Monday 30 November 2015

'Spice' definition, & side effects: synthetic drug made 16 San Diego locals ill

By Staff Writer


NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 16: Kieth Kruskall with the Drug Enforcement Administration, holds up a package of synthetic marijuana at a news conference with other law enforcement heads where it was announced that the Federal and New York City authorities have broken up a group that trafficked in synthetic marijuana, known as K2 on September 16, 2015 in New York City. The drug, which has become widely used among New York CityÕs homeless population, is both cheap and potentially life threatening. Thousands of people have been brought to the cityÕs hospitals over the last year due to the use of the drug. ( (Photo : Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Sixteen San Diego locals fell ill after taking the synthetic marijuana drug locally known as "spice."

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Saturday marks the second week of overdose cases in San Diego downtown area. Spice apparently sickened 16 people on Saturday, according to San Diego Fire-Rescue Department spokesman Lee Swanson.

On Sunday, eight people, the youngest being 13 years old fell ill because of the drug as well. Luckily, no one was in a life-threatening condition.

Symptoms of the hospitalized locals include fast heartbeat, breathing difficulties, unconsciousness, mild nausea and agitation, the spokesman added.

Spice has been used around in media all the time either for overdose or deaths but what is it really and is it that dangerous? Here are the answers to your questions:

What is spice?
Spice is a combination of shredded plants and chemical additives that are often touted as synthetic marijuana which according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is false advertising.

"Labels on Spice products often claim that they contain "natural" psycho-active material taken from a variety of plants," the NIDA wrote. "Spice products do contain dried plant material, but chemical analyses show that their active ingredients are synthetic (or designer)cannabinoid compounds."

It has psychoactive and mind-altering effects similar to the cannabis plant and is categorized by NIDA as cannabinoids.

What are synthetic cannabinoids?
According to Drug Facts, it is the general terms used to the growing mind-altering drug mixture of chemicals and plants.

"These chemicals are called cannabinoids because they are related to chemicals found in the marijuana plant," the website Drug Facts wrote. "Because of this similarity, synthetic cannabinoids are sometimes misleadingly called "synthetic marijuana" (or "fake weed"), and they are often marketed as "safe," legal alternatives to that drug."

These substances can either be smoked, inhaled via e-cigarettes, or vaporized and can be much more powerful than cannabis as it has unpredictable effects on its users. There are many names that refer to these drugs; the most common brand names are Spice, K2, Bliss, Solar Flare, Spice Diamond, Black Mamba and many more.

What are its side effects?
According to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the synthetic drug claims to mimic the effects of marijuana. People who do land in emergency rooms due to adverse side effects experience the following: disorientation, convulsions, increased heart rates, increased blood pressure, vomiting, anxiety attacks and convulsions.

EDITORIAL: Marijuana should be removed from Schedule I list


With February's Nevada caucuses fast approaching, the Review-Journal is publishing a 10-editorial series on policies and government reforms all candidates should be able to get behind. The fifth policy goal we'd like all presidential candidates to champion: removing marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Marijuana laws are among the most perplexing laws in the nation. While federal law bans any and all uses of the drug, many states allow the possession, production and use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Meanwhile, since the federal government argues that federal law trumps state law, the federal government can, in theory, prohibit the use of marijuana anywhere it wants to, and the states can't do anything about it.

The federal government doesn't stop marijuana sales or purchases when they don't violate state law, but the legal lines are blurred when the drug is bought and sold across legalized and non-legalized state lines. In these cases, the federal government essentially chooses not to enforce its own laws.

As you can imagine, the current contradicting treatment of marijuana trade and usage has created a frustrating, unsettled situation for marijuana users and producers, as well as members of law enforcement and lawmakers. Either the federal government goes full force and bans it outright, or it ends all bans on the drug.

Both are neither particularly realistic options, however, as politics would block the ending of marijuana prohibition, while banning the drug nationwide would do nothing but create more black markets and the violence that goes along with them.

Rather, in a nation where increasing numbers of Americans favor marijuana legalization, removing the drug from Schedule 1 makes the most sense.

Back in March, Sens. Rand Paul, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced a Senate bill that would require the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act.

The DEA currently defines Schedule I drugs as substances "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." They are "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence." These drugs include heroin, LSD, ecstasy and marijuana.

Since marijuana is now widely used for medicinal purposes, it makes more sense to classify the drug under Schedule II, which as the DEA says, is comprised of drugs that have "less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs," but "are also considered dangerous." These include drugs such as methamphetamine, Oxycontin, and Adderall.

Beyond getting the Department of Justice out of the growing legal marijuana industry, reclassifying marijuana will keep more nonviolent offenders out of jail and prison, as well as generate more tax revenue for states and local governments.

It's an important — and long overdue — start to changing the costly trajectory of the failed war on drugs.

Synthetic marijuana sickens 16 in San Diego, police say

FoxNews.com
Feb. 15, 2010: This file photo shows a package of K2 which contains herbs and spices sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.  
Feb. 15, 2010: This file photo shows a package of K2 which contains herbs and spices sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. (AP)

Authorities said a synthetic drug called spice sickened 16 people in downtown San Diego Saturday, a week after paramedics were called to treat eight others who had used the same drug.

More than 10 calls to the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department were made between 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday, fire spokesman Lee Swanson said, according to the San Diego Tribune.

Most of the patients were in their late teens to early 20s, the newspaper reported. Eleven patients had to be taken to the hospital, and three were listed in serious condition.

Symptoms ranged from mild nausea and agitation to fast heartbeat and difficulty breathing. None were considered to be life-threatening.

Marijuana firm aims to develop cannabis-based drugs for FDA approval

Written By Emily Gray Brosious

Vireo Health is working on marijuana-based drugs that can be FDA approved.

Vireo Health, a Minnesota company that also owns one of New York’s approved medical marijuana cultivation centers, is developing a “new class of cannabinoid-based drugs,” according to a report by Albany Business Review.

Vireo Health announced last week that it’s developing medicines based on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), two cannabinoid compounds found in marijuana.

Vireo Health is working with California-based Ligand Pharmaceuticals to use the company’s Captisol technology to help develop the new cannabinoid-based drugs, according to Times Union.
Per Times Union:
Captisol, is a patented agent that makes drug compounds more stable, easier to dissolve and potentially more efficient, according to Vireo CEO Kyle Kingsley.
………..
Vireo’s goal is to incorporate Captisol into cannabinoid-based medicines to create new, patent-protected, FDA-approved forms for the drugs, so they could potentially be taken by mouth, sprayed through the nose, put on the skin or nebulized.
“We now embark on our endeavors to bridge the gap between medical cannabis and traditional pharmaceuticals and become the first state-licensed company in the United States to develop proprietary FDA-approved cannabinoid-based medicines,” Kyle Kingsley, M.D. Chief Executive Officer of Vireo Health said in a news release.

Vireo Health seems confident about plans to eventually seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for these drugs.

“Our operations in state-regulated environments have helped us develop significant in-house expertise with pharmaceutical formulation technologies and we plan to leverage this knowledge in the FDA drug approval process,” Kingsley said.

FDA approval would allow the medications to qualify for prescription drug coverage, which currently is not granted to any marijuana-based medicines due to marijuana’s illegal federal status and a lack of FDA approval.

HARDIN: On Cannabis Consciousness

John Hardin We have a show on KMUD called “Cannabis Consciousness.” Kerry Reynolds hosts the show, which covers cannabis-related news, pending legislation and reports on the cannabis industry in the Emerald Triangle. That’s not what I mean by “cannabis consciousness.” Personally, I don’t like to think about any of that shit when I’m high. When I say “cannabis consciousness,” I mean, “how I think and feel when I’m high on cannabis.”

That’s why we smoke cannabis, right? We consume cannabis because it alters our consciousness in some way, and the way cannabis alters our consciousness differs from the way in which alcohol, or caffeine, or nicotine, or any other drug, for that matter, alters consciousness. In all my explorations of altered states of consciousness, I find cannabis unique in its ability to predictably produce this unique state of mind, which I call, “cannabis consciousness.”

It’s funny, I think, that for as much as people around here talk about cannabis, and people do go on and on and on about cannabis around here, I hear very little talk about “cannabis consciousness.” It surprises me that so few people around here seem interested in cannabis consciousness, even though they smoke a ton of weed. Instead, they prefer to talk about cannabis as a commodity or a product, discussing how it looks, how it smells, its genetics, how to grow more of it and especially how much money they can get for it. I tire quickly of that kind of talk, and it has nothing to do with cannabis consciousness.

Personally, I don’t like to think about money when I’m high. When I smoke cannabis, I realize the wisdom of following my natural inclinations, and the importance of distinguishing between what comes naturally, and conditioned behaviors, cultural expectations and media projections. When I’m high, the high-tech trappings of modern life lose their appeal and reveal themselves as traps.

Instead, when I get high I identify strongly with the natural world, and feel a deep connection to every living thing. That feeling of connection to the rest of creation provides tremendous comfort. It’s a comfort people desperately need, especially in our capitalist society that alienates and exploits us so thoroughly and heartlessly. Feeling like part of the natural world imparts a subtle change of aesthetics as well.

Mass-produced consumer products seem especially ugly when I’m high, and I become acutely aware of the environmental damage they cause. Cars seem impossibly destructive and insanely dangerous when I’m high. Mass media comes across as crass, manipulative and offensive when I’m high, and watching it often leads to feelings of paranoia and dread.

Listening to music, on the other hand, becomes a profoundly moving experience. Listening to music while high reminds me of the amazing sensitivity of the human ear, and leads to a sense of wonder about why music feels so much more satisfying than random incoherent noise. Listening to a good band while high on cannabis reminds us of our amazing capacity, as human beings, for collaboration and communication. It reminds us that we have a long history of working together in small, egalitarian groups with almost magical coherence.

Getting high reminds us of who we are, and what makes us human. That’s why people like getting high on cannabis so much, and why we feel so righteous about it.

That’s also why cannabis has become so popular despite prohibition, and why cannabis users, even heavy cannabis users, don’t suffer the debilitating health effects associated with other so called “recreational drugs” like alcohol or methamphetamine. Cannabis doesn’t just help sick people; cannabis is a natural part of a healthy lifestyle. Everyone needs cannabis whether they know it or not, and the people who think they don’t need cannabis probably need it the most.

Cannabis prohibition is cruel. Prohibition forces people who recognize the benefits of cannabis consciousness to violate the law, take undo risk to their health and safety, associate with undesirable people and pay ridiculous sums of money to buy it on the black market, while those who do not know the benefits of cannabis consciousness simply do without.

Doing without cannabis consciousness leads to a whole slew of maladies, like depression, obesity and drug addiction, which plague us in epidemic proportions, and at enormous cost. The culture that dominates our lives today, treats greed and exploitation as sacred, and relies on increasing levels of human suffering to maintain economic growth and political control. Living this way takes a tremendous toll on humanity.

Without cannabis consciousness, few of us would survive in this meat-grinder for long. Even with cannabis consciousness, we know it’s killing us all.

In truth, cannabis consciousness is antithetical to our culture of greed and exploitation. That’s why cannabis consciousness poses such a real threat to our educational system, our political system, and our economic system. For capitalism to endure, people must necessarily remain sick, helpless and vulnerable. Nothing threatens this system more than healthy, aware people, who feel a strong connection to each other, as well as the natural world.

Politicians, cops, banksters and drug dealers alike, fear abundant, cheap, legal cannabis. They know that their greed, not cannabis consciousness, sickens humanity. Their greed, not cannabis consciousness, impoverishes society, and their greed, not cannabis consciousness, destroys the environment. They know that the rest of us would be better off without parasites like them, but they also know that if they can wedge themselves between us and cannabis consciousness, they can use that leverage to manipulate us.

The battle over the legalization of cannabis is a war between two opposing world views. We have cannabis consciousness promoting health, freedom, creativity and a strong connection to the natural world on one side, vs greed consciousness, which shamelessly exploits people and the environment for profit, on the other side.

Cannabis consciousness says “safe, legal and cheap marijuana will do the most good for people and the environment, so plant it everywhere.”
Greed consciousness says, “OK, prohibition doesn’t work, but we can’t afford to lose this valuable piece of our horrifically destructive economy, so instead, let’s concoct a new gentler way to exploit people with it.” Put simply, it boils down to this: Which do you value more, your money or your life?

CNN tests show banned pesticides still being used by pot growers

By Karen Graham 
Denver - Pesticides illegal to use on marijuana plants in Colorado are being found in some recreational and medical pot products sold to the public. Because testing of marijuana for pesticides is not mandatory in the state, CNN did its own testing. 
http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/9/9/5/4/2/4/i/2/2/2/p-large/smoking_a_joint.jpg 
It has been nearly two years since Colorado voted to legalize the use of marijuana for recreational and medical use. However, pot users still have little information on what they are ingesting or if it may be harmful. 
CNN's latest investigation comes on the heels of a similar investigation done by the Denver Post in September this year. In both investigative reports, samples of marijuana products were tested for illegal and harmful pesticide residues. 
As far as any official oversight on the regulating of marijuana growers, the state is able to track a pot product from the seeds in the packet to the final sale in a licensed shop where the product is sold. And a new state law implemented this year also requires that all marijuana products be labeled, describing all pesticides, contaminants, fungicides, and herbicides used during any part of the production process. In 2013, before marijuana was legalized, Colorado passed a law mandating that marijuana businesses test for pesticide residues, but that law has never been enforced because there are only a few state-certified labs approved to do the testing. 
Because consumers cannot have their own pot purchases tested, CNN asked two businesses to help out by having some of their products tested. Gobi Analytical is the only lab in Denver that tests marijuana for pesticides. Testing for pesticides is not cheap. Specialized equipment, such as a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry machine, has to be used to identify the products in a sample. 
Peter Perrone, who runs Gobi Analytical, told the Denver Post in September that since the lab opened in April, the majority of the 1,000-plus samples he had tested failed. "Maybe 10 percent of those" were clean of pesticides, Perrone said. CNN's two shops provided a total of six samples, including flowers, edibles, and concentrates. Perrone tested all the products, with five coming back free of pesticides and one concentrate testing positive for a neurotoxin called imidacloprid. 
(The Denver Post tests found myclobutanil, imidacloprid, and avermectin). The Colorado Department of Agriculture has said imidacloprid cannot be used on marijuana. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, being a federal agency that does not recognize marijuana as being legal in Colorado, allows the use of the chemical on some crops, but at very low levels, such as 1.0 part per million on avocados and 0.5 parts per million on apples. 
CNN's pot concentrate had imidacloprid levels of 100 parts per million. Perrone told CNN, "In this case, I would immediately recall that sample and destroy that entire batch." The shop owner whose concentrate tested so high was shocked. He immediately began pulling the product from his shelves, reporting the test results to the state. Based on the testing done by CNN, state officials began an investigation that resulted in 2,362 pot products, including 23 different types of pot concentrates, being recalled. 
All of the products were made from marijuana grown and distributed by Tru Cannabis. Tru Cannabis, along with another grower, was cited in October for the use of illegal pesticides when testing found three chemicals in the samples being tested. Looking back on stories about previous recalls of marijuana products in the state this past year, it is fairly obvious there is still a big problem with regulating the industry. 
The EPA does not have oversight on marijuana because it is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 drug by the federal government, even though it is a crop. As was reported in October in Digital Journal, Colorado lawmakers never considered this little problem when they approved the sale of recreational pot on January 1, 2014. 
Because the state agriculture department was using EPA regulations on pesticide use, they have been going to the marijuana growers to find out what it is they are using. This action was to help them in making regulations for what pesticide was to be allowed. CNN reports that Ro Silva of the Colorado Department of Revenue, the state agency that oversees the marijuana industry, said in an email the state's Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED), as well as other state agencies "will continue to develop this portion of mandatory testing by working collaboratively to develop regulations and to certify licensed retail marijuana testing facilities for pesticide testing." She added, "There is not a timeline right now for the MED to test for pesticides."

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders use faulty data to support marijuana reform

Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed "low-level offenses that are primarily due to marijuana," while Sen. Bernard Sanders said states should consider legalizing marijuana out of fairness. (Associated Press)
Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed “low-level offenses that are primarily due to marijuana,” while Sen. Bernard Sanders said states should consider legalizing marijuana out of fairness. (Associated Press)
The “war on drugs” has become a chief target for Democratic presidential hopefuls who use outsized rhetoric to say drug laws, particularly those regarding marijuana, are filling the nation’s prisons and jails with nonviolent offenders who shouldn’t be behind bars.

Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed “low-level offenses that are primarily due to marijuana,” while Sen. Bernard Sanders said states should consider legalizing marijuana out of fairness.
 
Wall Street CEOs aren’t held accountable, “and yet we are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana,” Mr. Sanders said.

There is only one problem with the rhetoric: It is factually wrong.

“The statement that the prison population is mostly low-level marijuana offenders is utterly totally bogus; there is not a shred of validity in it,” said Jonathan Caulkins, a public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

Mr. Caulkins said that while 20 percent of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated for drug convictions, less than 10 percent of those are for marijuana. The other 90 percent deal with cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin violations.

“And of the marijuana violators, the people in prison for that reason in particular, they basically are never there for simple possession,” Mr. Caulkins said. “You can go to prison if you possess 5 tons of marijuana, but that’s not personal possession. Most of these offenders are there because they broke parole or were also charged with drug trafficking and production.”

Indeed, only 3.6 percent of state inmates in 2013 had drug possession as their most serious offense, according to official data from the Justice Department, and only about three-tenths of 1 percent of state prison inmates were there because of marijuana possession alone, according to the federal agency’s most recent data.

Although the population in state prisons has skyrocketed 363 percent from 1980 to 2009, making mass incarceration an issue for politicians, less than a quarter of that growth was a result of the imprisonment of drug offenders, said Fordham law professor John Pfaff, who studied the data.

More than half of the increase in prison populations are there because of violent crimes, he said.

“Violent crimes offenders serve long sentences and make up 55 percent of the prison population and about 60 percent of prison growth,” Mr. Pfaff said. “The percent of prisoners because of drug charges has actually dropped.”

Drug legalization advocates say that while marijuana may not affect the overall prison population, the number of arrests connected to the drug is staggering and does mean more Americans fall under the criminal justice system.

Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said the most recent FBI data show that of the roughly 700,000 arrests on marijuana-related charges in 2014, about 90 percent were for possession only, and these arrests can cause negative ripple effects in a person’s life.

“A lot of the candidates on both sides are being fairly genuine when they engage on these issues,” said John Hudak, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies marijuana policy. “Yes, linking mass incarceration to marijuana use is a bit beyond the evidence, but marijuana as a criminal justice issue is absolutely on point. We know that marijuana arrests are the entry point for young men of color into the criminal justice system — that’s how they get their record started.

“An arrest may not result in a long prison sentence or even any jail time at all, but it does create deferred economic opportunities, jobs not gotten for some small amounts of marijuana found on an individual,” Mr. Hudak said.

The issue is also popular with the electorate.

According to a Gallup poll released last month, 58 percent of Americans back legal marijuana use, the highest percentage support ever reported in a nationwide poll. Eight in 10 voters support the use of medical marijuana.

Since 1996, when California approved the use of medical marijuana, 23 states and the District of Columbia have approved some form of legalized marijuana, and at least five more states are expected to have recreational marijuana use on the ballot next year.

Presidential candidates in both major parties have adopted marijuana as an issue. Many use mass incarceration, criminal justice, health care or states’ rights as ways to back up their positions.

“There’s been more dialogue in this presidential race about marijuana than any in history, and it reflects the changes that are taking place throughout our country,” said Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization group.

Mr. Tvert said candidates not too long ago would try to evade the issue, but some now are taking definitive stances.

His group has been ranking the 2016 presidential field in terms of their support of the issue.
“Bernie Sanders moved into the highest spot in our rankings after he said he would vote in favor to make the initiative legal. It’s the first time a major presidential candidate has ever expressed full-out support for ending marijuana prohibition,” Mr. Tvert said.

Mr. Sanders’ aggressive stance may have moved Mrs. Clinton on the issue.

Although Mrs. Clinton has long declined to endorse recreational or medical marijuana legalization at the federal level, this month she did join Mr. Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, the other major candidate in the nomination race, in saying she backs the use of medical marijuana and supports removing it from the list of Class 1 scheduled drugs.

Marijuana’s federal classification prevents federally funded studies of the drug and groups it in with the likes of cocaine and meth as one of the most dangerous substances regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“I do support the use of medical marijuana,” Mrs. Clinton said in November in response to a question at a town hall meeting at Claflin University, a historically black school. “I think even there we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we’re going to help people for whom medical marijuana provides relief.”

That’s a far cry from her husband’s famous acknowledgment on the 1992 campaign trail that he had tried marijuana but “didn’t like it and didn’t inhale,” and his opposition to California’s medical marijuana initiative in 1996, going as far as filing and winning a lawsuit to shut an Oakland cannabis dispensary in a case that reached the Supreme Court.

“If Bill Clinton would’ve admitted supporting any type of marijuana use back in the ‘90s, he would’ve lost the vote of people over the age of 55, so he couldn’t do it,” said Mr. St. Pierre of NORML.

“But we’ve seen a change of the guard. Baby boomers are changing the dynamic of how marijuana is viewed. The WWII generation never supported marijuana use — but it’s a night-and-day difference between generations, with most Americans now sick and tired of its prohibition,” he said.

Sunday 29 November 2015

High-potency cannabis damages key brain structure

by Honor Whiteman
Researchers have previously linked the use of high-potency, "skunk-like" cannabis to increased risk for psychosis - an effect that has been attributed to alterations in brain structure. Now, a new study finds frequent use of the drug damages a key part of the brain that aids communication between the right and left hemispheres, independent of psychosis.
[The human brain]
Researchers found the use of high-potency cannabis damaged the corpus callosum of the brain - a structure that aids communication between the right and left hemispheres.
 
Senior researcher Dr. Paola Dazzan, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King's College London in the UK, and colleagues publish their findings in the journal Psychological Science.

In the US, cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug. Skunk is a more potent form of cannabis, typically stronger in smell and containing higher levels of the main active ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Studies have increasingly associated the use of skunk cannabis with increased risk of psychosis - a term used to describe hallucinations and delusions that arise from some mental disorders, such as schizophrenia. Another study by King's College published earlier this year, for example, linked high-potency skunk use to a fivefold greater psychosis risk.

For this latest study, Dr. Dazzan and colleagues investigated how the high-potency drug affects brain structure. They note that gaining a better understanding of this association is important, particularly since levels of THC in skunk-like cannabis have been increasing in recent years, and this ingredient itself has been linked to increased psychosis risk.

Heavy users of high-potency cannabis showed greatest brain damage

To reach their findings, the team enrolled 54 individuals with first-episode psychosis and 43 healthy participants. Using the Cannabis Experience Questionnaire, information was gathered on subjects' past use of cannabis, stimulants and other recreational drugs.

Each participant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique known as diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which allowed the researchers to closely analyze their brain structure.

Specifically, the team assessed the corpus callosum - a white matter structure that connects the right and left hemispheres of the brain, allowing communication between the two. The team notes that this brain region has lots of cannabinoid receptors, which THC targets.

The researchers found that participants who had a history of frequent high-potency skunk use demonstrated much higher mean-diffusivity (MD) in the corpus callosum - a marker of white matter damage - than low-potency users and those who used the drug occasionally. What is more, this association was found in subjects both with and without psychosis.

Commenting on the results, Dr. Dazzan says:
"We found that frequent use of high-potency cannabis significantly affects the structure of white matter fibers in the brain, whether you have psychosis or not. This reflects a sliding scale where the more cannabis you smoke and the higher the potency, the worse the damage will be."
Based on the findings of this study and others showing how cannabis may damage the brain, Dr. Dazzan says there is an "urgent need" to educate health professionals, policymakers and the general public about the health risks that may arise with cannabis use.

The Surprising State That Could Become the 24th to Legalize Medical Marijuana

This state certainly wouldn't have been my guess as the next that may approve the use of medical marijuana. Would it have been your guess?

Marijuana Pixabay
Image source: Pixabay.
Next year promises to be action-packed in a variety of ways. Americans will be electing a new president, the make-up of Congress could once again shift, and more states are likely to be placing marijuana initiatives on their ballots to expand its use medically or recreationally (or both) as Ohio recently attempted with its November 2015 proposal.

It's not hard to understand why marijuana remains such a hot-button issue. The American public has dramatically shifted how it perceives marijuana, with three national polls -- Gallup, Pew Research Center, and General Social Survey -- all suggesting that it's now viewed favorably. If we look specifically at marijuana's medicinal use, support from the public rises even further. Many independent polls imply a "favorability" in excess of 70%. Thus, it's not out of the question that residents in up to a dozen states (perhaps even more) could be voting on a marijuana proposition in 2016.

However, we don't have to wait until 2016 to see the politics behind marijuana proposals taking shape. A surprising state announced last week that its legislature may consider two medical marijuana proposals when it convenes in 2016.

Would you care to throw out a guess which state this is? Don't scroll down just yet... no cheating!!!
Could this be the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana?
Did you guess Utah? Either you should be buying a lottery ticket (and one for me as well) or you totally scrolled down!

Utah Arch
Arches National Park in Utah. Image source: Pixabay.

Reports show that one proposal presented to the Health and Human Services Interim Committee in Utah last week has been approved for discussion when the Utah legislature convenes in 2016, while another proposal is still in the process of being drafted. This latter proposal may also wind up on the Utah legislature's docket next year.

The first proposal, sponsored by Rep. Brad Daw (R-Orem) and backed by Sen. Evan Vickers (R-Cedar City), looks to legalize the use of cannabidiol, or CBD, a compound derived from the cannabis plant, for select medicinal use. Daw's proposal would legalize CBD to be used in patients with HIV/AIDS, certain cancer types, and epilepsy.

Best of all, the bill is designed to allow for physician input following approval to determine how effective CBD has been in terms of treating eligible medical marijuana patients. This sunset clause would allow Utah's legislature to reapprove the proposed law if CBD proves effective, or to simply let it expire without renewal if CBD isn't meeting the mark from a safety or efficacy standpoint. The HHS Interim Committee passed Daw's proposal for legislative review last week.

The second proposal is still in the process of being drafted, but it's being sponsored by Sen. Mark Madsen (R-Saratoga Springs). Madsen's proposal would treat a similar list of ailments, but the big difference is that it would legalize the use of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, for medical use. It's tough to predict what the proposal would look like considering that it's not been presented to the committee as of yet, but it's likely going to be a tougher sell to legislators considering that THC is the controversial component of any marijuana legislation.

Nci Vol
Image source: National Cancer Institute.

Clinical evidence demonstrates success -- but concerns remain
On one hand we have quite a bit of data suggesting that marijuana containing THC, and experimental therapies utilizing THC, may have medical benefits.

For example, investigators from the Conference of Quebec University Health Centers analyzed Inuit adults in the Arctic region, many of whom smoked marijuana on a somewhat regular basis. The findings showed that Inuits who used marijuana tended to have better glycemic control, resulting in a lower body mass index, lower fasting insulin, and lower HOMA-IR, which is a measure of insulin resistance, relative to the non-user group. In layman's terms, marijuana could be useful in helping regulate blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

We also have nearly two dozen states that have already legalized marijuana for medicinal use -- some of which could provide more than a decade's worth of data on the effectiveness of the drug. It's always possible that this existing data can be pulled into the equation when Utah's legislature convenes in 2016.

Of course, we also have a mountain of existing data suggesting that marijuana's safety profile could be worrisome. We have to remember that prior to the last few years a majority of clinical studies run on marijuana focused solely on its risks. Thus, it's not all too shocking that researchers have a mountain of evidence implying skepticism of the drug and only a handful of studies demonstrating it may have medical benefits. While broad-ranging, many of the concerns behind marijuana use revolve around its effect on the user's mind over the long-term, and its possible effect on crime rates.

Piggy Bank Pixabay
Image source: Pixabay.

Even if Utah's on board, marijuana is still a risky investment
For the time being it's purely speculative as to whether Utah could become the 24th state to legalize marijuana for medicinal use -- but based purely on the shifting opinion of the nation as a whole, there's at least a shot it could happen.

However, even if half the states approve the use of medical marijuana, that doesn't guarantee that the marijuana industry is on solid ground. Without any substantive changes to federal law, expansion for marijuana businesses may be slow at best.

There are two major financial drawbacks to being in the marijuana business as long as the federal government maintains the view that the marijuana plant is an illegal substance.

First, it makes it very difficult for marijuana-based businesses to obtain basic banking services. From checking accounts to lines of credit, most banks won't offer assistance for fear that they would be breaking federal law (i.e., laundering money). It's also possible that a shift in the federal government's hands-off strategy could result in the complete loss of any outstanding loans to marijuana businesses. This is one reason why investing in a shop, or in marijuana stocks, is such a risky bet at the moment.

The other issue in play here is that federal tax law disallows businesses that sell illegal drugs from taking any deductions on their taxes. It ultimately leaves marijuana businesses paying taxes that are far higher than "normal" businesses, lessening their profits and hurting their chances of expanding.

Altogether, these two financial constraints make marijuana a risky bet all around. Until the winds of change begin to blow on Capitol Hill, I'd suggest keeping your money safely away from marijuana stocks.

Recreational pot ballot measure would help protect children




Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article46137745.html#storylink=cpy

Saturday 28 November 2015

Study: High-potency marijuana linked with neural damage

Researchers say healthcare workers need to pay greater attention to the type of marijuana patients are using.

By Brooks Hays

Skunk marijuana may cause more significant brain damage, research shows. Photo by Atomazul/Shutterstock.
LONDON, Nov. 27 (UPI) -- In scanning the brains of drug users, researchers at Kings College London found smokers of high-potency pot had smaller amounts of white brain matter inside their corpus callosum, a neural pathway connecting the left and right halves of the brain.

While pot smokers generally showed more damage to the corpus callosum than non-smokers, those who smoked super strong weed known as 'skunk' showed more significant white matter loss.

Scientists performed MRI scans on the brains of 56 patients who had visited a London hospital reporting a first episode of psychosis. The brains of 43 healthy participants were also scanned. All the participants were surveyed about their drug habits.

"We found that frequent use of high-potency cannabis significantly affects the structure of white matter fibres in the brain, whether you have psychosis or not," Paola Dazzan, a neurobiologist at Kings College, said in a press release. "This reflects a sliding scale where the more cannabis you smoke and the higher the potency, the worse the damage will be."

The main psychoactive ingredient in weed, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is much more concentrated in modern skunk strains as compared to traditional pot and hash -- up 14 percent as compared to 4 percent.

Researchers say their new findings, published this week in the journal Psychological Medicine, are proof that healthcare workers need to pay greater attention to the type of marijuana patients are using.

"As we have suggested previously, when assessing cannabis use it is extremely important to gather information on how often and what type of cannabis is being used," Dazzan said. "These details can help quantify the risk of mental health problems and increase awareness on the type of damage these substances can do to the brain."

Previous studies have found a link between instances of psychosis and high-potency marijuana use.

One year later, patients swear by medical pot

By Nelson Oliveira

Bethel resident Dan Gaita uses medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. Photo: Carol Kaliff / File Photo / The News-Times 
Bethel resident Dan Gaita uses medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder.
 
BETHEL — First, it was testicular cancer. Then tumors were found in his lungs.

And when those had finally shrunk — thanks to an aggressive chemotherapy and radiation — Brian Tomasulo learned that the cancer had spread to his brain.

After collapsing at work one day in May 2014, the Newtown resident was rushed to the hospital, where he had surgery to remove an egg-sized tumor from his frontal cortex.

The surgery was successful, but when Tomasulo woke up, he had a whole new set of challenges to deal with.
“I didn’t have thoughts in my brain,” he said. “I didn’t know what things were. I didn’t know what my phone was. I had to relearn how to do everything, how to talk, how to do one-plus-one... At 33 years old, that was very frustrating.”

Tomasulo would soon find an improbable medicine to help him cope with the “brutal” days after the surgery. He decided to try medical marijuana.

Tomasulo, a personal trainer who resumed work a few months ago, was one of the first patients at Bethel’s Compassionate Care Center, the first and only medical marijuana dispensary in Fairfield County.

Tomasulo now says marijuana not only helps him with the pain and anxiety, but has stopped his tumors from growing.

“This is just a different way of killing the cancer,” he said. “It’s a better way that makes me feel good, not tired, not groggy.”

A year after the center opened its doors, an increasing number of patients have seen similar results, business owner Angela D’Amico said.

“We’re saving lives everyday,” she said. “Every day there’s another tear that comes down my face.”

The facility on the corner of Garella Road and Route 6 is one of only six medical marijuana dispensaries in Connecticut. There are also four licensed marijuana growers in the state.

Studies have shown that cannabis can slow the growth and/or kill certain types of cancer cells growing in laboratory dishes, but there is not enough evidence that marijuana helps control or cure the disease, according to the American Cancer Society.

Still, more and more cancer patients have seen their tumors stop growing after using medical marijuana.
“The proof is in the pudding,” D’Amico said.

Another one of her patients is Orange resident Michael Mizzone, 53, who has ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. He said marijuana has reduced his anxiety and muscle cramping, and has improved his blood circulation and appetite.

Mizzone was diagnosed with the disease in December 2013. After doing extensive research into medical marijuana, he became a regular patient at the Bethel facility as soon as it opened in September 2014.

“I was skeptical at first, as most people are,” he said.

Unlike many ALS patients, Mizzone can still walk, exercise and drive.

There are 11 debilitating medical conditions approved by the state Department of Consumer Protection for treatment with medical marijuana, including cancer, Crohn’s disease and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Connecticut’s program has more than 6,700 patients, with at least 1,600 of them in Fairfield County.

At the Bethel dispensary, the number of patients has more than tripled since the first weeks of business, D’Amico said.

Those patients must have state-issued cards authorizing them to use medical marijuana; otherwise they can’t go in the building without state approval.

When the business first opened, D’Amico only offered the marijuana plant — or flower. Now there are more than 70 different items, including capsules, oils, edibles, e-cigarette liquids, breath strips and other products.

D’Amico said such products are increasingly popular because many people don’t want to smoke the plant.

“As the patient gets more and more educated about cannabis, they switch away from the flower,” she said.
Her oldest patient is a 90-year-old woman with cancer who uses cannabis oil for pain relief.

Tomasulo mostly uses the oil, which he puts under his tongue for headaches, but he sometimes smokes marijuana for faster relief. He uses oil with higher CBD levels in the morning and a higher THC level at night.

CBD, or cannabidoil, can help treat seizures, reduce anxiety and counteract the “high” caused by THC.

Bethel resident and former U.S. Marine Dan Gaita, who uses medical marijuana for post-traumatic stress disorder, said he used to take 13 pills a day. Now he takes only one.

Gaita criticized the “naysayers” who oppose medical marijuana and prevent marijuana programs from expanding and reaching potential patients.

“People need to educate themselves,” he said. “They are still operating off of information that was put out by church groups in the ‘70s.”

Last spring, Bethel zoning officials took several steps to control any potential expansion of the marijuana business in town. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a one-year moratorium on applications for new medical marijuana dispensaries, marijuana-growing centers, expansion of the existing facility and new recreational marijuana establishments.

D’Amico, who said she has no plans to expand the building, is planning a “Cannabis 101” presentation for the public to learn about medical marijuana. In the meantime, she said, Bethel residents are welcome to get a tour of the dispensary.

“I welcome everyone in Bethel to come into our facility and see the face of medical marijuana,” she said. “We service amputees, quadriplegics... This is no joke here. This is the wave of the future.”

D’Amico said she has about 300 patients who were able to stop using opiates when they started using medical marijuana.

“The pharmaceutical industry is killing our country,” she said. “They prescribe oxycodone as if it’s candy. We are slowly getting hundreds of patients off pain management and off sleeping pills.”

Her facility also offers holistic care, including yoga, meditation, reiki and massage.

“We don’t just treat the body,” she said. “We do nutrition, we treat the mind, body and spirit.”

'World is going to be looking to Canada' on pot legalization, Jane Philpott says

Federal health minister says conversations with her own kids convinced her changes are required

By Susan Lunn, CBC News
Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott says she's being briefed by Health Canada scientists about how to best legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use.
Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott says she's being briefed by Health Canada scientists about how to best legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) 

The federal health minister says "the world is going to be looking to Canada to make sure we do the job well" when it comes to legalizing and regulating marijuana.

In an interview with CBC News, Jane Philpott said the government will look abroad for best practices, but said she doesn't see a perfect model anywhere.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on the legalization and regulation of marijuana for recreational use, and has mandated Philpott, along with Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, to create a federal-provincial-territorial process to accomplish that.

Philpott said the government will create a task force to consult with legal authorities, public safety officials and Health Canada scientists, who already have a role in regulating products with health risks such as tobacco.

Scientists in her department have already started to brief her on the topic, she said.

Philpott, a family doctor, has four children, including one who is a teenager. She said she tries to have open conversations with all of them about a range of health issues, including marijuana.

Those conversations have convinced her the current system of prohibition and criminalization is not working.
"I think if any of your viewers, if they ask their teenage children, they can verify for them that [marijuana] is far too accessible. And obviously there's issues around safety and concentrations that are available in certain products are very dangerous," Philpott said.

"Often the products are not pure, and that's something that's a serious health concern for us."

Philpott said it is too early to speculate on what kind of restrictions will be placed around the sale of marijuana, such as an age limit — but she said her government is committed to keeping it away from teenagers.

"It's extremely important to me as a young parent and as a [health-care] provider to make sure we keep marijuana out of the hands of kids and young people, whose brains are developing. And at the moment, unfortunately, it's extremely accessible," she said.

Pot in corner stores?

The Opposition Conservatives did not respond to a request for comment Friday on what they want to see in the government's legislation.

But during the election campaign, the Conservatives were critical of the Liberal plan, telling voters it would lead to marijuana being sold in corner stores, where teenagers could get their hands on it easily.

Trudeau said he didn't think corner stores would be the best place to sell marijuana, suggesting staff weren't always rigorous enough in checking ID.

(The industry association that represents convenience stores noted at the time it hasn't advocated for the right to sell marijuana, though it wasn't happy with Trudeau's characterization of its members' handling of age-restricted products.)

Philpott said most health-care providers are not opposed to the Liberal Party's plan on marijuana.
"I would say they are cautious about this, as I am. We need to be cautious about it," she said. "But I think most thoughtful Canadians recognize that the current system isn't working and they're looking to us to make sure we make a wise decision."

The Canadian Medical Association declined to comment, saying only "we acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the varying perspectives."

The DEA has failed to eradicate marijuana. Some members of Congress want it to stop trying.


 
The Drug Enforcement Administration is not having a great year.
The chief of the agency stepped down in April under a cloud of scandal. The acting administrator since then has courted ridicule for saying pot is "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and more recently he provoked 100,000 petition-signers and seven members of Congress to call for his head after he called medical marijuana "a joke."

This fall, the administration earned a scathing rebuke from a federal judge over its creative interpretation of a law intended to keep it from harassing medical marijuana providers. Then, the Brookings Institution issued a strongly worded report outlining the administration's role in "stifling medical research" into medical uses of pot.

Unfortunately for the DEA, the year isn't over yet. Last week, a group of 12 House members led by Ted Lieu (D) of California wrote to House leadership to push for a provision in the upcoming spending bill that would strip half of the funds away from the DEA's Cannabis Eradication Program and put that money toward programs that "play a far more useful role in promoting the safety and economic prosperity of the American people": domestic violence prevention and overall spending reduction efforts.

Each year, the DEA spends about $18 million in efforts with state and local authorities to pull up marijuana plants being grown indoors and outdoors. The program has been plagued by scandal and controversy in recent years. In the mid-2000s, it became clear that the overwhelming majority of "marijuana" plants netted by the program were actually "ditchweed," or the wild, non-cultivated, non-psychoactive cousin of the marijuana that people smoke.

More recently, overzealous marijuana eradicators have launched heavily armed raids on okra plants and warned the Utah legislature of the threat posed by rabbits who had "cultivated a taste for the marijuana." Last year, the DEA spent an average of roughly $4.20 (yes, really) for each marijuana plant it successfully uprooted. In some states, the cost to taxpayers approached $60 per uprooted plant.

The program has also proven to be ineffective. The idea behind pulling up pot plants is to reduce the supply of marijuana, thereby reducing its use. In 1977, two years before the program's introduction, less than a quarter of Americans said they'd ever tried pot, according to Gallup. By 2015, after 36 years of federal marijuana eradication efforts, the share of Americans ever trying pot nearly doubled, to 44 percent.

Given that marijuana is legal in some form or another in nearly half of the nation's states, some lawmakers are saying enough is enough. "The seizure of these plants has served neither an economic nor public-safety nor a health-related purpose," Lieu and his colleagues write. "Its sole impact has been to expend limited federal resources that are better spent elsewhere."

The letter-writers note that the provision to strip $9 million in funding from the program passed on voice vote earlier in the year, "without any opposition from either party." They urge leadership to include the provision in a must-pass spending bill later this year.

Lieu doesn't want to stop there: Next year he intends to introduce a measure "to eliminate the program completely," he said earlier this year. Whether that actually happens will probably depend on how this year's measure fares during upcoming spending bill negotiations.

Friday 27 November 2015

Lung Cancer: 7 Facts You Need To Know

[​IMG]

by drwale,
Cancer is a global menace characterised by disordered, uncontrolled proliferation of body cells. In other words, cancer cells defy all in-built regulatory mechanisms of the body system to continue dividing without any need for such and in most cases, this unabated process culminates in death. Understandably, when the lungs happen to fall victim to this chaotic process, the implications are even more grave in view of the central role the lungs play in the body. In tandem with the heart, the lungs ensure that oxygen-rich blood is distributed throughout the entire body in exchange for potentially toxic carbondioxide gas which is then expelled when we breathe out.
Highlighted below are some important facts that you need to know about lung cancer

Lung-cancer.jpg

1. Lung cancer is a major killer
According to the World Health Organisation, lung cancer results in about 1.4 million deaths annually throughout the world. The incidence has been on the increase in developing countries on account of increased tobacco use. In terms of incidence and mortality worldwide, especially among men over 50 years who had a significant history of smoking. Furthermore, it's been observed that while the incidence has been declining among men in the last few decades, more cases are now being recorded among women.

2. Smoking remains a leading risk factor
The link between smoking and lung cancer cannot be overemphasized. In fact, research has shown that cigarette smoke contains no less than 73 known carcinogens including benzopyrene and 1,3-butadiene. Marijuana smoke also contains most of these carcinogens. Overall, smoking accounts for about 80 - 90% of cases of lung cancer. Plus passive smoking also confers significant risk such that people who live with someone who smokes have a 20 - 30% increased risk compared to others. Statistics from the United States revealed that passive smoking accounts for up to 3400 deaths from lung cancer annually.

3. Asbestos workers are more likely to develop lung cancer
It's been shown that asbestos and tobacco smoking tend to have a synergistic effect in increasing lung cancer risk. In fact, asbestos workers who also smoke have 45-fold increased risk of suffering from lung cancer compared to the general population. In addition, excessive asbestos exposure may lead to mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleural covering of the lungs. Other important risk factors include indoor and outdoor air pollution, radon gas exposure as well as a family history of lung cancer.

4. Lung cancer often produces signs and symptoms
Lung cancer usually produces respiratory symptoms such as cough sometimes productive of blood (hemoptysis) and chest pain. If the cancer grows into the airways, airflow may be obstructed leading to difficulty with breathing. Systemic symptoms like weight loss, poor appetite, fever and fatigue are sometimes observed, although non-specific. However, it is important to note that in up to 10% of individuals, lung cancer shows no symptoms at the time of diagnosis and it is only discovered on routine chest radiography.

5. Lung cancers may spread very early
It is quite common especially with small cell lung cancer that by the time affected individuals notice symptoms and seek medical attention, the cancer has already spread far beyond the original site thereby creating a more difficult scenario to treat. Common sites of spread include the brain, bone, adrenals, liver, kidneys as well as the opposite lung. Pointers to likely spread include bone pains as well as neurological symptoms such as headache, convulsions and limb weakness or paralysis.

6. Numerous treatment options are available
Depending on the cell type and stage of lung cancer at the time of diagnosis, a number of treatment options may be offered including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or palliative care. For instance, removal of a lobe of lung (lobectomy) or wedge resection is often used to cure most cases of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, small cell lung carcinoma is more responsive to chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

7. Preventive measures are key
In a bid to stem the tides of lung cancer among unsuspecting passive smokers, most countries have prohibited smoking in public places such as restaurants and workplaces. In addition, the World Health Organisation has called on governments to place a total ban on the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products.
Also, sophisticated tests such as computed tomography (CT) scan can be used to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer in order to enhance early detection and institute prompt treatment to forestall complications.

Ontario medical marijuana exemption under review just 1 day after it was announced

Exemption for medical pot users was only announced on Wednesday

CBC News
Ontario says it is re-examining its move allowing medical marijuana users to smoke or use vapourizers in public places.
Ontario says it is re-examining its move allowing medical marijuana users to smoke or use vapourizers in public places. (The Associated Press) 

Ontario's Liberal government says it will re-examine its recent move to allow medical marijuana users to smoke and vape the drug anywhere in the province, just one day after announcing the change.
"We've heard the concerns around this regulation, and we're going to take this feedback and see if this regulation is the best way to move forward," Associate Health Minister Dipika Damerla said Thursday.

Dipika Damerla
Associate Health Minister Dipika Damerla said the province will re-examine its recent move to allow medical marijuana users to smoke and vape the drug anywhere in the province. (CBC)

Medical marijuana users were quietly exempted this week from a law banning the use of e-cigarettes anywhere smoking is prohibited, meaning they could smoke or vape just about anywhere, including at work or in restaurants. Restrictions on e-cigarettes take effect Jan. 1.

"We provided a very narrow exemption for medical marijuana," Damerla.

However, under the exemption, employers or restaurant owners could still ban medical marijuana users from smoking on the premises, she said.

"There could be a situation where somebody needs it for pain management, so it's about accommodating their interest but also making sure that Ontarians are protected from any harm of second-hand smoke or … vapour," she said.

The minister was asked whether the province should have conducted consultations over the regulation.
"I know we consulted very broadly," she said. "As you know, all of these things go through the committee process, and everybody is welcome to come and give their presentations, so everyone would have had that opportunity to present."

Damerla said the exemptions were drafted with the advice of legal counsel, but wouldn't say what considerations were made about the onus put on business owners to ensure anyone vaporizing marijuana had a legitimate prescription.

The legal advice was that there is no scientific evidence that second-hand marijuana vapour produced from an electronic cigarette has any health effects on bystanders, Damerla said. Not providing an exemption for medical marijuana users could raise constitutional issues, she said she was told.

She wouldn't say if the second look at the exemptions would be completed before Jan. 1.

'Government has failed again'

Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown said "it sounds like they need to do a little bit more homework."

"We do want to accommodate medical needs that exist in Ontario. I'm going to be hopeful that the government will get this right," he said.
"The government has failed again." - NDP MPP Jagmeet Singh
NDP MPP Jagmeet Singh said the Liberals failed to consult properly with the public.

"The government needs to be doing their job. One, of letting people know of the decision they've made, and two, making sure that people have input on those decisions," Singh said.

"These are things we expect from the government and the government has failed again."

He said his party recognizes "medical marijuana use for very legitimate purposes," but the interests of the broader public must be considered also.

High-strength marijuana may damage brain fibers — but not the less potent stuff


 Ian Sample,
 
A man smoking at the Vancouver Global Marijuana March 2015 (Danny Kresnyak/Cannabis Culture)
High-strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres that handle the flow of messages across the two halves of the brain, scientists claim. Brain scans of people who regularly smoked strong skunk-like cannabis revealed subtle differences in the white matter that connects the left and right hemispheres and carries signals from one side of the brain to the other.

The changes were not seen in those who never used cannabis or smoked only the less potent forms of the drug, the researchers found.

The study is thought to be the first to look at the effects of cannabis potency on brain structure, and suggests that greater use of skunk may cause more damage to the corpus callosum, making communications across the brain’s hemispheres less efficient.

Paola Dazzan , a neurobiologist at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, said the effects appeared to be linked to the level of active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in cannabis. While traditional forms of cannabis contain 2 to 4 % THC, the more potent varieties (of which there are about 100), can contain 10 to 14% THC, according to the DrugScope charity.

“If you look at the corpus callosum, what we’re seeing is a significant difference in the white matter between those who use high potency cannabis and those who never use the drug, or use the low-potency drug,” said Dazzan. The corpus callosum is rich in cannabinoid receptors, on which the THC chemical acts.

“The difference is there whether you have psychosis or not, and we think this is strictly related to the potency of the cannabis,” she added. Details of the study are reported in the journal Psychological Medicine.

The researchers used two scanning techniques, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), to examine the corpus callosum, the largest region of white matter, in the brains of 56 patients who had reported a first episode of psychosis, and 43 healthy volunteers from the local community.

The scans found that daily users of high-potency cannabis had a slightly greater – by about 2% – “mean diffusivity” in the corpus callosum. “That reflects a problem in the white matter that ultimately makes it less efficient,” Dazzan told the Guardian. “We don’t know exactly what it means for the person, but it suggests there is less efficient transfer of information.”

The study cannot confirm that high levels of THC in cannabis cause changes to white matter. As Dazzan notes, it is may be that people with damaged white matter are more likely to smoke skunk in the first place.

“It is possible that these people already have a different brain and they are more likely to use cannabis. But what we can say is if it’s high potency, and if you smoke frequently, your brain is different from the brain of someone who smokes normal cannabis, and from someone who doesn’t smoke cannabis at all,” she said.

But even with the uncertainty over cause and effect, she urged users and public health workers to change how they think about cannabis use. “When it comes to alcohol, we are used to thinking about how much people drink, and whether they are drinking wine, beer, or whisky. We should think of cannabis in a similar way, in terms of THC and the different contents cannabis can have, and potentially the effects on health will be different,” she said.

“As we have suggested previously, when assessing cannabis use, it is extremely important to gather information on how often and what type of cannabis is being used. These details can help quantify the risk of mental health problems and increase awareness of the type of damage these substances can do to the brain,” she added.

In February, Dazzan and others at the Institute of Psychiatry reported that the ready availability of skunk in south London might be behind a rise in the proportion of new cases of psychosis being attributed to cannabis.

Melissa Etheridge Says Cannabis Users Should 'Come Out' To Spur Legalisation


 
Melissa Etheridge 
 
Staff Writer
Venerated singer-songwriter, renowned equal rights and cannabis legalisation activist, and Byron Bay Bluesfest 2016 drawcard Melissa Etheridge says that she believes users of the Devil's lettuce should start to 'come out' in order to better spur on normalisation and decriminalisation processes.
Having spent more than 20 years as a vocal supporter of gay rights — and a significant period as an advocate for legalisation, notably while she was battling breast cancer mid-last decade — Etheridge says that she sees surface similarities in the transition of social attitudes towards non-heterosexuality and marijuana use (without, obviously, actually equating the two issues in terms of severity, before anyone gets upset).

"It's funny — being in the gay rights movement for over 20 years and seeing it go from such a place of 'no way' and 'impossible' and it just being this awful thing to, 'Wait a minute, this is human rights,' and really have people change — and genuinely change, coming up and going, 'These are our friends and family and co-workers we're talking about, we're not talking about criminals; these are real people," Etheridge told The Music's Steve Bell in a recent interview. "I've seen that change happen in 20 years, and I think that the same thing can happen in regards to cannabis."

In order to spur on such change, Etheridge says that users — despite the presently fraught legal landscape — should be more vocal about their use in order to further constructive discussion.

"I think that people need to come out as cannabis users," she said. "They need to explain, 'Hey, I don't do this to get high and drop out of society, I do this because I don't want to take Prozac and I don't want to take this pain reliever or this sleeping aid that's going to addict me and become harmful — I'm going to take this plant that is healthy for me.'

"And when people see other people who are normal and like them choosing this path it normalises it, and that's what going to bring about the change — when the fear comes out of it. I saw it happen with the gay rights movement, and I believe that's what will happen with the cannabis movement."

"I think it’s the generation that is ready for this," she continued, "and because of mass communication and the internet and how we can access this information not just from one source any more — we can really look this up for ourselves and communicate with each other — it’s taken a whole lot of the fear out of it."

Thursday 26 November 2015

Opinion: What whites don't know about racism

By Tim Wise
(CNN) —There's an old saying that it's hard to know what you don't know, the premise being that when you're ignorant about something, you aren't likely to realize your blind spots.

But I'm not so sure. Sometimes, knowing what you don't know just requires a certain degree of humility.

For instance, I don't know calculus, because I never took it in school. But here's the thing: I know that I don't know calculus; and as such, I would never presume to know it, let alone to tell others for whom it had actually been their major that I knew it better than they did.

How nice it would be if white Americans would exercise a similar restraint when it comes to the topic of racism and discrimination in America. For although we have rarely had to know much about it -- and though most of us, by our own admission, socialize in nearly all-white environments where we won't benefit from the insights of persons of color who have, indeed, had to major in the subject -- we continue to insist that we know more about it than they do.

To wit, a just-released poll from CNN and the Kaiser Family Foundation, which finds that white Americans are far less likely than persons of color to believe that racism remains a serious problem in the United States.
While roughly two-thirds of blacks and Latinos believe racism is a big problem in America today, only about four in 10 whites agree.

Even a simple recognition of ongoing racial inequities in life chances differs markedly across racial lines, with clear majorities of African Americans perceiving that the typical black person is worse off than the typical white person in terms of income, education and housing, while about half of all whites fail to perceive such inequality of condition.

So despite the fact that African-Americans are worse off than whites in every single category of well-being, and despite the research indicating that these disparities owe significantly to discrimination both past and present, most whites believe there are few, if any, ongoing inequities in need of being addressed.

Who gets discriminated against
For instance, even though young blacks with college degrees are twice as likely as similar whites to be unemployed, regardless of their field of study, most white Americans don't appear to see much of a problem (or actually continue to insist that it is we who are discriminated against in employment).

Despite the fact that white male high school dropouts between 18-34 are more likely to find work than black men that age with two years of college, most white Americans don't see much of a problem, or again, insist that "reverse discrimination" is the real issue when it comes to racism.

Despite the fact that the typical white family has about 16 times as much wealth as the typical black family -- and that even white households headed up by a high school dropout have, on average, twice the wealth of black and Latino households headed by a college graduate -- most white Americans don't see much of a problem.

Despite the fact that black children are about three times as likely as white children to be suspended or expelled from school, even though the rates of serious school rule infractions are largely the same (contrary to popular belief), and despite the fact that black children are about twice as likely as white children to be taught by the least experienced teachers, most white Americans don't see much of a problem.

According to the survey, whites are also far less likely to believe the Voting Rights Act is still needed, even as several states have moved to create impediments to voting that will disproportionately affect voters of color.

And while the overwhelming majority of blacks see biases in the justice system, only about half of whites agree; this, despite the racial disproportionality of police-involved shootings, and the blatant disparities within the so-called war on drugs, whereby blacks, for instance, are four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana, even as rates of usage and dealing are virtually identical.

It apparently doesn't register as a "big problem" in the eyes of most whites that there are roughly 160,000 black folks arrested for drug possession annually who wouldn't be were it not for the racially-disproportionate way in which African-Americans are targeted in the drug war.

Likewise, it fails to give us much pause that there are also about 160,000 whites who would be arrested for possession each year if arrest rates actually mirrored rates of drug law violations. It's apparently no big deal that in recent years, persons of color have been subjected to massively disparate treatment by police stop-and-frisk policies, even though such policies almost exclusively target innocent people and are unconstitutional.

Isolation the problem?
That white Americans don't by and large see what people of color see doesn't mean that white folks are horrible people, of course; nor does it suggest that whites are all inveterate racists who don't care about the impediments to opportunity still facing our black and brown brothers and sisters. But what it does suggest is a degree of isolation and provincialism that should lead us to think twice before pontificating about a subject that we simply don't have to know nearly as well as those who are the targets of it.

When more than half of blacks and a third of Hispanics report that they have experienced unfair treatment in public places at some point just in the last month because of their race, for whites to deny the seriousness of racism in America is to say, in effect, that folks of color are hallucinating, irrational or ignorant about their own lived experience.

It is to say that we white folks know black and brown reality better than those who live it -- perhaps because we are more intelligent or level-headed (which arguments would be inherently racist of course).

Sadly, white denial of this sort has a long and ignoble pedigree. Even in the early 1960s, prior to the passage of the monumental civil rights legislation of that decade, most white Americans didn't really see the problem.

Though civil rights icons like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. are venerated as heroes today by most, including by large numbers of whites, when King was alive, most white folks saw very little need for the movement of which he was such an integral part.

In 1963, for instance, more than six in 10 whites told Gallup pollsters that blacks were treated equally with whites in their communities, a number that grew to 75% the year before Dr. King was killed (but at which point the Fair Housing Act still hadn't been passed). Even more tellingly, in 1962, fully 85% of whites told Gallup that black children had the same chance as white children to obtain a high quality education.

Such beliefs might strike us as delusional in retrospect, of course, but that's the point: Unless we believe that white Americans have somehow become amazingly attuned to the experiences of persons of color in the last half-century (and more so than those people of color are, with regard to their own experiences) -- even as our parents and grandparents clearly failed to discern truth from fiction -- it seems that we should probably think twice before trusting white perceptions when it comes to the state of racial discrimination in this country.

If we were so oblivious even when racism was formally embedded in every fiber of the nation's being -- when the U.S. was an official apartheid country -- what in the world would lead us to believe that we had suddenly become keen interpreters of black and brown folks' lives?

Dangerous denial
Although white denial has been a constant throughout American history, one thing about today's version of it seems potentially more dangerous than that of past generations, and it is this fact more than any other which should give us pause.

In the past, white obliviousness was of a more genuinely naive sort -- in other words, most white folks really did think, absurd though it sounds, that everything was just fine, not only for ourselves but for black folks too -- but today's denial comes wrapped in a patina of resentment and anxiety.

Today, it is not just that whites fail to see the obstacles still faced by persons of color; rather, too many of us apparently believe the tables have turned and now it is we who face those obstacles.

Denial mixed with perceived victimhood and an unhealthy dose of nostalgia is far worse than denial of a purely ignorant type. For whites to not know black and brown reality is bad enough; but for us to literally invert black and brown reality with our own, and to believe that we are the ones who are being victimized, is a recipe for increased tension and acrimony. It is certainly no way to build multiracial democracy.

Only by challenging white denial -- and that means we white folks challenging our own -- can we turn back the rising tide of white anxiety, which has manifested most recently in the campaigns of Donald Trump, the backlash against Syrian refugees and the growing hostility to Black Lives Matter protesters.

In moments like this, we must proclaim not only that black and brown lives matter, despite a society that has rarely acted as such, but that facts matter, too; and as always, the facts suggest that white America still has some waking up to do.