Party Pill substitutes

August 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm by David Farrar

A VUW student, Kate Bryson, has done some interesting research on what will happen if party pills are banned.

She found very few people would turn to P, but around a third said they would use E if party pills are banned.

I remain unconvinced that banning party pills, as opposed to regulating them, is the best option.

Tags:

82 Responses to “Party Pill substitutes”

  1. Hayden Kirk () says:

    That has been known for along time. Alot of people I know stopped taking E and various other drugs when party pills hit the shops.

    They may be bad, but I don’t think banning them is the right step. You are just forcing them to find an alternative. Most alternatives are class A drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter () says:

    Opposing the distribution of drugs is just closing the gate after the horse has bolted. The big issue is- “Why do people (especially young people)have such a serious dependency on drugs?

    What is it about socialist /western culture that encourages the widespread proliferation of drugs? Why is it that so many New Zealanders cannot relate to each other, socialize, converse, interact on a recreational basis without being medicated?

    Anything to do with socialism do you reckon? I mean, seems to me that the increase in drug dependency has paralleled the rise to social and political ascendancy of the socialists. Given the outcome of this, (ie widespread family break down, dependency, degeneration of youth, collapse of morality, lack of opportunity, alienation of the sexes, anti-family government measures,) is it really any wonder that NZer’s are so ready to seek recreational medication??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. unaha-closp () says:

    Why do people (especially young people)have such a serious dependency on drugs?

    People take drugs, because drugs are fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. simon akel () says:

    It is to do with the fundamental breakdown of all hat once bound society together: community spirit. Now replaced with the desire of generation Y to ‘live for the moment and the self’. All this started with Muldoon and was pretty much completed under the Bolger-Shipley govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. CraigM () says:

    “….All this started with Muldoon and was pretty much completed under the Bolger-Shipley govt.”

    What a crock of shit.

    It may come as a shock to you, but,…steady yourself…..the 60’s were pretty wild too. I think they had drugs back then, but can’t be sure.

    Apparently, according to hearsay, the sixties were pretty much ‘live for the moment” times too.

    I think, again not sure, but people in the seventies may have been known to smoke a little dope..ssshhh.

    I am sure even Muldoon would be surprised to hear he started the breakdown of society and Bolger that he finished it off. Don’t know if even their ego’s got that big.

    Of course, our current government, in all it’s glory, has tried soooo hard to rebuild a decent society.

    You sir , are a moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. cha () says:

    I agree with unaha-closp, drugs are lotsa fun.
    And CraigM, you Sir, have been watching way to much Faux News.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Neil () says:

    Hey Simon, What CraigM said…
    Also please contact the US, UK and European Governements as I’m sure they would love to know where their drug problems started.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nicholas O'Kane () says:

    I think the most interesting part of the research is that three quaters of those who use party pills also use illegal drugs. So much for Hayden Kirks idea of party pills as a substitute for illegal drugs, and the idea that banning party pills will cause people to switch to harder drugs. The people on party pills are already using harder drugs, this research shows. Also, party pills may serve as a gateway drug, i.e. people use party pills, get used to the highs, and then wanting bigger highs go to harder drugs. Also, Page A2 of the dominion Post has a good article about another piece of new research, showing that one cannibis cigarette can do as much damage to your lungs as 5 tobbacco cigarettes. This is particularly relevant given that Green MP Metira Turei has a members bill to legalise “medical marijuana” for people who need cannibis for “health reasons”. Turns out the only health benefit that can be obtained from cannibis is euthanaisia.

    Redbaitor and Simon Akel- Part of the reason why so many young people use illegal drugs to get highs these days is not so much socialism and the breakdown of community spirit (though both played a role)- it is the breakdown of traditional values and a new belief in “anything goes” and that any alternative lifestyle is acceptable (including drug use e.t.c) and in massive increase in dysfunctional families, number of people on the DPB, solo parents, abortions, probably drug use shows what we get when we destroy traditional values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    Green MP Metira Turei has a members bill to legalise “medical marijuana” for people who need cannibis for “health reasons”.

    It seems to be really effective at alleviating the pain caused by various forms of cancer, and its less debilitating and dangerous than morphine. You can administer cannibis via a vaporiser which minimises damage to the respiratory system.

    Honestly, don’t you think its pretty weird that we have ‘medicinal heroin’ but can’t have medicinal cannabis?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter () says:

    ““illicit” drug use is not a new phenomen. Some of them have been used for several hundred years.”

    Hardly the same situation is it? You’re comparing relatively uncommon and occasional usage by comparatively few in society in years long gone by to widespread and frequent use today to a degree that could be described as an epidemic. What a pompous time wasting irrational moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter () says:

    “is not so much socialism”

    “it is the breakdown of traditional values”

    What, Nicholas, do you think socialism is all about???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kiwi in america () says:

    It would be interesting to see if Ms Bryson is in any way related to one Warren Bryson – a big noise in the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and also NORML (another drug legalisation lobby group). If so, this might explain her interest in recreational drug use.

    My brother is part of the famous Chch Health and Development Study that has looked at a variety of health outcomes of a cohort of 1200 kids born in 1977. Prof David Fergusson published research that demonstrated the gateway effect of cannabis on harder drug use. By aged 20, those of the cohort who had used cannabis 50+ times were 62 times more likely to use hard drugs (even after adjusting for all other possible predisposing factors for hard drug use such as a history of family addiction or family dysfunction). These findings were published in a peer reviewed renown medical journal. The fact that his team have published more than 150 studies in reputable journals the world over make this study one of the most highly regarded longitudinal studies in the world.

    It is interesting to note the obsession with medical marijuana. There are synthesized versions of some of the active ingredients of cannabis that perform very useful medical functions (eg Marinol that is prescribed to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy which harnesses one of cannabis’ side effects – that of suppressing the urge to vomit). The same is true with a nasal spray variant. However the cannabis lobby are underwhelmed by these developments and concentrate their lobbying not on finding new and safer variants such as Marinol but for the right to simply smoke up dak when they want – all under the guise as ‘medicine’. It is interesting to read the recent indictments handed down by the DEA to a number of recently busted medical marijuana clinics in California (where medical marijuana is legal) and to find that the vast majority of ‘patients’ simply found a compliant doctor who certified that they were ‘sick’ and dope was their only ‘cure’ – which turned these clinics into gorified tinny houses subsidised by the long suffering Californian taxpayers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Steve () says:

    Drugs are for those who can not open the brain in it’s natural state.
    Needs a catalyst to put it in gear. The brain is a muscle, use it or lose it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt () says:

    Steve

    Reality is for those who can’t handle drugs !

    Classification of party pills to class C like cannabis will do what? Lead young people into the drug underworld….

    Many many studies have looked at the gateway effect of softer drugs leading to harder drugs and time and time again the study starts with cannabis… I don’t know about all of you fine people but I had coffee before I had alcohol which were both before I ever tried cannabis, which was before I tried… etc etc.

    Ban coffee – it’s the prime addictive substance most people experiment with before alcohol which leads to cannabis and more.

    Also is there anybody else here who thinks it’s a bit stupid to have jolly Jim having any say in drug policy and/or suicide prevention policy? Like he did a good job in his own house so we set him loose on the country !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    Everyone knows that mothers milk is the ultimate gateway drug. In a comprehensive study 81% of hard drug users had at one stage in their life used mothers milk.

    ‘Gateway’ is incoherent laughable nonsense. Get a serious argument if you feel the need to contribute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Porcupine () says:

    No Need for drugs. Actually laughter is the best medicine to take away the pain of having political parasites up your arse.

    Legalise medicinal cannibis is just a smokescreen for making it more readily available for middle class socialist dopeheads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt () says:

    james cairney

    It’s not my argument – I was mocking it. Jolly Jim when he proudly announced the ban on party pills made the comment that party pill shops were introducing kids to drug culture…

    So I agree with you – he should get a serious argument if he feels the need to contribute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mike () says:

    Actually redbaiter, I think you’ll fine its capitialisim that leaves people destitute and without hope, looking to drugs as something to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    Sorry Burt, I should have been more clear, that wasn’t to you.

    One of the many ridiculous things about the ‘gateway’ argument is that the fact of illegality draws people who use into contact with people that they would not be in contact with if the substance were legal, that is, people who sell illegal drugs.

    The fact of the illegality of the substance provides any ‘gateway’, or at least a significant part of any gateway. Go figure.

    People also choose to bring up ‘Marinol’ as an option for pain relief aside from cannabis, yet Marinol (a synthetic attempt at THC) is a different substance than cannibidiol (CBD), and has nowhere near the same anti-seizure properties as CBD, nor does it have anywhere near the same effect on people suffering from glaucoma.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Porcupine () says:

    I suppose they could get a job or start their own business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Porcupine () says:

    Oops that was for mike

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    What is it with the resident dweebs that cry “capitalism” or “socialism” every time there is a social problem? (social problems that have been prevalent in both forms of society too).

    People were getting high long before either of the two systems and will be doing so long after.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. colombus () says:

    “Why is it that so many New Zealanders cannot relate to each other, socialize, converse…” asks redbaiter, in his typically blind, baseless moralistic way.

    Judging by most of what you say, I think I would need some pretty decent drugs to have a conversation with you without feeling nauseas and utter despair for the future of our country.

    But then again, what an utter waste of a good trip it would be.

    The rise in ‘problems’ with drugs began with the advent of religions that started trying to suppress natural human behaviour, due to their realization that drugs help people see through the facade that is power-based religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. phil u () says:

    so much horseshit..from so many people..

    first up..the (ever reliable) horse-shit peddler redbaiter..

    “..What is it about socialist /western culture that encourages the widespread proliferation of drugs? Why is it that so many New Zealanders cannot relate to each other, socialize, converse, interact on a recreational basis without being medicated?..”

    um..!..are you talking about alcohol here..?

    and are you really serious as to be asking why people take mind-altering substances..?

    as someone else noted..they can be ‘fun’..

    akel said..

    “..It is to do with the fundamental breakdown of all hat once bound society together: community spirit. Now replaced with the desire of generation Y to ‘live for the moment and the self..”

    once again..absolute horseshit..!..

    every generation has got wasted..and still do..

    have a read about the rampant cocaine culture in london during the 1920’s-30’s..70’s..’till now..

    o’kane said..

    “..Also, Page A2 of the dominion Post has a good article about another piece of new research, showing that one cannibis cigarette can do as much damage to your lungs as 5 tobbacco cigarettes…

    .. Turns out the only health benefit that can be obtained from cannibis is euthanaisia…”

    oh..!..really..!

    the health issue first..if you search ‘cannabis’ at whoar..you will find 46 stories/links..(just back to oct 2006)

    amongst them you will find the report of the biggest/most funded/longest/largest study group ever..

    on the longterm physical/mental effects from smoking cannabis..

    and it laid all the myths to bed..

    but that wasn’t reported in the mainstream media here..

    yet..it was totrally credible..harvard medical school..or the like..

    and funnily enough..

    today i linked to a story headlined..

    “reefer inanities:..why you can’t trust the mainstream media to talk about marijuana”..

    eh..?..and there you are citing page a2 of the dominion post..as ‘the ‘ authoritative voice on this subject..

    (and ..”marijuana leads to euthanasia’..’..?

    heh-heh..!..you are just too silly for words..!

    and kiwi in america..another guarateed purveyor of horseshit..

    also comes up trumps..

    a double whammy defending bushs latest assault in ‘the war on drugs’..

    and drivel about his brothers’ research..

    research totally rebutted in/by those sources i cite..

    and porcupine said..

    “..Actually laughter is the best medicine to take away the pain of having political parasites up your arse..”

    have you considered lubricants..?..darling..?..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt () says:

    phil u

    I sense the are of banned substances is one where we should take some notice of what you say.

    Did you see Police 10/4 last night. A heap of good weed being pulled out of the ground for all the wrong reasons. Just imagine the joy of watching the same in a few years and seeing Jim’s beaming face as another clan pill shop is raided…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Neil () says:

    Ummm Phil, you sure it doesnt have any effect on long term memory???

    “yet..it was totrally credible..harvard medical school..or the like..”

    I think you need to be a little more conclusive than that..or something I guess maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt () says:

    Humans love drugs. End of story. When you see that guy/girl out running at 7:00am in the wind and rain with a smile on their face it’s not because they would rather be doing what they are doing than having a coffee and reading the paper, it’s because they are getting one of their daily fixes of endorphins. Plain and simple, there are chemical receptors and there are chemicals.

    To ban something simply puts a premium price on it, profits disappear into the black economy and quality is uncontrolled. Either that or it falls from fashion and is replaced by something else.

    This whole debacle is just Jim grandstanding. He’ll move on one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. phil u () says:

    neil..i pointed you at more authoritative sources than i’m sure you could handle..

    try doing some reading..?

    i think you’ll find it broadens the mind..

    there you will also find all the relevant information on medical marijuana..and alternative means of delivery..

    sativex..delivered by an inhaler..developed..and legal..in canada..for quite some time now..

    and about to be legalised/prescribed in britain..

    is one of the various options that should be used here….

    and in switzerland you will find the most successful model of narcotic addiction treatment..

    with such a success rate..a five-year trial period was rolled over into permanent policy..

    and what they do would have many of you lot frothing in prohibitionist fervour/fever..

    they prescribe heroin to addicts..

    hand in hand with counselling to find out why they seek/need the solace of heroin..

    and they find four years is the medium time before most addicts ask to be weaned off..

    and of course..during these four years..these addicts are able to hold down jobs..

    and don’t need to do crime..or deal drugs..

    the only options for most addicts.

    that all seems eminintly sensible..dosen’t it..?

    and proven to work..to boot..!.

    and burt..(cough..!..cough..!..what makes you say that..?..)

    and as for party pills..

    i am in two minds..

    in that i support the freedom of adults to choose for themselves..

    and for the movement of the treatment of all drug over-use out of the justice arena..and into the health one..

    yet any drug-user of any ‘worth’ will be able to tell you what crap drug experiences you have on party-pills..

    and the hangovers..lordy lordy..!..the hangovers….

    i mean..sheesh..people..!..

    what’s wrong with the ‘magic ‘erb’..

    very tasty..

    it didn’t start life as a cd cleaning solution..

    and no hangovers..

    what’s not to like..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    btw..i reckon redbaiter is a red-faced/overweight curmudgeon/bigot..

    aged over 60 years..

    any advances on that..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. cha () says:

    # Redbaiter Says:
    August 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    ““illicit” drug use is not a new phenomen. Some of them have been used for several hundred years.”

    Hardly the same situation is it? You’re comparing relatively uncommon and occasional usage by comparatively few in society in years long gone by to widespread and frequent use today to a degree that could be described as an epidemic. What a pompous time wasting irrational moron.

    Bedwetter, a new word for you, Laudanum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. pedro () says:

    Absurdest scientific statistic goes to: Kiwi in America. “Those who had used cannabis more than 50 times were 62 times more likely to try harder drugs.” No way! If you’re the kind of person who has had more than 50 sessions you’re very likely to be the kind of person who is more likely to take a harder drug. More likely than whom? Donald Duck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dad4justice () says:

    55 % of all US prisoners are in prison for drug offenses .

    What are the stat’s for NZ – oh that’s right we don’t keep stat’s that reflect badly on a humungous socialist experiment that has gone horribly wrong !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. andy () says:

    Don’t illegal drugs prove the ultimate power of the free market over regulation?

    Right or wrong!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Porcupine () says:

    No it just means the crim pushers have the upper hand and we’ve fail to snuff them out like the filthy little blood sucking hookworms they are. (polite version)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dad4justice () says:

    Oh crime is the norm under the socialist’s, as it’s a gravy train for the inept judicial system !!

    Crime pays contact the HRRT !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    “Don’t illegal drugs prove the ultimate power of the free market over regulation?”

    No. For the simple reason that illegal drugs are not ‘regulated’, they are banned.

    Bans pervert the market by adding the crime tariff to the price. There is no control of any part of the illegal drug market, all there is is an perversion of the price.

    Cigarettes are ‘regulated’, and as such they are controlled. The market is completely shackled, perverted, and ultimately conforms towards what the state wants.

    However, if you mean prohibition shows the power of the market then I totally agree. But regulation kicks a market in the balls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. JamesE () says:

    Porcupine
    “…..we’ve fail to snuff them out like the filthy little blood sucking hookworms they are. (polite version).”

    along with used car salesmen, insurance salesmen, bankers, real estate agents, pharmaceutical company execs, agricultural chemical company execs, career politicians, tobacco company execs, alcohol company execs, paparaazi, “celebrities”, beauracrats, Telecom Execs. property development spruikers, marketing gurus, so-called entrepreneurs (heard of the phrase “burn rate”?) etc etc.

    Half the fkin workforce are now feeding from society’s trough. How many actual people actually PRODUCE anything in our economy these days?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. burt () says:

    D4J

    “What are the stat’s for NZ – oh that’s right we don’t keep stat’s that reflect badly on a humungous socialist experiment that has gone horribly wrong !!”

    Oh yes we do D4J – Just most people don’t get to see them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kiwi in america () says:

    pedro,james cairney,burt and philu
    My my Prof David Fergusson would be intrigued at your objections to his research on the gateway effect of cannabis and hard drug use. When he first released his findings it unleashed a storm of controversy (similar to the controversy that swirled around another recent finding from his study group – the fact that abortions can increase the likelihood of mental health problems). Prof Fergusson is a cheery slightly nerdy Pommy academic whose personal views on cannabis are relatively liberal so he has no ideological axe grind in this debate. I was present at a symposium where he first presented this material and he said that the initial results were that by aged 20 those who’d used cannabis 50+ times were 140 x more likely to use hard drugs. He was so astounded by this hugely positive association that he instructed his team to double check the figures and to eliminate any predisposing risk factors for hard drug use such as a family history of hard drug addiction or family dysfunction and so the 60 x figure came STRICTLY from the cannabis use and after more than usual rigorous checking of the underlying surveys done on the 1200 study subjects.

    There have been some professional challenges to his findings but these were very well rebuted in the same 2006 “Addiction” Issue 101 article where his research was first published. “Addiction” is a professional journal for medical and mental health experts in the field of drug and alcohol addiction. Prof Fergusson and his core team all have PhDs in Psychology and the findings from the Chch Health Development Study are published in prestige medical journals all over the world because experts see the cohort size (1200) and length of time studied (30 ys) as being one of the best longtitudinal studies in the world. So philu I’m afraid there is no comparison between his team and their peer reviewed globally renown studies and your drug liberal ‘commentator’ on the far left Huffington Post blog that you cite for analysis

    Oh and about the same time Fergusson et al published another study this time in one of the world’s top medical journals (Journal of the BMA) about the strong correlation between cannabis use and pychosis. They cite all the major reputable peer reviewed and published studies done on this subject along with their findings and they conclude “epidemiological evidence suggests a persistent association between cannabis use and pychosis that is robust to methodological challenges” which translated means, too many top quality studies by experts in this field have all come up with the same strong link that it is now beyond dispute. Once again I have to defer to the medical experts rather than philu’s dope smoking colleagues.

    On a personal note, I do some volunteer work in this area having received excellent training in the area of adolescent A&D assessments. In the numerous drug assessments I have done over the years for EVERY SINGLE user of hard drugs cannabis was the gateway drug. Now my sample size wasn’t as large as Prof Fergusson’s but many of my colleagues in this field report similar experiences. So people like pedro can call the figure of 60 x times absurd but he’s up against one of the best and most highly regarded research teams in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. phil u () says:

    as i noted before..kiwiinamarica is a reliable purveyor of horseshit..

    and once again..he dosen’t disappoint..

    he/she said..

    “..So philu I’m afraid there is no comparison between his team and their peer reviewed globally renown studies and your drug liberal ‘commentator’ on the far left Huffington Post blog that you cite for analysis..”

    i see you chose the one of the forty links i gave you..

    (and that was the ‘worst’ you could find..?..i am cheered by that..)

    and you obviously went nowhere near that actual study i cited..(but that’s understandable..eh.?

    kia said..”..Once again I have to defer to the medical experts rather than philu’s dope smoking colleagues..”

    (do i really have to dignify that with a response…?..)

    kia said..

    “.. In the numerous drug assessments I have done over the years for EVERY SINGLE user of hard drugs cannabis was the gateway drug..”

    oh..!..so you’re part of the (anti)-drug ‘industry’…

    we should take that into account/context..eh..?

    and in that off-the-wall ‘gateway’ statement you use..

    try substituting ‘beer/alcohol’ for cannabis in that statement..

    and then spend twentry minutes contemplating on what a feckin’ idjit you are..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Shawn () says:

    “They may be bad, but I don’t think banning them is the right step. You are just forcing them to find an alternative.”

    Forcing? So they have no free will or power to choose? Puhleeease.

    Illicit drug use in NZ could be radically lowered in just a few years by shooting anyone who sells the drugs and giving hard labour to anyone who advocates the selling and use of such drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Shawn () says:

    “what’s wrong with the ‘magic ‘erb’..”

    Its a major cause of mental illness, depression and psychosis in those who use it regularly. Its also one of the contribuing factors in most child abuse cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Shawn () says:

    “and then spend twentry minutes contemplating on what a feckin’ idjit you are..”

    Coming from someone who ignores scientific research in favour of left-liberal propaganda thats an amusing accusation.

    The vast majority of medical research on marijuana clearly proves that it is bad for the individuals and bad for society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Independant judge () says:

    Ok, so Kiwi in America v’s phil ….for the idjit award.

    KIA = rational, appears educated, well put together posts, (whether you agree with him or not), demonstrates common sense, non radical but passionate, balanced. Global view of the world.

    phil = dope addled remnants of a brain, one-eyed socialist, politically unbalanced, super-critical posts regardless of the thread, and well…he’s phil……

    No contest. Congratulations pot head, you win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    KIA. ‘gateway’ is nonsense, it proves nothing as it always only studied against other *illegal* substances.

    The fact of cannabis leading to other ‘harder’ drugs can be explained by:
    1. Changes in brain chemistry that make people susceptible to using harder drugs – which would be the worst result for the pro-cannabis crowd, yet this has not been proven by *any study*.
    2. The cannabis experience may encourage experimentation with further drugs, yet this implies the cannabis experience to be positive.
    3. As cannabis is illegal, those who choose to use have to get supplies from an illegal market, which exposes them to drug dealers. This ‘gateway’ suggests prohibition is part of the problem, and it supports decriminalisation, a point which Fergusson himself accepts.

    Fergusson’s study showed likelihoods, he never identified the underlying processes that lead to further usage. And I doubt they are any more relevant than an association with a legal substance like alcohol.

    The same study with regard to alcohol may reveal the same to be true of alcohol – statistically, but would again proves nothing causatively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    “Its also one of the contribuing factors in most child abuse cases.”

    Evidence please Shawn?

    And KIA, when you cite a study to make a point, best check that the study you cite actually supports your point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. phil u () says:

    shawn said..

    “..Illicit drug use in NZ could be radically lowered in just a few years by shooting anyone who sells the drugs..”

    (heh-heh..!..)

    and you’d be the one who’d stepped forward to volunteer to be their executioner..

    eh shawn..?

    (you ‘sick puppy..you..’..)

    “..the vast majority of research on (shawn)..”

    ..reveals that he too..

    is a feckin’ idjit..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Independant judge () says:

    James…..

    you refer to an accepted scientific survey as nonsense, the go on to justify that by using big scientific words such as :

    “I doubt” & “may reveal” .

    and gems like: “As cannabis is illegal, those who choose to use have to get supplies from an illegal market,….”

    Not in all countries my loose with the facts friend. e.g Holland as an incredibly high ‘conversion’ rate from Marijauna to hard drugs.

    and besides, if people are exposed to harder drugs because they deal with drug dealers, and their use of Marijauna the sole reason for their meeting the drug dealers, therefore isn’t marijauna use responsible for them being exposed to harder drugs?

    If Marijauna was legal, wouldnt someone still have to sell it? therefore they would be a drug dealer, but legal! I bet they would still have access to other drugs. Or do you think it should be available from Foodtown!

    You have been awarded a close second to phil in the idjit awards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. CraigM () says:

    If Shawn passes, I’ll step up to the task of shooting the hard drug dealers.

    Just let me know where and when.

    BTW phil….really enjoying the drug addict calling everyone else an “idjit”.
    Being high does make you quite entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. kiwi in america () says:

    philu
    I have searched high and lo on your site for the 40 links you mention. Most seem to be newspaper articles or your previous posts on drugs that hardly seem to support your ‘cannabis is safe’ contention. Oh I found Prof Nutt from Univ of Bristol who disagrees on the cannabis – schizophrenia link but I see he cites no studies to back his contention and clearly the article is an oped piece. I note a Seth Stevenson article from Slate attacking a pot ad – where are his addiction credentials? I found a Univ of Tel Aviv study claiming cannabis is safe and yet it is published in the obscure “Nueroscience Letters” which appears to be a dumping ground for studies that cannot seem to find reputable journals to publish them or any peers prepared to put their name to a review. So Ive searched using “cannabis” and “drugs” and “health” and all I get is circular links to non-related articles or links to newspaper articles that shed no light on your position.

    Actually you’d be surprised how many assessments I did where cannabis and other drugs were heavily abused and alcohol was either rarely used or not abused. Don’t get me wrong there were plenty of polydrug users who did dak and booze but by no means the majority were in that category.

    If we’re going to have civilised debate on this subject phil I need a bit more to go on. Please advise in what ways is Prof Fergusson’s research deficient? I know you reject his findings but on what grounds? Was his sample too small – was his questionnaire flawed? I have cited world renown studies and you say its horseshit so tell us precisely what parts are wrong and how and please provide direct links because your website is a mass of confusion I’m afraid

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Shawn () says:

    Phil.

    Still finding it difficult to put together a coherent argument I see. And still vandalising the Queen’s English as well. When you can learn to use the Shift key I’ll take your accusation that other people are idiots slightly more seriously.

    By the way, I worked as a counsellor for several years, and can attest to the destructive effects of regular drug use in peoples lives. Whats you expertise in this area?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kiwi in america () says:

    James Cairney
    I stated that Fergusson found that those who used cannabis 50+ times before age 20 were 60 x more likely to use hard drugs – that’s exactly what his study found. Fergusson himself was surprised at the strong causality. Fergusson cites 3 possible pathways including the 3rd “Differential Association” that you seem to think means Fergusson is saying the drug should be legal when he says “At the present time which (if any) of the above theories explains the gateway role of cannabis is unclear”. I rather think YOU are the one who wants to study to say what you want it to say re. cannabis. I’d imagine he will tackle this issue in the future knowing him – in the meantime his study refers to other studies that have established the gateway. Drug liberals have been saying ever since I can remember that there is no gateway effect. THere is – we can argue about how it happens and what to do about it (if anything) but this study does demonstrate that the gateway does exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kiwi in america () says:

    Well said Independant Judge
    In Holland they have de facto legalisation of cannabis and the gangs simply swapped an illegal trade for a quasi-legal trade. Dutch police and treatment experts there told me when I visited that the gangs own most of the coffee shops thru front companies. They use them as fronts to sell harder drugs. This was confirmed by the French police who sent undercover agents to Amsterdam into coffee shops and every single one of them was offered harder drugs. So much for the hoped for separation of hard and soft drugs.

    And this from the US Attorney’s office in California about the busts they did on the medical marijuana clinics “In Morro Bay, Charles C. Lynch, 45, of Arroyo Grande, was the owner and operator of the “Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers” marijuana store. The indictment against Lynch alleges that he and his employees sold more than $2.1 million in marijuana at the store in just one year. The indictment further charges that, during the same one-year time period, Lynch and his employees sold marijuana to 281 minors. Also charged in the indictment is Dr. Armand T. Tollette Jr., 45, of Culver City, who is accused of writing marijuana recommendations for patrons of the Morro Bay marijuana store. The indictment alleges that Tollette wrote recommendations for minors, failed to conduct physical examinations before writing recommendations, and paid “finder’s fees” in marijuana for client referrals.” This is what happens when you liberalise the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. phil u () says:

    more horseshit..!

    independant judge says..

    “e.g Holland as an incredibly high ‘conversion’ rate from Marijauna to hard drugs..”

    that is an outright lie..when compared to countries like say..england..the junkie-rate in holland is miniscule..

    which orifice did you pull that gem out of..?

    craig m said..

    “..Being high does make you quite entertaining..”

    are you telling us you are high craig..?..and enjoy reading my mumbles when in that state.?

    why..i..i’m flattered/blushing..

    shawn said..

    “.. By the way, I worked as a counsellor for several years, and can attest to the destructive effects of regular drug use in peoples lives.Whats you (sic) expertise in this area.?..”

    i had a bit of a ‘speedball’ habit for a decade and a half..or so..

    a ‘speedball’ is heroin and cocaine..

    taken intravenously..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    indep judge: apply your scrutiny to yourself: “and gems like: “As cannabis is illegal, those who choose to use have to get supplies from an illegal market,….” Not in all countries my loose with the facts friend.”

    You dick. The study was in a country where cannabis IS illegal. It was not a study done in a country where it has been criminalised. Loser.

    That stupidity of your comment is even funnier to those that know that those who conducted the study *accept the fact of illegality as a major factor (if not the factor) in the link to harder drugs*.

    And this really shows your level: “and besides, if people are exposed to harder drugs because they deal with drug dealers, and their use of Marijauna the sole reason for their meeting the drug dealers, therefore isn’t marijauna use responsible for them being exposed to harder drugs?”

    Yes it is, in the same way that if milk was illegal then milk use would be responsible for those wanting milk being exposed to those who market harder drugs. The cannabis is arbitrary in that connection, it is the illegality that is the ‘gateway’. Even Professor Fergusson (whom you seem to admire) accepts this as fact. You are a dipshit, and you are out of your depth.

    KIA: No part of that study is evidence of cannabis per se being a ‘gateway’ to other harder drugs. You can misuse the study all you like, but even Fergusson accepts that the illegality of cannabis is quite likely to be part of any ‘gateway’, he also accepts that if that is the case, then there is a strong argument for decriminalisation. The question is, do you agree with him? And if not, why not?

    ‘Gateway’ is nonsense without the link.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    that should read ” … It was not a study done in a country where it has been de-criminalised.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. CraigM () says:

    wow: dipshit, dick, loser, idjit….

    The drugs-fucked-my brains crew really have their collective knickers in a knot .

    Speaking as someone who has had very little exposure to drugs or drug afflicted people, you guys really sound like you’ve got it all together.

    To be fair, I have tried to think how I would be reacting if someone was trying to suggest that my beloved beer should be illegal. I would not be a happy camper.

    Still, I think I’ll side with the drugs-are-bad crowd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. kiwi in america () says:

    Since James Cairney continues to see what he wants to see in the Fergusson study and not see what is plain as the nose on his face I invite readers of the blog to read for themselves at Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Cannabis use and other illicit drug use: Testing the cannabis gateway hypothesis. Addiction, 2006; 101: 556-569. http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/publications/2006/cannabis_gateway.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    I have not challenged the findings, I have simply challenge what KIA claims they mean. Not only this, but my challenge is considered a real possibility by the study (see page 25).

    Cannabis use is contextual, and nothing in that study (that KIA trumpets so proudly), directly links cannibis use per se to harder drugs.

    The study is of no benefit to those seeking to support prohibition, as it does not in any way conclude that cannabis by itself leads to harder drugs. The study even suggests that the illegality of cannabis may itself be the ‘gateway’, which has been my point from the very start of this thread. The authors of the study themselves accept that if that was proved to be the case then the study would in fact support moves to decriminalise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    “Our research shows the regular use of cannabis increases the risks that young people will try other illicit drugs. What ‘s not clear are the underlying processes that lead to this association. Understanding these processes is critical to how we view cannabis.”

    “If the association arises because using cannabis increases contact with illegal drug markets, this is a ground for the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis.”

    Professor David Fergusson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    I’ll repeat that: “What ’s not clear are the underlying processes that lead to this association”

    So KIA, care to explain that link, the link that the study knows better than to try to make?

    Please, let us know how that study an argument for prohibition? Or are you not really saying that it is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. CraigM () says:

    “Please, let us know how that study an argument for prohibition? Or are you not really saying that it is?”

    whew, it has been tough for a mental midget like myself to follow this one, but I have found it interesting.

    James, not sure where you got the idea that KIA has been advocating prohibition. You seem to have changed HIS arguement. He has been saying that there is a “gateway’ effect and from the link, that seems a reasonable conclusion.

    His work in the area places him in the “keep it illegal camp”, but his posts have been about those on Marijauna taking up harder drugs. Whilst no firm pathway (how or why) has been determined by the study, the fact is that the study showed that there is a distinct link.

    It seesm the ‘what’ has been determined and that more work needs to be done to establish if there is a “why’ and a “how’.

    Certainly doesn’t seem like a study that you should just dismiss outright.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    Fair point Craig. However I never dismissed the study at all. I in fact use the study to make the very point I raised at the start of the thread. What I do dismiss is ‘gateway’ and what people assert that it means. ‘Gateway’ is nonsense, or, to give ‘gateway’ some meaning you can conclude that almost alcohol etc is a ‘gateway’ etc etc. It means nothing.

    It is ridiculous to state that “people who choose to use an illegal drug are more likely to choose to use an illegal drug in the future” and claim that that supports prohibition. The study never did that.

    It is sophistry to claim that KIA entered this thread supporting prohibition and citing this study yet at the same time did not intend to imply that this study supports prohibition. That is exactly why he rasied it, yet the study does not go that far, in fact it even indicates the findings may support decriminalisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. kiwi in america () says:

    Well said Craig. We’re talking in circles. This thread is not about prohibition. The current legal framework of drug laws in NZ is ineffective and so I am not a supporter of the status quo. I however maintain that cannabis is not a benign safe drug that its many supporters claim it to be and the linkages to harder drug use, pychosis and schizophrenia (long denied by its apologists) have been proven by reputable studies of which Fergusson’s study is a good example. Nowhere in this thread have I said that the study is justification for maintaining the current drug management methods that are so clearly deficient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kiwi in america () says:

    Bedtime for me here guys – nice to chat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. phil u () says:

    kiwi in america..

    now listen carefully..

    and i will show you why your psychosis/schitzophrenia allegations are..

    horseshit..

    if cannabis use induced schitzophrenia..

    we could assume that the widespread use of cannabis.

    (50% of kiwis having tried it..)

    .over the previous decades..

    ipso facto..would have seen an increase in the numbers presenting with schitzophrenia..?

    you’d think..?

    so..what would you say to the fact that the percentage of those in society suffering from schitzophrenia..

    has not changed over those decades..?

    (food for thought..!..eh..?..)

    given that 50% using figure..

    if your premise held..

    we would have seen movement in those numbers of those suffering..eh..?

    so..what does no increase in that percentage figure tell you..?

    (take your time..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Steve () says:

    Well that worked. Look at all the drug supporters come out in force lol!
    “The brain is a muscle, use it or lose it” was the statement. Now they defend their catalyst …… would have been more intelligent without it ……
    I think some have lost it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. james cairney (165 comments) says:

    “cannabis is not a benign safe drug that its many supporters claim it to be and the linkages to harder drug use, … have been proven by reputable studies of which Fergusson’s study is a good example.”

    Nonsense. ‘Linking’ the use of two substances does not prove that one causes the other. It is that simple. Not to mention the safeness of something has little relevance to whether it should be legal.

    Craig, I am no fan of cannabis. Like you, I prefer a beer. My problem is that we waste tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on ineffective and pointless drug law. For no social benefit whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kiwi in america () says:

    philu
    Your claim that there has been no increase in the rates of schizophrenia needs to be backed by some kind of evidence. I note that it is a frequent theme at the NORML website which I’m sure is a favourite of yours.

    Finding out admission rates for schizophrenia in NZ is not easy but the three reports shed some light:

    1. http://www.lakesdhb.govt.nz/document.aspx?doc=thehealthstatusofchildrenandyoungpeopleinlakes(2005)section4.doc&ID=4316
    “During 2000-2004 the most common reason for hospital admission with a mental health issue for NZ young people (15-24 years) was schizophrenia, followed by depression and bipolar affective disorder. Composite categories including schizotypal & delusional disorders and drug and alcohol related conditions also made a significant contribution (Table 54). While admission rates tended to increase with age for the majority of mental health issues, this trend was most marked with those admitted with schizophrenia (Figure 74). In Lakes during 2000-2004, the most common reason for an inpatient admission with a mental health issue was schizophrenia, followed by schizotypal and delusional disorders and mental health issues arising from drug and alcohol use.”

    2. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/B1D33416340376CECC2572B9008129F9
    “As in the 1999 review, schizophrenia was the most common diagnosis among inpatients (157, or 71%) and community forensic service users (121, or 73%) in 2005. Each primary diagnosis for forensic inpatients occurred in roughly the same proportions in 1999 and 2005. However, there was an increase in the proportion of community-based forensic users with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia from 48% to 73%.”

    3. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1226/1752/content.pdf
    “Schizophrenia most common reason for acute mental health admissions (38%) into 3 acute psychiatric units in Auckland in 2000 with Maori rates double European rates”

    These reports tell us that schizophrenia is the number one cause for acute mental health admissions in NZ and No2 report points to a substantial increase in admissions for the prison population at least over the last 6 years due to schizophrenia.

    NZ has one of the highest rates of cannabis use by all age cohorts but particularly the 15 – 24 year age cohort in the world (see the 2007 UN World Drug Report – Consumption table 3.5.1.3). I have not seen comparitive data on schizophrenia rates but if I do I’ll email them to you via your blog.

    I’m curious though phil as you allude to a long history of hard drug use that I assume has ended but that you are a regular cannabis user as many on this blog (including me I must confess) seem to like to mildly mock you for. Has there been a period (like a reasonable period 6 – 12 months) in your adult life when you weren’t using any cannabanoid products? I ask because everyone I know (or have dealt with) who used cannabis even only recreationally enjoys life much more off the stuff. If you haven’t tried life without it, maybe you should as an experiment – I think you’d be pleasantly surprised!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. phil u () says:

    you ask if i have ever ‘tried life without’ pot..

    yes..

    what i refer to as ‘the germanic years’..(private joke..!..some will know/get it..)

    (food/drink dosen’t taste as good..sex/orgasms aren’t as good..

    music appreciation isn’t as ‘enhanced’..

    l could go on and on..

    and i am much much grumpier..off the pot..whoar..!.)

    y’know..one thing i have taken from this thread is the eyewatering hypocrisy of many of the cannabis-‘haters’ here..

    after expending much words/energy railing against what is in the main..a beneficial herb..and one of the ‘wonder-plants’ of this world..

    they then turn around and admit they would get really upset if someone tried to take their ‘precious beer’ away..

    i wonder if they saw that news item the other day about how having only one beer per day increases your chances of colon-cancer by a whopping 25%..(!)

    and consuming more than one beer a day..(as most of you do..!..)..increases those odd expotentially..(!)

    um..!..don’t we have really high rates of alcohol consumption..?

    and..um..!..don’t we have some of the highest rates of colon cancer in the world..?

    (worth thinking about..!..eh..?..)

    (and i haven’t even gone near the attendant social/health ills/issues that come with/from beer/alcohol..

    you people..most of you wallowing in your (proven dangerous) drug of choice..

    have the feckin’ nerve to rail against users of the herb..

    the herb with none of those ‘attendant social ills’ you get with alcohol..

    you got a fucken nerve really..!..eh..?

    and on that bullshit ‘gateway-issue’..

    can i just note than cannabis was one of the ‘tools’ i used to (successfully)come off heroin/cocaine..

    just call me ‘double-gateway’/’coming and going’..eh..?

    and i would note that..based on my experiences/knowledge of these worlds..

    that (my) prescription to help those trying to come off junk..

    or p/speed..

    would be to offer them a prescription of marijuana..

    cos’..it works/helps..

    eh..?

    whereas now..if lucky(?)..all (junk) addicts here can hope for is to be locked into the (much more severe) addictions from methadone..

    (a drug..in all manifestations..that i loathe..i saw some the brightest people i’ve known sink into that brain-killing coma you get from methadone..

    and did you know that you won’t die from heroin withdrawals..?

    but if forced to go cold-turkey from a ‘decent-sized ‘done’ habit..

    the withdrawals will kill you..

    (and this is their feckin’ ‘cure’..?..)

    bah..!..they are fools..!

    as are those here who rail against cannabis..

    united in their ignorances..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. CraigM () says:

    After reading that little diatribe, I found it ironic that the security code that came up was just too good to ignore, so I post purely so that I can tell you that the security code for this post was ;

    CAKA

    “the herb with none of those ‘attendant social ills’ you get with alcohol..”

    again….CAKA

    You are only phooling yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. phil u () says:

    and as a p.s just on that cannabis/beer/sex issue..

    before having sex..cannabis users take a mood-enhancer..one that heightens sensations..

    you piss-heads take a drug that numbs/deadens sensations..

    go figure..!..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. kiwi in america () says:

    CraigM
    It’s hard to reason with an addict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. phil u () says:

    so..you are trying to reach out to/reassure each other/seeking reassurance..

    and going into ad hominem mode..

    that’d be game..set..and match..?

    phil(whoar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. roger nome () says:

    KIA, CraigM etc

    I think that it’s overly simplistic to say that pot is bad for everyone. I know many people who function fine on it, holding down demanding jobs or achieving excellent grades at university. Certainly these people are better smoking pot every day than they would be getting drunk every say. Which of course brings us back to personal choice. If people should be free to choose whether or not they destroy their lives with alcohol why should be people not be free to smoke some pot if they want, regardless of what you think the consequences are? Or do you think that we should go back to the good old prohibition days?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kiwi in america () says:

    roger nome
    The main difference between the two drugs is chemical-alcohol is water soluble so even a nasty drunken bender (which I am not condoning) all the alcohol is gone in 36-48 hours. Cannabis is fat soluble so one joint and the active ingredient (THC) can take up to a week to be gone. Now that is not so much of an issue for the occasional adult recreational user from a health point of view as you point out. The problem is adolescent users whose internal organs cannot excrete the active ingredient (the mind altering stuff) very well and one joint in a teenager can show up positive in a urine screen 3 weeks later. This has real implications for what is called layered toxicity. If a teenager uses more than once a month then each time they use, they leave slightly more residual THC as they never fully detox. The toxitity ramps up gradually over time and then reaches a point where there starts to be behavioural problems and ultimately the types of serious mental health issues identified in the Fergusson (and other) studies. This layering effect does not happen with alcohol. This does not stop alcohol being potentially a very dangerous drug (witness drink driving carnage and domestic violence). Whilst teenage alcohol consumption is to be discouraged, you can in fact teach teenagers (and adults for that matter) to drink responsibly and with few negative effects. Unfortunately a highly visible minority abuse alcohol terribly with all kinds of negative effects.

    I believe that easy access to cannabis for young people has far more serious health implications due to their delayed excretion problem. Policing an U18 ban on alcohol is nigh impossible – it would be just as impossible with cannabis. Prohibition, particularly as it is administered in NZ, is a blunt and ineffectual tool. It does place some minimal check on consumption but not much as 15 – 24 yr old use of cannabis is NZ is pretty much the highest in the western world. There are far more modern and effective ways to manage drug consumption particularly by teens that are better than a “I give up-they’re all doing it” liberalisation or the current prohibition. There are successful models overseas that have led to substantial and lasting reductions in adult and adolescent drug consumption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. phil u () says:

    you just pull these straight out of your arse..

    eh kia..?

    you just ignore all the other evidence..

    and just stay locked in your (incorrect) interpretation of the study you (repeatedly) quote..

    and no comment on the (health threat) of one beer a day increasing yr chances of colon cancer by 25%..?

    (inconvenient..is it..?..)

    you are an easily showable ‘fool’..

    kia..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.