Cancer and the drug companies

[bogan]

Well I don't see anything suggesting that usage has increased.

Neither do I. But then I'm not the one looking, since I've shown some evidence as to drug usage rates to support my conclusion, have you?

[sugilite:Me]

Colorado and Washington State have, around 20%.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...federal-survey

These facts seem to have more solid references....
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Neth....s3uvjzjv.dpbs

[Katman]

These facts seem to have more solid references....
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Neth....s3uvjzjv.dpbs

Solid references?

It appears Bogan is no longer interested.

[husaberg]

Might have something to do with the whole reason of the thread (you know the title kind of says it and all) being hi-jacked to push some different agenda altogether who knows
But shit that would be transparent...................

[bogan]

Solid references?

It appears Bogan is no longer interested.

Au ciontraire, he did not supply for what those solid references were in aid of. They do not appear to encompass a period of legislation change as we were discussing. The debating style of 'here, go read this thing that I will not describe with any specificity what is in it or how it relates to the topic at hand...' is quite pathetic.

How are your efforts to find some evidence to support your conclusion that "Cannabis law reform will not change user habits in the slightest." "For anyone to suggest that suddenly more people will try it simply because it's legal is, once again, laughable." going?

Because any reasonable person can see the evidence we put up from US shows that is very much a possibility, even your own links from Portugal show it changes user habits for the better.

[sugilite:Me]

Au ciontraire, he did not supply for what those solid references were in aid of. They do not appear to encompass a period of legislation change as we were discussing. The debating style of 'here, go read this thing that I will not describe with any specificity what is in it or how it relates to the topic at hand...' is quite pathetic.

OK, fair enough. As it turns out finding any reports stating evidence one way or another as to whether cannabis use goes up or down after decriminalization is very challenging to find. (I failed)
I did find the following charts and further details for those that want to go to the page linked below - (purely optional - lest I be deemed being pathetic for sending people to webpages to do some reading).

Prevalence of Drug Use In The Previous Month Among Secondary Students (12-18 Years Old) In The Netherlands - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/The+...nds#Prevalence





What these charts tell lay person me, is that drug use goes up and down by quite dramatic amounts independent of current/changing drug laws. So it is my opinion the Colorado reports too will be next to useless.

So I will delve into my anecdotal experience as a once teenager and father of 4, tell a teenager not to do something, and guess what, it is like putting tomato sauce on hot chips, makes them a whole lot more attractive. So they will go out of their way to do it. And for the goody two shoes that do not will probably have a crack at smoking weed if it is legalized/decriminalized. So for a time numbers will spike with "tryer outers", and then over time may subside with those that simply do not find the effect to their liking. - But all the while the overall numbers will go up and down any way due to other multiple unknown factors that simply cannot ever be quantified.

[Katman]

And furthermore, I come back to the idea (see, I didn't use the word 'fact') that people are quite likely to be more honest about illicit drug use once the drug is actually not illicit anymore.

How one could provide evidence for that speculation is anyone's guess.

[husaberg]

[bogan]

OK, fair enough. As it turns out finding any reports stating evidence one way or another as to whether cannabis use goes up or down after decriminalization is very challenging to find. (I failed)
I did find the following charts and further details for those that want to go to the page linked below - (purely optional - lest I be deemed being pathetic for sending people to webpages to do some reading).

Prevalence of Drug Use In The Previous Month Among Secondary Students (12-18 Years Old) In The Netherlands - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/The+...nds#Prevalence





What these charts tell lay person me, is that drug use goes up and down by quite dramatic amounts independent of current/changing drug laws. So it is my opinion the Colorado reports too will be next to useless.

So I will delve into my anecdotal experience as a once teenager and father of 4, tell a teenager not to do something, and guess what, it is like putting tomato sauce on hot chips, makes them a whole lot more attractive. So they will go out of their way to do it. And for the goody two shoes that do not will probably have a crack at smoking weed if it is legalized/decriminalized. So for a time numbers will spike with "tryer outers", and then over time may subside with those that simply do not find the effect to their liking. - But all the while the overall numbers will go up and down any way due to other multiple unknown factors that simply cannot ever be quantified.

Now that is a much more compelling point. To follow it up the obvious choice is to remove other demographic factors as much as is possible, ie, if it went up by 20% in two US states after legalisation, did the same trend happen elsewhere in the US as well? http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...ionwide-trends



Which follows the statement in the data me and RDJ put up, "Nationally, monthly marijuana use by people 12 and older nudged upward by about 4 percent to 7.4 percent." Such a control group lends great weight to removing confounding environmental factors.

And furthermore, I come back to the idea (see, I didn't use the word 'fact') that people are quite likely to be more honest about illicit drug use once the drug is actually not illicit anymore.

How one could provide evidence for that speculation is anyone's guess.

Anonymising survey data is very common practice when dealing with illicit/personal details, I'd be a little surprised if there hadn't been some double blinds etc done to establish its efficacy.

Evidence is.

...probably available if you look hard enough.

[Katman]

Evidence is.

...probably available if you look hard enough.

Except that I actually don't give a fuck.

If a few more people try cannabis when it becomes legal, who cares?

It might actually result in some people reducing their alcohol intake.

[bogan]

Except that I actually don't give a fuck.

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise

[Katman]

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise

Meh, I just like swearing at people.

Especially fuckwits.

[husaberg]

Your panoply of replies and abuse at others on this topic suggests otherwise

I might also be minimising his paranoia though..................
Its all to do with curing cancer though.

[RDJ]

There is a fair amount of sound, scientific, research-based evidence that cannabis can mitigate the side effects of some cancers, and especially the side-effects of the treatments for many cancers. it is a shame that cannabis is not able to be prescribed for people suffering from the effects of these treatments.

There is zero, zip, nada scientific evidence that cannabis reduces tumour growth or tumour incidence, nor is there any evidence to suggest that cannabis use in combination with chemotherapy increases tumour sensitivity to chemotherapy (or for that matter radiotherapy).

The short version: as far as we know, cannabis don't cure cancer.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that regular cannabis use has effects on drivers with the level of impairment at least similar to drinking and driving. The use of cannabis followed by driving doubles the incidence of involvement in a fatal accident.

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

[husaberg]

There is a fair amount of sound, scientific, research-based evidence that cannabis can mitigate the side effects of some cancers, and especially the side-effects of the treatments for many cancers. it is a shame that cannabis is not able to be prescribed for people suffering from the effects of these treatments.

There is zero, zip, nada scientific evidence that cannabis reduces tumour growth or tumour incidence, nor is there any evidence to suggest that cannabis use in combination with chemotherapy increases tumour sensitivity to chemotherapy (or for that matter radiotherapy).

The short version: as far as we know, cannabis don't cure cancer.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that regular cannabis use has effects on drivers with the level of impairment at least similar to drinking and driving. The use of cannabis followed by driving doubles the incidence of involvement in a fatal accident.

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

I was just trying to highlight what the actual thread was about as it seems to have been lost in a smokescreen