UKC

Two of my favourite people, Jon Snow and David Nutt, making great telly on weed this evening. The evidence is pretty clear: skunk is may more harmful than weaker cannabis e.g. hash in terms of increasing the risk of psychosis. And of course skunk itself is a product of bad policy (pointless prohibition) and we should give up criminalising ordinary people who smoke spliffs as it pours a lot of money down the drain and ruins peoples lives.

All obvious stuff. The amazing part will be how it can be broadcast on national television and then completely ignored. Incredible.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Social and criminal justice policy based on empirical objective measures and best evidence? I'll have whatever you're smoking and a copy of the Daily Mail please John.


The Dutch have been toking skunk and the super strains of the like for 30 plus years - not sure where you get the idea that it was produced by bad drug policy. Never a fan of it myself, not sure I ever wanted something so strong you couldn't remember what species you were never mind your own name - I'd never put that in the category of recreational drug - but each to his own I guess.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


The Dutch don't regulate though, they just decriminalised right? In a regulated market, you wouldn't sell a super-strength product that had no additional benefits and was proven to massively increase the risk of psychosis.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So like booze, in the regulated market one will buy weak, branded, over-packaged drugs from the supermarket; expensive, imported over-strength weed from independent off-licenses; and dirty, smelly skunk from corner shops.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Yes, if you leave it to the market that's precisely what you'll get. If it was regulated effectively you'd get products that achieved the best balance of desirable effects (fun) and minimal harm, drawing in the optimal level of tax revenue.

And of course it's not really analogous to booze. Ethanol is ethanol, it's only one drug. You can only alter the concentration (and the taste). The point about the skunk vs. hash experiments on the programme was to show that the two drugs should be treated separately in terms of harm analysis.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Ok then skunk is moonshine as available on prison landings.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I guess what's comparable in the case of alcohol is that because you can buy relatively safe alcoholic drinks fairly freely, there isn't much of a trade in dodgy moonshine that may or may not make you go blind.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

a super-strength product that had no additional benefits and was proven to massively increase the risk of psychosis.

firstly, herbal cannabis isn't super strong compared to a concentrated extract like hashish... (the programs distinction between herbal cannabis and hashish is laughable) this is confirmed as factual by testing btw

Secondly, the allegedly massive increase in psychosis risk has never been proven - not even close. Unless of course you know of a peer - reviewed study that says otherwise.
Also if that was the case then why is it only the UK that seem to suffer this pot psychosis phenomenom bearing in mind its quasi-legal in most of Europe and the states and has been for a long time so plenty of supporting data should exist...
But it doesn't which should tell you something

Thirdly, having access to stronger strains means less needs to be consumed for the same effect which is obviously healthier for people who smoke it.

Sorry for the rant but I'm strongly against people being denied access to the medicine they need on the basis of hysterical nonsense over scientific fact.

In reply to WildCamper:

You didn't watch it did you?


The programme compared a specific skunk with a specific hash. The difference in the active compounds (the quantity and ratio of different cannabinoids) was quantified. So no, not laughable, but objective.


http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454_Di%20Forti.pdf



See above.


The point is that it isn't just concentration of the same compounds that differs between skunk and other cannabis (specifically, whatever hash they were using in the trials). The ratio of different cannabinoids is what differentiates the effects of increased paranoid and decreased motivation with skunk vs. hash.


I disagree completely with your analysis.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So they cherry picked test materials to prove their point? Very scientific...

That lancet study is seriously flawed or did you not read it? And it also says little about other countries incidence of cannabis induced psychosis but like I say everyone else has had plenty of time to study it so where is the data?

I feel you changed the point on the last issue. To say there is no benefit is factually untrue so I stand by my words.

In reply to WildCamper:


Cherry picking would be if they'd done a lot more studies on different cannabis varieties and then only shown the results for these two, giving a false impression of the overall data. If they just picked a representative product of each class and compared, that's not cherry-picking. You could argue that there's nothing to show that the two products were representative of their classes, in which case you'd need a reason to think that and then someone could repeat the trials with more products to see.


Classic debate. "Show me the peer-reviewed evidence". Evidence shown. "Yes but I don't like that - it's flawed". It's in the Lancet FFS. Do you really think you're a superior critic to the peer review team on that paper? You've given no justification for your utterly erroneous claim that the study is "seriously flawed". How?


Trawl through the refs of the paper if you like. If it's not there, it likely hasn't been done.


Fair enough there may be some benfits of skunk vs hash. If there is, show us some evidence. And lets not have any seriously flawed peer reviewed papers from the Lancet, eh? Something a bit more credible please...