, what easel said about THC being detectable in the body for a long time, because it is stored in the fat particles, I think, does raise the valid point of were they stoned when they had their accident, or at some time in the previous weeks, we just don't have enough info to say.

Also, I can say from experience also, that people tend to be far more reckless when pissed, than stoned, if you are drunk you drive faster and sillier, if you are stoned, you usually slow down and (at least try to)concentrate more.

Maybe a reactive agent could be included in legal pot which would indicate if one had smoked it in say the previous four hours, which would aid police sobriety testing.
We don't want to add to the road toll by unleashing people who are not in a fit state to drive, onto the roads, but pretending it doesn't happen won't help.

Actually on that Convention, the myth that casual use of marijuana could lead to having THC metabolite in the urine for up to a month was totally exploded.

There have been cases, but they were real hard core users - 6 cones per night or more. Those cases represent a considerably higher risk to society because the impairment is virtually continuous until they get off the habit.

For casual users, it is detectable for 3-5 days.

6 cones per night???
One of my early girlfriends wouldn't even get out of bed until she had at least seven cones.

People get hysterical about pot, my experience was the ones who tripped out, were f...ed in the head before they started, and pot may have acted as a catalyst, but it was not the cause.

I know it is only anecdotal, but I have known a lot of people, and some just want an excuse for being unable to keep their sh1t together, if it weren't pot, it would be something  else, they are a tragedy, looking for a stage.

Very true. We all know someone who has been smoking longer than 20 years and is fine.

We all also know someone who after a year loses the plot and is never the same again.

I blame hydro.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 7:21pm:

6 cones per night??? One of my early girlfriends wouldn't even get out of bed until she had at least seven cones. People get hysterical about pot, my experience was the ones who tripped out, were f...ed in the head before they started, and pot may have acted as a catalyst, but it was not the cause. I know it is only anecdotal, but I have known a lot of people, and some just want an excuse for being unable to keep their sh1t together, if it weren't pot, it would be something  else, they are a tragedy, looking for a stage.

OMG  :-?- I'd regard somebody in that category as unemployable, at least in my industry. They would be an accident waiting to happen and we wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. Somebody who is smoking that amount of pot is an addict and already on the slippery slope.  

We do pre-employment and ongoing drug and alcohol testing. The standard for THC is 4ng. The standard for alcohol is no detectable reading.

pot seems to drain peoples motivation MUCH moreso than alcohol.

Noone has ever died from smoking pot.
Many have died from drinking.

I dont think the laws are going to change.

Quote:

pot seems to drain peoples motivation

"sprint"

I won't argue with that, I have seen many examples of that, though I don't know if it is totally chemically induced, or at least,  significantly increased through the corresponding lifestyle of "stoners".


Quote:

OMG  Huh- I'd regard somebody in that category as unemployable, at least in my industry.

 "muso"

Ha ha, she was a law student at the time, and got all honours and distinctions too, I may add.

Now a successful (very), legal eagle, and assigned her wild youthful exuberances into the past, where they rightly belong, but it is illustrative of the concept of pigeon holing people through some behaviours, as fundamentally flawed.

Like I said,  we are all different, and the effects of pot is far more subtle than alcohol, and you can be very stoned, but very focused.

How many artists, musicians, etc. produced their greatest works through drug effected brains?

Pot is nowhere near as simple as the effects of alcohol.

I guess it's a question of risk. Some people might be able to handle that with no problem, but a sizeable proportion will have health issues either while on the drugs or down the track.

Maybe the legal profession don't have such a high level of screening, but if she were applying for a job in hazardous industry or mining, she wouldn't even get a second chance. We can't really test for whether that person has the strength of character to prevail or not, so we just don't take the chance.  As far as we are concerned, if they're junkies, they're f'd. Unacceptable risk. Leave well alone.

Now the risk for her personally might be low - she might have a very strong will etc but we have to take it on a population basis. A sizeable proportion of the population are weak willed, and for them that rate of use would have serious implications.

I certainly do not disagree muso, and I would not object to legal pot being regulated, my main point of disagreement is with our society's "criminalisation" of pot users.
Like ALL drugs, there are risks involved, which vary from individual to individual, and we do need to have some fairer system than prohibition, it is unfair, and counter productive.

Human nature has seen, pretty well, all peoples have some drug use in their society, I guess we like the escapism of it.

I can't see how those figures of 17.5% could be accurate.

Anybody who knows pot smokers, or was/is one themselves knows better.
Alcohol is far more dangerous.

I know pot smokers who have been doing it for years and years. After 20 pipes in a night, they can play guitar and vidoe games almost faultlessly, and then drive home with no problem.
You'd have no idea at all that they're stoned.
However, if I were to have one pipe of their killer weed, it would blow my head off.

IMO, immunity is built up very quickly to the effects of THC, but this immunity wouldn't alter the
the reading you'd get from a drugs test.

From my experiences, people drive more carefully under the influence of THC, whereas people under the influence of alcohol drive more recklessly and are less able to control their vehicle.

Amadd wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 4:33pm:

I can't see how those figures of 17.5% could be accurate. Anybody who knows pot smokers, or was/is one themselves knows better. Alcohol is far more dangerous. I know pot smokers who have been doing it for years and years. After 20 pipes in a night, they can play guitar and vidoe games almost faultlessly, and then drive home with no problem. You'd have no idea at all that they're stoned. However, if I were to have one pipe of their killer weed, it would blow my head off. IMO, immunity is built up very quickly to the effects of THC, but this immunity wouldn't alter the the reading you'd get from a drugs test. From my experiences, people drive more carefully under the influence of THC, whereas people under the influence of alcohol drive more recklessly and are less able to control their vehicle.

Agree with everything you've said 100%, from my experiences...alcohol is far more dangerous, both to society and to individuals, then dope.

"Alcohol is far more dangerous."

IMHO, Schapelle Corby would disagree.

The proof is in the eating.

Countries "on" alcohol do better than countries "on" pot.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 11:14pm:

The proof is in the eating. Countries "on" alcohol do better than countries "on" pot.

Huh? What do you mean by this?

Countries that have a reputation for drinking (Aussie, Ireland) are "better" to live in than countries that are known for pot smoking (New Zealand, jamacia).

I have the feeling I am going to get soundly laughed at for that comment !!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:49am:

Countries that have a reputation for drinking (Aussie, Ireland) are "better" to live in than countries that are known for pot smoking (New Zealand, jamacia). I have the feeling I am going to get soundly laughed at for that comment !!

Ahh.

From nation master:

The top 10 countries on "pot":
#1        New Zealand:      22.23%      
#2        Australia:      17.93%      
#3        United States:      12.3%      
#4        United Kingdom:      9%      
#5        Switzerland:      8.5%      
#6        Ireland:      7.91%      
#7        Spain:      7.58%      
#8        Canada:      7.41%      
#9        Netherlands:      5.24%      
#10  Belgium:      5.01%      

The Top 10 on booze:
#1        Luxembourg:      15.5 litres per capita      
#2        France:      14.8 litres per capita      
#3        Ireland:      13.5 litres per capita      
#4        Hungary:      13.4 litres per capita      
#5        Czech Republic:      12.1 litres per capita      
#6        Spain:      11.7 litres per capita      
#7        Denmark:      11.5 litres per capita      
#8        Portugal:      11.4 litres per capita      
#9        United Kingdom:      11.2 litres per capita      
#10  Austria:      11.1 litres per capita

Well if those figures are right, then it may be time to dust of the AMP(the Australian Marijuana Party), to have another crack at the senate.

They nearly got a senator up in '74(I think), so in light of that we could give it another go.

I wonder if J.J.McRoach, would come out of retirement?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 9:05am:

Well if those figures are right, then it may be time to dust of the AMP(the Australian Marijuana Party), to have another crack at the senate. They nearly got a senator up in '74(I think), so in light of that we could give it another go. I wonder if J.J.McRoach, would come out of retirement?

Don't tell me. He tried to make a speech, but couldn't stop laughing long enough?

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.