Long-Term Cannabis Smoking Doesn't Impact Cognition, "Study"

Long-term use of cannabis does not lead to a decline in mental function, according to the results of a large-scale John Hopkins University study.

"There is no convincing evidence that [even] heavy long-term cannabis use impairs memory or other cognitive functions," said Dr. John P. Morgan of City University of New York (CUNY) Medical School. "During the past 30 years, researchers have found, at most, minor cognitive differences between chronic cannabis users and nonusers, and the results differ substantially from one study to another."

The  John Hopkins study examined cannabis's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers gave subjects specialized tests, called Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSE), in 1981 and 1982. Subjects took follow-up MMSE tests 12 to 15 years later and scientists measured rates of cognitive decline among cannabis smokers and nonsmokers.

Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis.

"These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

The study is the first to investigate the long term effects of cannabis on cognition in a large epidemiological sample.

Researchers did conclude that cognition declines over long time periods in all age groups, but found this decline "closely associated with aging and educational level, [and] ... not ... associated with cannabis use."

The study appears in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

For more information, please contact John P. Morgan of CUNY Medical School @ (212) 650-8255 or Allen St. Pierre @ (202) 483-8751. To read an abstract of this study online, please visit: www.jhsph.edu/Publications/JEPI/may199/may1con.htm

His Final Address the President of the Royal College of Physicians, U.K.

Consider Drug Regulation In his final Bulletin, the outgoing President of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor Sir Ian Gilmore wrote:  "I feel like finishing my presidency on a controversial note. I personally back the chairman of the UK Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, when he calls for drug laws to be reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use. This could drastically reduce crime and improve health. Drugs should still be regulated, and the argument for decriminalising them is clearly made by Stephen Rolles in the latest edition of the British Medical Journal ."
His comments come in the wake of a flurry of calls for reform from health professionals, in the lead up to the publication of the Vienna Declaration, an international manifesto for reform, which calls for drugs to be decriminalised in order to promote individual and public health. 
Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs at Transform Drug Policy Foundation said:

"Sir Ian's statement is yet another nail in the coffin of the war on drugs. The Hippocratic Oath says 'First do no harm'. Physicians are duty bound to speak out if the outcomes show that prohibition causes more harm than it reduces. Sir Ian is justly fulfilling his role by calling for consideration of the evidence for legal control and regulation."

Kushlick concluded:

"With a Prime Minster and Deputy Prime Minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the Government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."

Why are more doctors not standing up ?

I am asked time and time again if this works why are more doctors not standing up and stating it? The answer is more than clear, but for you to understand I need to tell you some medical history. Consider the case of Dr. Ignas Semmelweis: In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis, a respected Hungarian physician who was concerned about the high mortality rate of women giving birth in hospital, instituted a procedure at one hospital whereby doctors washed and disinfected their hands before delivering babies. Immediately, the mortality rate dropped from THIRTY percent to near zero. Seven other hospitals followed suit with similar results.

The European medical establishment recognized Dr. Semmelweis's achievement by blocking his applications for further research funds, vilifying and ostracising him, and, ultimately, causing him to lose his prestigious positions at maternity hospitals. In America, the newly formed American Medical Association added insult to injury by threatening to revoke the license of any doctor caught washing his hands. Dr. Semmelweis was so distressed that women continued to die that he suffered a mental breakdown that eventually led to his death in 1865. Don't expect a doctor working inside the system to buck the system. The risks are still too great! 

The tale of an Englishwoman with Multiple Sclerosis

She has Multiple Sclerosis. and this is her story. There are around 50,000 of them using herbal cannabis in Britain. It's a far safer and more effective alternative to Big Pharma medicine such as Marinol and even Sativex.He dues not know what happened last night.  Yesterday morning, I mentioned to Trevor that I had to watch Our Drugs War on Channel 4. Three hours before the show I reminded myself again but by 7pm this information had slipped through a Myelin Crack in my brain. 

The memory is there but it's frequently hard to access. My department of "Information Retrieval" no longer functions as it did. You have no choice but to develop a bizarre sense of humour and it must be like parenthood in that respect. I feel like I'm carrying a heavy weight on my left side together with the usual raw aching. My health has to remain my first priority and I do sometimes think I guard it with an almost maternal instinct. Without your health, you have nothing. You'd just die if anything bad happened to it. 

Oh, I've thought of a BIG difference actually, you had 9 months warning. Maybe some midwife support? When you're ill, your often up sh*t creek without any backup suddenly and quite brutally. It truly does suck!

My train of thought may veer off from time to time, if it hasn't already. I've been experimenting with cannabinoid ratios with spectacular results. I'll get into this subject shortly as, for some reason, I feel the need to discus Our Drugs War first. I always go with my gut when I'm high. I'm having a damn fine creative high right now that I'm thoroughly enjoying. 

How long will we be watching programs like Our Drugs War before we do something about it? World leaders fully understand that prohibition is causing the harm and still many seem to do nothing about it. Look on the bright side and be glad Britain sees fit not to hang us. I feel Humans are not as advanced as we like to think we are.

How long were people in Britain campaigning to end slavery? Win votes for women? Gay rights? These things took a very long time in comparison so I don't think 40 odd years is much of a raw deal to get in history. Despite the horrific death toll and incarcerations, politicians are probably sitting up and paying attention at about the time they were going to. Things happen when they are good and ready. It's like watching a plane crash in slow motion. There isn't much the average person can do and it's very frustrating!

Like the information falling through my Myelin Crack, politicians have an amazing ability to conveniently forget a surprising amount of stuff. As a result, political change happens at a painfully slow pace. It must make the job easier or something. Sometimes it's like waiting for the next Ice Age. Onwards humans! You hedonistic, perfect examples of your species, who think too much of hanging onto the status quo comfort zone to move ahead. We are supposed to be getting more intelligent though so there's hope. Hang onto that.

I felt amazing when I woke this morning as I've been ingesting a nightly dose of vaporised cannabis with stunning results. I was impressed with my strength and balance but the winner effects were spasticity and pain being turned down almost to zero. Seeing as I'm my own science experiment, I took the dogs out for a walk in the corn fields. I wanted to see if I could keep the pain away by giving myself small doses of vaporised cannabis. Taking too much at once can often leave you wanting to sleep. I've done enough of that. I'll be referring to vaporised cannabis as v.c. from now on. Such a drag to type.

Every 10 minutes or so the pain began to peak so I took a pinch or two of v.c. and this left me high yet able to move freely and without pain. Ideally, a person would need a pocket full of capsules containing this stuff. Perhaps a project for the future? We'll see but first I need to get rid of the 'walk tall like John Wayne' stance I seem to be adopting. Many muscles have not stretched out for a while and are clearly enjoying it.

I've been quite high for a while now. The low THC mix of cannabinoids is the cause and I'm not sure but it may be making me a bit paranoid. I'm aware this can be the effect of cannabis and/or Multiple Sclerosis and have a range of simple techniques to overcome it. The favourite is "pull yourself together Sarah" and that usually does the trick or eating chocolate. Nothing even bordering on rocket science here.  by  Sarah Martin a very brave lady 

51% of Registered Voters Support Marijuana Legalization

As California voters prepare to decide in November whether to become the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use, a new Field Poll conducted for The Sacramento Bee reveals that weed already is deeply woven into society.  Those who use the drug, and their reasons for doing it, may be as diverse as the state itself. 42% of adults who described themselves as current users in the July poll said they smoke pot to relieve pain or treat a health condition. Thirty-nine percent use it recreationally, to socialize or have fun with friends. 60% say marijuana helps them relax or sleep.  24% say it stimulates their creativity.  According to there Poll of registered California voters regarding their use, experience and opinions on marijuana, a small majority of voters supports legalization. The poll is interesting because it gave voters a menu of options from which to choose their preferred marijuana policy.

Keep present laws, but make penalties less severe                                       13%
Legalize marijuana so it can be purchased and used by anyone                       4%
Legalize marijuana with age and other controls like those for alcohol             47%   
Pass new laws with even tougher penalties                                                   14%
Strictly enforce present laws and penalties                                                   19%



Maintaining the current marijuana policy is in fact an extreme minority position in the state. Only a third of voters supports strictly enforcing the current laws against marijuana or passing even tougher laws.  Combining the small group of voters who think marijuana should be legal for everyone with those who support legalizing and regulating it like alcohol results in a total of 51% of voters supporting legalization. Combining that 51% with the 13% of voters who believe the penalties for marijuana should be reduced without legalization results in a huge majority of the state either supporting significantly relaxing California’s current marijuana laws or legalization.  Interestingly, the percentage of voters who support legalizing marijuana, 51%, is almost identical to but slightly larger than the 47% of voters who have admitted to using marijuana at least once  in their life.

Marijuana, Medical Marijuana and the U.S.A.

In November 2010, Californians will vote on a ballot measure that would legalize it outright, and tax and regulate marijuana use.

Currently 14 states allow the use of marijuana for pain relief, nausea and loss of appetite by people with AIDS, cancer and other debilitating diseases. Those laws, however, are at odds with federal with federal law. The federal government continues to oppose any decriminalization of the drug. And while the Obama administration has signaled some leeway when it comes to medical marijuana, raids on dispensaries and growers by law enforcement agencies are still common — even in California, where the industry effectively began in 1996, with the passage of the landmark Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana.

Rules vary widely in the states that allow medical marijuana. Some states require sellers to prove nonprofit status — often as a collective or cooperative — and all states require that patients have a recommendation from a physician. But even those in favor of medical marijuana believe that the system is ripe for abuse or even unintentional lawbreaking.

California is considering outright legalization of the drug. Residents are expected to vote on Proposition 19, a ballot measure that would tax and regulate marijuana. Advocates say that if legalized the state could raise $1.4 billion in taxes and save precious law enforcement and prison resources

The new ballot measure would allow anyone over 21 to buy, possess, use or cultivate marijuana. It would bar personal possession of more than one ounce as well as smoking the drug in public or around minors.

Some civil rights activists favor the legalization of the drug on the grounds that marijuana arrests are wildly disproportionate in their racial impact and adversely affect minorities.

But the measure is expected to be strongly opposed by law enforcement, which says it would actually end up costing the state in increased public health and safety expenses.  As more and more states allow medical use of the drug, and California considers outright legalization, marijuana's supporters are pushing hard to burnish the image of marijuana by franchising dispensaries and building brands; establishing consulting, lobbying and law firms; setting up trade shows and a seminar circuit; and constructing a range of other marijuana-related businesses.

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review. The University of Mississippi has the nation's only federally approved marijuana plantation. If researches wish to investigate marijuana, they must apply to the National Institute on Drug Abuse to use the Mississippi marijuana and must get approvals from a special Public Health Service panel, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration.

Can Cannabis help with Prostate Cancer ?

Chemicals found in cannabis leaves can be used to stop prostate cancer cells. The researchers hope that cannabis leaves can be used as a remedy for the treatment of prostate cancer. After focusing on the network on human cancer cells,Ines Diaz-Laviada and colleagues from the University of Alcala in Madrid, also investigated the effects of the chemicals on canabis leaves on mice and the fact that the substance is capable to reduce the cancer growth significantly. The study is pu
blished in the British Journal of Cancer. Now in the world of research, there have been many studies that examine the medical uses of cannabinoids, the chemical substance found in cannabis. This experts focused on the research done over the years devoted to seeking the best care in dealing with cancer in humans.

“This is an interesting study that opens the way to develop a potential drug. But this is only new in the early stages, “said Lesley Walker, Director of Cancer Information, Cancer Research UK, England.   She also explained that this does not mean that the men who use cannabis can automatically avoid prostate cancer. The cannabinoids substances are investigated by the Spanish team which is requested to conduct the research in the fight against prostate cancer. This substance can block the receptors, the entrance of molecules, which is on the tumor cell surface. It is able to stop tumor cells to break away and growing.

“These chemicals can stop the division and the development of prostate cancer cells.”

Is Cannabis good for you ?

It turns out that the study of marijuana's health effects is at once more complex and less advanced than you might imagine. "Interpretations [of marijuana research] may tell more about [one's] own biases than the data," writes Mitch Earleywine in Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence, published in August by Oxford. For example: "Prohibitionists might mention that THC [delta-9 tetra-hydrocannabinol, the smile-producing chemical in pot] often appears in the blood of people in auto accidents. Yet they might omit the fact that most of these people also drank alcohol. Antiprohibitionists might cite a large study that showed no sign of memory problems in chronic marijuana smokers. Yet they might not mention that the tests were so easy that even a demented person could perform them."

The science

The science of marijuana--especially its potential medical uses--is malleable because it's so young and so contradictory. Although preliminary data are promising, scientists haven't definitively shown that the drug can safely treat nausea or pain or anything, really. Some experts claim the U.S. government has sabotaged medical-marijuana research, and there is evidence to support them. Even so, in the past few years scientists have made rapid advances in their basic understanding of how Cannabis sativa works. By 1993, researchers had found the body's two known receptors for cannabinoids, the psychoactive chemicals in the plant (THC is the main one, but there are at least 65 others). Since then, there has been important new work in several fields that users, potential users and former users should know about--and that voters should take into account before deciding on Proposition 19 

Can it kill you?

No one has ever died of THC poisoning, mostly because a 160-lb. person would have to smoke roughly 9000 joints in ten minuets to reach a lethal dose. 

Medical Marijuana Laws Create Dilemma for U.S. COMPANYS

Frederick Smith was quoted in the February 14, 2010 Business Insurance article, "Medical Marijuana Laws Create Dilemma for Firms." The article reported on the legalization of the use of medical marijuana in more states and its impact on employers facing the challenge of maintaining a safe workplace. According to the article, for the most part, courts have ruled that firms do not have to accommodate medical marijuana users, however, employers in some jurisdictions are still awaiting guidance on the issue. The article noted that fourteen U.S. states now have laws that permit physicians to prescribe marijuana for cancer, chronic pain and a host of other medical conditions, while legislation to permit medical marijuana has been introduced in another 12 states. Despite the state action, however, marijuana remains an illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which some say creates tension between state and federal laws. Fritz told Business Insurance that “The issue isn't as gray and as complicated as people think it is, and I think it's pretty clear, notwithstanding the laws that have been enacted in 14 states, that an employer has no obligation to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana.”

Cannabis Cures Cancer ! Part two The CONSPIRACY

Gliomas -- a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually -- tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.    But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact ?  And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public ? Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain. In Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas. You might not be familiar with this scientific research? BUT Your government IS . The first experiments in the USA ,  documenting cannabis s potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent." That possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S. government officials chosen to advance -- rather than suppress -- clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis?  I would speculate that its all to do with money and there love of it .

Proposition 19

In November, California’s voters will consider Proposition 19, which would legalise possession of up to an ounce of the drug for personal use. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, a veteran proponent of legalisation, has estimated it would generate up to $7billion a year in revenue, while saving $13billion in law enforcement and prison costs.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that “it’s time for a debate” last year, and with the freedom of a film star whose time in office is almost up, told journalists he has frequently enjoyed smoking marijuana. According to a recent poll, Californians who disapprove of the proposal outnumber supporters by 48% to 44%. Its backers say that in the anonymity of the ballot box, people are more likely to vote yes.

In northern California, where much of the state’s marijuana is grown, drug enforcement agency busts and robberies are a threat to growers. Mexican cartels plant huge cannabis crops in remote forests protected by armed guards. It is a risky, violent business.

All that could change if the tide of legalisation continues to sweep across the US. A recent study estimated that a $50 an ounce tax would generate around $1bn a year for California, that the price of marijuana would drop by up to 80% and that consumption would rise as a result. That is a prospect anti-drug campaigners say is too scary to contemplate.