South Africa National Drug master plan 2012-2016.

[RiaX]

No no no no. Nicotine is non-toxic (if your dose is appropriate). This is from the FDA. Nicotine is a stimulant much like caffeine. It has antidepressant properties and a whole lot of positive again. The down side is because its a stimulant it can constrict blood vessels and exacerbate heart conditions (which coffee will do the same). The story however is different when it comes to tobacco. The killer in tobacco is generally carbon monoxide. There are over 4000 known chemicals in a cigarette, nicotine on its own is not dangerous hence you can buy nicotine over the counter.

Here is a youtube vid its pretty accurate, pay attention to what the guy (chief MD) says about nicotine. You can ignore the rest if you not interested in e-cigs. What he says is supported well in medical literature

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRr8KubdhCA

As per statistics for rehab they paint a very good picture but they do not EXPLAIN why. For example the statistics will tell you that one third of the worlds population has TB, so does that mean about 2 billion people will die in the next 6 months ? no. So the same can be applied to rehab - which is probably successful IF all criteria are met - though im sure you can appreciate how powerful the pull of the heavier substances can be. Realistically it doesnt work and the reason for that is well many things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL97QKupu1g

Now when looking at fatalities. The direct cause will never be due to cannabis, likewise when you diagnose lung cancer its never due to smoking at all its just ca lung and the patient has a history of lung cancer. Smoking cannabis is actually just as carcinogenic (refer to the cancer thread in natural science there is a review I put up on cannabis from an oncology journal). So obviously nobody will be killed by cannabis like one would be from an OD of morphine or cocaine because its difficult to OD on it.

Im going to get that documentary you suggest is it a BBC production ?

finally I must apologise for my previous post that was unnecessary

 

[Swa]

No no no no. Nicotine is non-toxic (if your dose is appropriate). This is from the FDA.

If the FDA says that they really need to get out of the pharmaceutical business. We already know they should but that is like saying Cyanide is non-toxic, if your dose is appropriate. Actually Paracelsus said 500 years ago that "all substances are poisons. There is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy."

The question that needs to be asked is how easy it is to overdose. Nicotine's good effects are directly related to its bad effects. The "good" effects are actually the bad effects in a lesser extent so it's real easy to overdose. If something needs to come with a warning label it should be regarded as toxic. Does the FDA require a warning label for Nicotine?

nicotine on its own is not dangerous hence you can buy nicotine over the counter.

The same for paracetamol and ibuprofen. That doesn't mean they (and any medication really) are not dangerous and you can take the whole bottle.

 

[Hosehead]

it is simple.

2. The rehabs (that have a success rate of 3% officially and in reality even less) will end up losing a ton of cash.

Good. The private ones have been pulling eggs out of the golden goose for far too long. They should be boarded up and shuttered.
especially Stepping Stones- they sold their soul to mediocracy and the Dutch when they couldn't tap the local market to get their insatiable fix for foreign exchange at nearly 20 times the local patient costs. They have bent psychiatrists walking the halls and they are not the only ones.

 

[AstroTurf]

Yep, carcinogens are the main reason for tobacco related cancer, that and the restriction of blood vessels as well as various other factors (curing methods, insecticides and various other aspects).
However, tobacco chewers get leukoplakia (prelude to) throat, and mouth cancer.

I get what you are saying about Nicotine now and yes, it does have several medicinal as well as agricultural uses but in its purest form the stuff can kill by skin contact alone. I believe we have cleared that up

Speaking of E-Ciggies, the FDA are trying to ban them...

I know this is purely ancedotal but I know many cannabis smokers (some of whom were tobacco smokers for 20 years and more) that are over the age of 70, and have smoked cannabis their whole lives. My one old friend turned 92 this year. He started smoking weed at age 16. Still smart and healthy as can be
When does anecdotal become fact though? Due to the nature of the FDA I do not trust them to give out accurate information or any information that does not result from a profit margin (see below).
I am also saying this because the more I google, the more I research the more anecdotal information I find about benefits to cannabis and the lack of side effects as well as modern research (mostly in Europe but thanks to medical marijuana more globally recently) showing that most of the information supplied till quite recently is in fact anecdotal, contrived and purely for profit.
This includes harm, psychosis, laziness and all the other stereotypes.

The indirect deaths from cannabis that are recorded are also quite anecdotal though and are few and far between. These usually involve things like car accidents and other accidents or on occasion suicide. I say anecdotal though because all they can prove in these cases is that the person ingested cannabis in the last 18 days.
There is one record of direct death. A person took a huge hit of Hash oil, passed out and broke his skull open on a table corner.

I really think the FDA's record do not put them in a good light at all.
More than half of drug related deaths in the US are due to prescription and non prescription medication. More people die from prescription drug use than car accidents in America. OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma being the main cuplrits (back to the opiates mostly).

A good example would be the FDA and cannabis/THC curing cancer.
Not only is there "Anecdotal" evidence that it does cure cancer, there are laboratory experiments/reports/reviews freely available on the web.
For interest sake.

Thought you may find this interesting:
U.S. Government owns the patent on cannabis cures...
http://www.dailypaul.com/153097/us-government-owns-the-patent-on-cannabis-cures

Not a worry, I got used to just about any negative thrown my way due to that part of my history years ago

Here is the website the documentary originates from (it's Sundog pictures).
http://www.breakingthetaboo.info/

This may be a good watch as well if you are interested:
World leaders debating the discussion we are currently having.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gSrN2zIRwN8

 

[Hosehead]

The FDA has never really had the consumers interest at heart as much as they'd like to think so. The Highly paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill see to that.

Funny how the States can green light Medical marijuana yet it remains Illegal under Federal law which leaves those trading dispensarys open to FBI and DEA paramilitary Flash bangs now and again.

 

[RiaX]

Speaking of E-Ciggies, the FDA are trying to ban them...

the FDA isnt trying to ban them they are testing them at the moment. From my knowledge there is nothing wrong with the E cigs. I smoke now (i recently bought the twisp one) and I must say its replaced my cigarette habit quite nicely. Whether its bad or not is not the point the point is whether is BETTER option.

I know this is purely ancedotal but I know many cannabis smokers (some of whom were tobacco smokers for 20 years and more) that are over the age of 70, and have smoked cannabis their whole lives. My one old friend turned 92 this year

Yup know many patients like that. My personal theory is the diet in those days werent contaminated with chemicals people werent so fixated on hygiene so the immune system built itself up over time. You have to earn your right to live on earth. Also it can be plain genetics and lifestyle, this is why you dont see a difference in medication for those passing the 70 mark. Also we are lazier, the issue is on average humans live longer today so i would pin those on living 90 + and smoking drinking etc on genes

When does anecdotal become fact though?

Its never is in medicine. You treat these events as flukes even if it happens often. What works for one person may not work on the next even if the data is clinically sound. This is why Drs review you

Due to the nature of the FDA I do not trust them to give out accurate information or any information that does not result from a profit margin

At the end of the day the FDA provides a lot of information that allows a safe general practice of medicine worldwide - not an easy thing to and obviously people will take advantage of it and get kickbacks. An organisation of this magnitude and caliber will not be incorruptable but the amount of good they provide exceeds any shady acts.

the more I google

Dangerous to get medical information on google. I have found wikipedia to be incorrect many times for example.

howing that most of the information supplied till quite recently is in fact anecdotal

Thats the problem with CNS pharmacology ... it has to be anecdotal because you cant kill a human subject and harvest their brains like rats

The indirect deaths from cannabis that are recorded are also quite anecdotal though and are few and far between

I believe the deaths are due to stupidity not the substance the same as alcohol. Not many people die of alcohol poisoning if you look at the amount of users. Most die because they do stupid things like drive under the influence and even if you get poisoned thats your own dumbass fault lol

I really think the FDA's record do not put them in a good light at all.

It doesnt because information must be controlled because people arent able to understand what the specialists are saying. Also the picture will be warped, you really cant compared cannabis to tobacco for example because of the volume of users.

More than half of drug related deaths in the US are due to prescription and non prescription medication.

This is intentional suicide you cant stop this. Ive treated many patients during my days in the psych unit. Again this relates to information control. Its a precise dose of paracetamol that will kill you and if they knew that information then these people would be dead and not enjoying the life they have today after standard treatment protocols are successful in helping them. Just today I was speaking to a 20 year old kid that tried to OD after he found out his girl was cheating on him.

OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma being the main cuplrits (back to the opiates mostly).

power of addiction. Not to be confused with dependance. Unfortunately you cant beat the opiates and they are very necessary. Risk vs benefits

A good example would be the FDA and cannabis/THC curing cancer.
Not only is there "Anecdotal" evidence that it does cure cancer, there are laboratory experiments/reports/reviews

Anti-tumor activity isnt a cure hell its not even a viable option. Secondly you have to be extremely precise when dealing with malignant cancer. Ive read many journal articles on the cancer subject. As a pharmacist patients often ask about it. The data is too young to be used in proper medicine and even so the effect is minimal nowhere near the effect of modern cytotoxics. Also cancer is an extremely difficult disease - there isnt a single cancer its diverse like the cells in the body and the cells do some strange things. In lay terms you have to treat cancer on a cellular level otherwise you will fail and the work on THC is not good enough for that level.

Finally its difficult to quantify the dose. When it comes to cancer you have to be extremely precise. If you havent killed all the cancer cells, even if a single cell survives you have cured nothing

 

[Swa]

When does anecdotal become fact though?

Generally speaking nothing becomes fact. All evidence including anecdotal is valid in research. For instance knowledgeable doctors have long known about the bad effects from statins even though big pharma has trumpeted their "safety and efficacy." These side effects have since been confirmed by independent studies showing completely the opposite of the biased ones. No research is therefor a fact and everything can be overturned in future. How ever much some want to protest the use of anecdotal facts they are valid and are all doctors have to go on even with all of his studies. I find it interesting how he would discount anecdotal evidence while basing his so-called toxicity of vitamin D entirely on it alone. And also the ridiculous notion that people can't understand research so it must be controlled. I think he would make an interesting case study.

This is intentional suicide you cant stop this. Ive treated many patients during my days in the psych unit. Again this relates to information control. Its a precise dose of paracetamol that will kill you and if they knew that information then these people would be dead and not enjoying the life they have today after standard treatment protocols are successful in helping them. Just today I was speaking to a 20 year old kid that tried to OD after he found out his girl was cheating on him.

Nope it's directly due to the unsafe nature of the drugs. Not many of the recorded deaths are due to suicide and those that are are recorded as suicides and not counted in the statistics of deaths due to drugs. On the other point preventing access to information, that won't make a difference. People wanting to commit suicide usually take more than enough to kill. The people who you are able to speak to are the lucky/unlucky ones that got medical intervention before it was too late. Overdosing is a slow and generally agonising process. On the other hand there are those feigning suicide that would likely die without access to information.

Finally its difficult to quantify the dose. When it comes to cancer you have to be extremely precise. If you havent killed all the cancer cells, even if a single cell survives you have cured nothing

I would like to see any treatment killing all cancer cells.

 

[noxibox]

strategies to reduce the demand for and supply of drugs and the harm associated with their use and abuse. Ultimately the plan is intended to help realise the vision of a substance-abuse free society

Jokes aside, what's their real plan? The above is just the standard fantasy of the anti-drug nutters.

 

[noxibox]

The FDA has never really had the consumers interest at heart as much as they'd like to think so.

You're unlikely to find any drug regulation agency that does.

 

[noxibox]

Smoking cannabis is actually just as carcinogenic (refer to the cancer thread in natural science there is a review I put up on cannabis from an oncology journal).

And yet it is typically not associated with cancer (as the research shows).

Rehabs fail because they are flawed. the statistics speak for themselves but you are welcome to ignore them as they do not suit your agenda.

Their basic flaw is that they're based on the idea that you can compel someone to change their self-destructive behaviour. The question is do those in the rehabilitation business know their treatments are essentially useless, and they're doing it purely to make money, or do they really believe?

 

[Swa]

And yet it is typically not associated with cancer (as the research shows).

That's flawed science 101. His expensive oncology journal forget to tell him it's only valid when smoking as much as the usual cigarette smokers. Something every stoner would be able to tell him would practically result in being braindead.

Their basic flaw is that they're based on the idea that you can compel someone to change their self-destructive behaviour. The question is do those in the rehabilitation business know their treatments are essentially useless, and they're doing it purely to make money, or do they really believe?

Good point. There's actually AA and NA statistics on this. 60% of participants are either court ordered or forced. Only about 1/6th are there voluntarily. For those 16% the success rate when looking at 1st year drop outs is actually remarkably good. Bottom line, these programs are successful when followed but as they would tell you what comes first is wanting to be there.

 

[noxibox]

I doubt the Anonymous type is any more than 5% successful. Those have usually been the sort of figures quoted in research (although these Anonymous organisations have a history of being opposed to anyone querying their numbers). But they have an additional problem - they effectively try to make the person dependent on the group instead of their drug, telling them that if they stop coming to meetings they'll become a drug abuser again. Other problems they share with many types of supposed rehabilitation - they weaken people by both telling them the lie that abusing one drug means a person will abuse any drug along with other nonsense like once an addict always an addict and abstinence or nothing. Those things are only sometimes true.

 

[Swa]

5% success rate (research shows slightly more) is still remarkable if no more than 1/6th of people are really in the program voluntarily. An addict is already dependent. You don't cure an addiction you change the behaviour that led to it. It's either a support structure like the group or some other destructive behaviour. There's a difference between an addict and a heavy user. For the latter abstinence or nothing is flawed media propaganda. For addicts however it's always true because there is no self control.

Bruce K. Alexander's Rat Park experiments pretty much confirmed the modern social approach to drug addiction is from the wrong end. Addiction is not a property of drugs but the result of living conditions. Addiction is already present not only before forming a dependence but causes dependence due to the inability to cope with social circumstances. AA's and NA's 12 step approach is therefor the correct one and unsurprisingly the most successful.

 

[noxibox]

No, it's not true. Neither that someone addicted to a drug has no self-control nor that they would necessarily get addicted to all drugs because they became addicted to one.

There's no evidence that the Anonymous type method is more successful than any other.

 

[Swa]

Someone who has self control is not an addict. An addict has no self control.