You would not tie an anchor to a drowning man and claim you were helping him swim. Yet the Obama administration’s Department of Justice has done something quite similar with a determination that Native American reservations may become centers for “legal” marijuana sales and use, notwithstanding that this policy stands in stark violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

This new push for expanding marijuana use is legally suspect. Prior DOJ memoranda suspending enforcement of federal drug laws, such as in Colorado, were contingent on the alignment of marijuana sales and use with prevailing state laws or regulatory regimes. But Native American reservations are not legally equivalent to states; rather, they are “dependent domestic sovereigns,” broadly subject to federal law.

But there is worse in store. The impact on both Native Americans and the broader principles of political and economic integrity will be deeply damaging.

Native American history teaches that many tribes have suffered as much from well-intentioned but devastating policies offered by “friends” as they have from malign attacks by those who sought to destroy their culture. To this litany of harm from good intentions can now be added “legal” dope and the fanciful notion that drug proceeds will lift Native American economies more than they will worsen their health and criminal-justice burden.

There is the threat to Native lives from substance abuse, which has a history of degradation, violence, and pathology for First Americans. Alcohol abuse is pronounced, while heroin and methamphetamine are established threats, especially for tribes adjacent to Southwest Border smuggling routes. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the Native American rate of past-month illicit-drug use is 29 percent higher than the rate for whites (12.3 percent vs. 9.5 percent), while the Native rate of past-year drug abuse or dependence is 77 percent higher (14.9 percent vs. 8.4 percent).

Such afflictions are worse for the vulnerable. Natives suffer disproportionately from the harms of drugs due to poverty, remoteness, and inadequate public-health resources, including the limitations of the Indian Health Service. Effective reporting from Sari Horowitz of the Washington Post documents the pathologies of reservation life among the 566 federally recognized Native groups (found in 35 states), including high rates of poverty, unemployment (reaching 87 percent at Pine Ridge, S.D.), domestic abuse, sexual violence, school dropout, early death, and suicide.

How conceivably could adding increased supply (and acceptability) of an addictive drug  with psychosis, IQ and learning loss, increased susceptibility to suicide, school failure, and greater need for drug treatment be anything other than a needless disaster?

In addition to the damage from addiction, there is damage to the wider community. Internationally, “legal” drug markets are known to be accompanied by , prostitution, theft, violent coercion, neighborhood degradation, and economic loss, as documented by the Netherlands’ “cannabis cafes.” Meanwhile, Colorado is already experiencing lawsuits filed by businesses claiming harm from marijuana sales operations, based on racketeering and organized-crime statutes.

Consider that Southern California alone is home to nearly 30 recognized Indian tribes, with a total population of nearly 200,000. Were they to become purveyors of marijuana, by the experience of Colorado, they could quickly become smuggling centers for black-market marijuana distribution to surrounding communities and states. Reservation boundaries could turn into “domestic borders” comparable to international borders, where drug operations by criminal organizations thrive in driving illegal cultivation and trafficking.

This determination also presents an obvious course for fueling corruption in reservation politics, and equally worrying, U.S. financial affairs, for the emerging market in illicit drugs threatens our economic integrity nationwide. Not only has the DOJ set about dismantling, in states that have legalized, basic banking and money-laundering protections against criminal organizations penetrating the financial system, but there is further risk from another center of illicit finance and money-laundering: the cash business of casinos.

There are nearly 500 Indian “gaming” operations found in nearly 30 states, and while the revenues are great (estimated at $27 billion annually), many are in serious debt. What would another cash business, dealing in addiction and in violation of federal law, presumably paying no federal taxes, do to tribal integrity? What could this contribute to the power of transnational criminal cartels?

Already, marijuana-related law firms from Colorado are guiding those tribes with casinos in setting up high-potency marijuana operations. The potential for public corruption is high, as is the certainty of increased suffering among America’s longest victims.

Legal reservation dope is the most dangerous and shameful policy that has yet been proposed by the Obama administration.  By John P. Walters & David W. Murray

David W. Murray and John P. Walters direct the Hudson Institute’s Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research. They both served in the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the George W. Bush administration.

Source:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/legal_dope_for_native_americans_1226.html

10^th March 2015

This article shows how drug use in an area can impact more than the individual and their families and friends.  The local economy and small businesses are having to cope with lower productivity due to ‘functioning’ drug dependents in the workforce.    NDPA

New Hampshire drug czar: Addiction dragging state’s economy down

Providing more treatment and recovery options for drug addicts is as much about the addicts as it is about helping spur the state’s economy, said the state’s new drug czar.

“For me, it’s all about the money,” said John G. “Jack” Wozmak, senior director for substance misuse and behavioral health.  Wozmak was appointed in January by Gov. Maggie Hassan. The position is funded by a grant from the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. Wozmak spent nearly a decade as the administrator of the Beech Hill substance abuse treatment facility in Dublin, and since 1998 had been the Cheshire County administrator.

“With a broad range of experience dealing with substance misuse through his roles in the public sector and in private substance abuse treatment, Jack will help strengthen our efforts to improve the health and safety of Granite Staters, and I thank him for his commitment to serving the people of New Hampshire, as well the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation for making his position possible,” Hassan said in a statement.

Wozmak’s task: Get a host of agencies and organizations to work together to reduce the state’s drug abuse, particularly heroin addiction.  Wozmak takes the post at a time when heroin overdoses and deaths are at an all-time high in New Hampshire. The Centers for Disease Control reports that New Hampshire is among 28 states that saw big increases in heroin deaths.

But Wozmak said drug addiction is more than the headline-generating heroin overdoses and drug-related burglaries and robberies that dominate the news.
“Yes, the number of heroin deaths is doubling (from the previous year). But that’s just the tip of the iceberg” of the state’s drug epidemic, he said.

Functioning addicts

The underlying problem – and what the drug czar said will help him get more money for treatment and prevention efforts from state legislators – is the thousands of drug abusers who do not necessarily overdose but drive up costs for employers, he said.
“You don’t hear about the day-to-day drug exposure that companies have because it’s all below the surface, like an iceberg,” he said.

Employers see everything from diminished production to having to overstaff or pay overtime to cover for employees addicted to drugs who miss work, he said. This hurts profit and, in turn, decreases the state’s revenue from business profits taxes. He said estimates from the state’s hospitality sector indicate that as many as 20 percent of that field’s employees may have drug addiction issues.

“I want to increase jobs and this is getting in the way,” he said. “It’s just interfering with productivity. It’s interfering with the economy.”  Wozmak said the drug problem as been exacerbated by a myriad of issues, including budget cuts for treatment programs, along with insurance companies cutting or capping policy coverage for substance abuse treatment.

In the 1980s, he said, the state had more than 600 beds at six private centers providing treatment for substance abuse. After all the cuts by insurance companies, the state now has 62 beds available, he said.

Further, the state ranks second-to-last – after Texas – in providing treatment for drug addiction and has the lowest rate in the country – 6 percent – of people who get treatment for their addictions.  “We have decimated the system of treatment and recovery, and we have to rebuild it,” he said. “Imagine the outrage if diabetes were treated this way.”

More money

Hassan has proposed more than tripling the state’s spending for the Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery in her proposed two-year budget, from a total of nearly $2.9 million in the 2014-15 budget, to nearly $9.6 million in 2016-17.

The way to convince legislators that the funding is necessary is by appealing to their desire for job growth in a state that has had anemic population growth, Wozmak said.  To get population and job growth, he said, the state has to make its work force healthier and the best way to do that is to reduce drug addiction.

“If you ran on a platform of job growth, you have to deal with this issue,” he said. “If (job growth is) not going to be from people moving here, then you have to improve the work force that’s here.  “If you’re not looking to take care of this problem, then you’re falling down on your promise,” he said. “If you want to create jobs, you have to make the work force more viable.”

Wozmak said the problem can be solved. He said his role includes getting the affected parties – including law enforcement, public resources, private or nonprofit organizations, charities and treatment facilities – working together. He said a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to cover substance abuse again should help spur private investment in treatment and recovery facilities.

“There is no easy answer, but I believe there are many opportunities to make the change now on a variety of levels and a myriad of fronts,” he said. “I think we’re going to have a lot of success.”  He said getting help from the state’s medical professionals will also be key, as most heroin addicts, he said, start with addictions to prescription painkillers. He said medical professionals are “not the sole source” of the issue, but could be involved in changing the way pain is managed to help prevent addictions.

“None of them wanted to become addicts,” he said.

– See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/    8^th March 2015

Charities warn against drug legalisation on eve of Clegg announcement. 

The largest recent US national survey of drink and drug problems shows that outside the addiction treatment clinic, remission is the norm and recovery common. After 14 years half the people at some time dependent on alcohol were in remission, a milestone reached for cannabis after six years, and for cocaine after just five.

SUMMARY Among the US general adult population, and for each of nicotine, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine (including crack), this study sought to estimate the time from onset of dependence to remission, the cumulative probability of remission in different racial/ethnic groups, and to identify factors related to the probability of remission.

It drew its data from the National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) conducted in 2000–2001, which focused on drinking disorders but also asked about other forms of drug use and psychological problems. The aim was to interview a representative sample of civilian, non-institutionalised adults aged 18 and over living in households and group residences such as college halls, boarding houses and non-transient hotels. About 8 in 10 of the sample responded to the survey yielding 43,093 respondents. The featured report investigated the subgroups who had some time in their lives been dependent on nicotine (of which there were 6937), alcohol (4781), cannabis (530) or cocaine (408).

Dependence was defined as meeting the dependence criteria of the applicable version of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM manual, DSM-IV. ‘Lifetime’ dependence was diagnosed if the respondent reported having experienced at least three specific signs of this syndrome within the same 12-month period at some point in their life. The age this first happened for any particular substance was the onset year, while the remission year was based on the age when the respondent’s answers indicatedthey had last stopped meeting dependence criteria for the drug, and had continued to do so for at least a year until interviewed for the survey – essentially, the most recent (at least so far) lastinglysuccessful remission. It was on this basis that the study calculated remission rates for individual substances and related them to the time between the onset of dependence and remission.

Main findings

Proportion of dependent users in remission

Within a year of first becoming dependent, 3% each of smokers and drinkers were in remission and remained so until they were surveyed. For cannabis the figure was nearly 5% and for cocaine, nearly 9%. After ten years the proportions in remission had risen to 18% for nicotine, 37% for alcohol, 66% for cannabis and 76% for cocaine  chart. It could be estimated that by the end of their lives 84% of formerly dependent smokers would be in remission, 91% for alcohol, 97% for cannabis and 99% for cocaine. About 26 years after first becoming dependent, half the people at some time dependent on nicotine were in remission, a milestone reached for alcohol after 14 years, for cannabis six years, and for cocaine five years.

Once other factors had been taken in to account, for each of the substances, men who had been dependent at some time were significantly less likely than women to be in remission, especially in respect of the two illegal drugs, cannabis and cocaine; for every 10 women only about six men were in remission from dependence on these drugs. Black Americans once dependent on nicotine or cocaine were less likely to be in remission than white Americans – for cocaine, half as likely. After four years, about 50% of whites had sustained remission from dependence on cocaine; African Americans took nine years to reach the same milestone.

About 80% of people at some time dependent on nicotine or alcohol and almost all those once dependent on cannabis or cocaine had also at some time met diagnostic criteria for another psychiatric disorder, including conduct (antisocial behaviour in early life) and personality disorders. Once other factors had been taken in to account, people who had met criteria for conduct disorder were much more likely than others to have overcome their dependence on cannabis. In contrast, a diagnosis of a personality disorder was associated with a lower probability of remission from cannabis (and also alcohol) dependence. Having once experienced mood and anxiety disorders was unrelated to remission from dependence on any of the four substances.

The authors’ conclusions

The general picture is that the vast majority of people in the USA once dependent on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis or cocaine stop being dependent at some point in their lives, and this happens after fewer years for cannabis or cocaine than for nicotine or alcohol. Black Americans stay dependent longer on nicotine and cocaine than white Americans, and probabilities of remission are associated with social and psychological characteristics and dependence on other substances. However, the fact that that many people once dependent were no longer at the time of the survey should be interpreted with caution given the irregular course of addictions punctuated by remissions and relapses; their remission may have been temporary. Possible explanations for these findings are considered below.

More than two thirds of remissions from cannabis and cocaine dependence occurred within the first decade after onset of dependence, but only a fifth for nicotine and a third for alcohol. These differences may be explained in part by how quickly adverse physical, psychological and social consequences become apparent. For instance, the risk of early cardiovascular problems is much higher among individuals dependent on cocaine than among those dependent on nicotine or alcohol. Behavioural disturbances resulting from cannabis or cocaine dependence and their illegal status impose stronger social pressures to remit. The pervasive availability of alcohol and nicotine also means pervasive environmental prompts to using the drugs. Particularly for nicotine, perceived immediate benefits including anxiety and stress reduction, improved cognitive performance, and weight control, may initially outweigh perceived potential harms from long-term use.

Consistent with previous studies, black Americans once dependent on cocaine were less likely to remit than their white counterparts. Psychosocial factors that commonly affect black populations, including discrimination and lower levels of social capital, have been recognised as barriers to remission and triggers to use or relapse; genetic factors may also contribute.

Men were less likely than women to remit from dependence, perhaps because substance use is more damaging (physically, mentally and socially) for women, heightening motivation to stop using. Feelings of guilt and concerns about substance use during pregnancy and child-rearing may also play a particular part in prompting remission among women.

Individuals who met criteria for a personality disorder were less likely to remit from alcohol or cannabis dependence. This may be because characteristics of these disorders such as being impulsive, intolerant to stress, anxious, and craving new experiences, also predispose to substance use, and these characteristics tend to persist.

Among the limitations of the study were that it omitted institutionalised individuals including prisoners. People whose substance use led to their early death would also have been missed, as may some with severe but non-fatal consequences. These omissions may have caused an overestimation of the probability of remission across the entire population. The study also had no information on the number and duration of remission episodes over an individual’s lifetime; it could only relate other factors to the latest of these remissions.

 COMMENTARY The good news from this analysis is that, in the US context, rather than continued dependence, remission is the norm. Most people overcome or grow out of their dependence on the drugs analysed by the study – for cocaine and cannabis, after just five or six years, and for alcohol, after 14, and over their lives people continue to remit until nearly all are no longer dependent. But at least in respect of drinking, there are a set of multiply problematic drinkers who despite treatment, take many more years to stop being dependent. The findings on black versus white Americans suggest that remission rates depend on socioeconomic factors; sampled at another period in the USA’s economic cycles or in respect of drugs used predominantly by more or less advantaged sections of the population, remission rates too might differ, and look more or less like the chronic disease model.

The data presented in the featured article did not show whether the user ‘in remission’ had simply become dependent on another drug. Within the set of illegal drugs and medicines, this seemed uncommon, because the total remission rate was so high. But it seems more than possible that some who matured out of illegal drug use instead took up heavy drinking, in social and legal terms, a dependence easier to live with as an adult.

Remission rates looking forward

An acknowledged weakness of the featured report is that it asked respondents to recall changes which may have happened many years ago. However, the survey was repeated about three years later when 87% of the people who still qualified for the survey were re-interviewed. The follow-up offered an opportunity to see how many dependent at the time of the first survey had recovered three years later. These analyses seem only to have been done for drinking, for which they confirm that most people cease to be dependent though most too continue to experience drink-related problems and to sometimes drink heavily, and remain vulnerable to relapse. This average impression results from the pooling of dramatically different trajectories, from older multiply problematic alcoholics who usually do not remit despite treatment, to youngsters who generally quickly remit without formal help. Details below.

Among the re-interviewed sample were 1172 of the 1484 people who had been dependent on alcohol in the year before the first interview three years before. Nearly two thirds were longer dependent in the year before the follow-up interview. So complete was their recovery that a fifth of those previously dependent had in the past year experienced no indications of abuse or dependence; of these, three quarters were still drinking. About 11% not only had no symptoms, but were exclusively drinking within low-risk guidelines, evenly split between those drinking moderately and those not drinking at all.

But this broad-brush picture hid substantial variation in the fates of different types of dependent drinkers. At one extreme were the most severely affected drinkers with multiple psychological problems and on average about nine years of dependence behind them, two thirds of whom were still dependent at the second interview. At the other were young adults and older drinkers with few complicating psychological disorders and few years of dependent drinking. For most of these the dip in to dependence was a phase which (at least for time being) was over by the the second interview, when just under 30% were still dependent.

At least for the three years between the surveys, remission was very stable. Among the re-interviewed sample were 1772 of the 2109 who three years before had been in “full remission” from past dependence on alcohol, meaning that even though they may sometimes have drunk above low-risk guidelines, for the past 12 months they had reported no symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependence. Of these just 5% had slipped back to being dependent in the year before the second interview, though a third who had been drinking above low-risk guidelines had re-experienced some symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependence. Most stable in their recovery were the abstainers, of whom just 1 in 50 experienced such symptoms. The much greater stability of recovery in abstainers and low-risk drinkers was confirmed when other factors had been taken in to account, but was not apparent among the younger adults in the sample.

Treatment’s impact

Few dependent drug users recover through treatment and fewer still dependent on alcohol – in theNESARC survey on which the featured analysis was based, of those no longer dependent on alcohol,just 24% had at any time been in any kind of treatment for their drinking problems. Over two thirds of those who achieved more complete forms of recovery also did so without treatment.

While this shows that in the USA, treatment is generally not needed to recover from substance dependence, treatment may still make recovery more likely. In respect of dependence on alcohol, one analysis of data from the NESARC survey was consistent with formal treatment promoting recovery characterised by abstinence or low-risk drinking and no symptoms of abuse or dependence, but another and perhaps more reliable analysis found no such association.

Both however found that when treatment had been accompanied by attendance at 12-step mutual aid groups, recovery was more likely – especially abstinent recovery. These analyses could not however disentangle the possible effects of the motivation and conditions which drive someone to seek help, from the effect of actually receiving that help. Complicating the picture is the fact in this survey, the most severely affected and multiply comorbid drinkers with many years of dependence behind them were far more likely to seek treatment than less severely affected types of dependent drinkers. Despite seeking help, they were by a large margin the ones most likely to still be dependent when the survey was repeated three years later.

What about heroin and other opiates?

A notable omission from the illicit drugs included in the featured report was heroin and other opiates. Fortunately these were the subject of the greatest number of relevant studies in another review of follow-up studies of remission from dependence on amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine or opiate-type drugs. It included only studies of general populations or people who entered treatment in the normal way rather than enrolling in treatment trials.

Across the ten studies relevant to opiate-type drugs, every year on average between 22% and 9% of people were either abstinent or no longer dependent; the higher figure is the average of the proportions remitted among people who could be followed up, while the lower estimate includes cases who could not be followed and assumes they are still dependent. Generally the subjects were patients in treatment. Based mainly on patients in treatment, corresponding figures for cocaine were between 14% and 5%. The single study (from the USA) of a general population sample of cocaine-dependent people found that 39% had remitted four years after initially surveyed. For cannabis, the estimate was 17% per annum based on general population surveys and assuming people not followed up were still dependent.

In accordance with the featured article, such figures imply that within 10 years most dependent users of these drugs will no longer be dependent and may have entirely ceased use.

Racial differences reflect socioeconomic status

An analysis of data from the NESARC survey showed that taking alcohol and other drugs together, the longer dependence careers of black versus white Americans was associated with their having less social and socioeconomic resources, signified by fewer being married and fewer having completed their schooling. Once these were taken in to account, racial differences were no longer significant. The implication is that it is not race as such which makes the difference, but the position black people tend to occupy in US society. Given the same disadvantages, white Americans has dependence careers just as extended as black Americans.

Diagnostic system affects remission rate

Much in this analysis depends on the definitions used in the survey. Specifically, the probability of remission equates to the probability that someone will for at least the past 12 months have dropped below experiencing three or more dependence symptoms together in respect of the same drug. From the same survey, it is known for alcohol that many will still be consuming heavily, experiencing symptoms of dependence such as withdrawal and compulsive use, and suffering poor physical and mental health (1 2). They may be remitted from their dependence, but not according to most understandings, ‘recovered’.

Had the line been drawn elsewhere, the chances of remission might have been substantially lower – for example, as commonly in NESARC reports on drinking (1 2 3 4), if remission had been defined as non-problem moderate use or abstinence.

The latest version of the DSM manual (DSM-5) softens this binary system by diagnosing a substance use disorder when at least two symptoms are present in the same 12 months, and rating this as moderate if there were two or three, severe if four or more. ‘Abuse’ and ‘dependence’ are now subsumed within this continuum. The change seems likely to bring many more less severely affected people under the same substance use disorder umbrella as the three-symptom population investigated by the featured analysis. Their remission rates too may differ.

It is also theoretically possible that ‘remission’ may partly reflect the lack of noticeable change or struggle as with the years dependence becomes more deeply embedded and dominant in one’s life, and the change processes probed by some diagnostic questions cease to be live issues – not a sign of recovery, but of the lack such a prospect and the narrowing of life to substance use. For example, having plateaued in their use levels, long-term dependent users may no longer (or not for the past 12 months) have found themselves needing to take more of the drug to feel the desired effects, or taking more than they intended. Perhaps too in the past they had tried unsuccessfully to stop using, or had at least persistently wanted to, but now no longer tried or even wanted to. Ensuring a steady supply of drink or drugs they made no attempt to interrupt would minimise experience of withdrawal. They may also have no important interests and activities left to sacrifice to their dependence – all among the symptoms used to diagnose dependence.

Some findings from NESARC are consistent with this possibility. In the three years between the first interview and the re-interview, the alcohol dependence symptoms which fell away most often and most consistently across different types of drinkers were “taking alcohol often in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended”, “a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use”, and withdrawal.

Similarly, young adult dependent drinkers tend not to endorse the dependence symptom relating to inability to stop drinking or cut back, presumably because they have yet to try.

Related analyses

This data from the featured report has been reanalysed to show that for each of these drugs, the probability that someone would have ceased being dependent remained the same no matter how long ago they had first become dependent. For the author this falsified theories which assume that the longer it lasts, the deeper dependence becomes embedded in neural circuits or lifestyles.

The survey on which the featured article was based and other US national surveys were among those included in a synthesisof hundreds of studies of remission and recovery from substance use problems. This too concluded that “Recovery is not an aberration achieved by a small and morally enlightened minority of addicted people. If there is a natural developmental momentum within the course of [these] problems, it is toward remission and recovery”.

Last revised 24 October 2013. First uploaded 19 October 2013

Source:  Probability and predictors of remission from life-time nicotine, alcohol, cannabis or cocaine dependence: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

Lopez-Quintero C., Hasin D.S., Pérez de los Cobos J. et al.
Addiction: 2011, 106(3), p. 657–669.

To go or not to go? That is the question when invited to take part in supposedly objective drugs conferences and television investigations, behind which  looms the constant presence of one Sir Richard Branson. Two seemingly flattering invitations to drugs policy events came my way this month.

The first was to be invited to a Home Affairs Select Committee event at the University of Cambridge’s Homerton College on March 12th.  At first sight, it felt a welcome recognition of my longstanding work in the field of drug addiction, and of my new recovery solutions service (DB Recovery Resources). Moreover, it seemed like an opportunity to guide and inform public opinion – even as far as the United Nations. But I was torn for days on whether to accept or not. Finally, I regretfully declined.

Why? The Home Affairs Select Committee’s invitation was entitled “The International Conference on Drugs Policy” and its findings at the end of the day were to be fed into the influential UNGASS, the United Nations General Assembly’s Special Session on world drug problems in 2016. Tempting. But a closer look raised concerns. What exactly was a Parliamentary select committee doing hosting a drugs policy conference? Why had they chosen deputy prime minister Nick Clegg who, at the time of my invitation, was scheduled to chair it? He is a recognised proponent of drugs legalisation, going so far as to include it in his election pledge.

So I was aware of the agenda and bias of the conference before I was invited.  The list of speakers spoke for itself. Every single speaker bar one  – Sarah Graham, an addiction therapist – turned out to be  a high-profile legalisation campaigner, several from organisations funded by the convicted insider trader and fomenter  George Soros. Only after I had publicised the biased agenda on my daily newsletter did HASC kindly invited me to attend. They also at the same time added a second ‘non-legalisation’ speaker to their invite list: Professor Neil McKeganey. But I could see it was still skewed. We would be the minority underdog against high-profile and well-funded legalisation campaigners, like Dr Julian Huppert MP, Baroness Molly Meacher, Roberto Dondisch from Mexico, Danny Kushlick of Transform, Professor David Nutt, who famously said taking ecstasy was less risky than horse riding, former policeman and cannabis activist Tom Lloyd, and last but not least Mike Trace, who was forced to resign his UN role when the Daily Mail revealed him to be the driving force behind an effort to disband the world’s anti-drug laws by stealth.

What chance would I have to support my colleagues? Would this be like National Treatment Agency meetings I had attended too many times in the past (before it was abolished)  where vested-interest findings and recommendations were written before the meeting and then presented as an impartial consensus of all those present – and absent?

Would it be like the self-styled United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission meetings (before it closed) which exploited the names of attendees as supporting its predetermined ‘consensus agreement’, when in reality there was a dearth of support? Was I confident that any anti-legalisation points would be included in the final report to UNGASS? That I sadly declined the invitation gives you the answer.

No. The worry is now that UNGASS may believe this Home Affairs Select Committee report, that UK taxpayers are unwittingly funding, to be impartial.  Better to blog, I thought, and hopefully open their eyes to the truth.

The second ‘flattering’  invitation was to appear on Channel 4’s Cannabis Live programme on 3 March. Although warned in advance about its inherent bias – it was funded by both C4 and Soros-supported organisations, and known legalisation proponents were booked as its speakers – I decided to accept in the hope I would be able to capture some airtime for anti-legalisation views.

(Declaration: my view is informed by the basic laws of supply and demand: increased availability leads to increased consumption. In addition there is, to my very real knowledge, so much disinformation about pot in the public domain that few people can make an informed choice). It was the right decision; although it was questionable whether there was a need for a programme experimenting ‘live’ with substances that are already known to have significant and very negative side effects. It was also worrying that Professor Nutt was  an “independent” scientific expert on it, given his obsession with cannabis legalisation and his well known insistence that it is less harmful than alcohol.

A plus turned out to be Jon Snow’s and Andrew Marr’s very negative experiences when skunk was tested on them. Perhaps that’s why presenter Snow carefully inched my neighbour off his seat to interview me, allowing time for me to make some pivotal points.  These were particularly in response to Branson’s call for regulation [legalisation] of cannabis as a solution to the world’s drug problems. I pointed out  that tobacco is regulated yet kills  more people than any other drug in the world;   that alcohol, benzos and methadone are all regulated but follow tobacco in killing more people each than illicit drugs.

I also pointed out that the first paper linking cannabis and psychosis was published 170 years ago –  in 1845  – so this is not new. All my points were transmitted unedited. A number of ‘silent’ audience members in Narcotics Anonymous introduced themselves and thanked me as we were leaving the studio.  It reminded  me of  US drug czar Michael Botticelli’s recent comment: “I do wish the recovery community was much more involved in anti-legalisation efforts”.

However the trouble with Cannabis Live – posing as science when it was exhibitionist entertainment, as one distinguished former Professor of pharmacology commented to me afterwards  – is that it provided a launchpad for the differences between “beneficent” hash and “nightmarish” skunk to be exploited by the legalisation lobbyists. Their hidden agenda. It was worrying that the programme ignored the harms from hash (as opposed to skunk):  yet these include the risk of psychosis, behavioural changes, lack of motivation, lowering of IQ, lung cancer, mouth cancer, motor crashes, lowering of fertility (a mixed blessing) – and the fact that pregnant women using hash can give birth to addicted babies with a range of mental-health problems and medical problems, including leukaemia.

At a press conference the next day, billionaire legalisation campaigner Branson was still calling for regulation (legalisation of cannabis) as a solution despite all the downsides he’d witnessed at Cannabis Live. Of course he did not mention that tobacco is regulated and it kills more people than any other drug in the world, for the simple reason that it is the most widely used drug in the world.

In his cloud cuckoo land, the 80 per cent of cannabis users who use skunk would downgrade to the milder version if they were both legal. I don’t think so. It’s against human nature. Finally, it was left to David Nutt to round up the programme – with his extraordinary recommendation that skunk should remain low in the index of drug harms, in cannabis’s current place, while hash should plummet to the lowest ranking. Maybe he was too close to the skunk factory set up beside his artificial brain in the studio. Had anyone in the audience changed their mind about being pro- or anti-legalisation, asked Snow at the end of the programme? Not one hand went up. I leave you to decide whether this infotainment fulfilled Channel 4’s mission to “keep public service values to the fore”.

Source:   www.the Conservative Woman.co.uk    7^th March 2015

Has anyone been to Colorado recently? The majestic Rocky Mountains are rapidly becoming obscured by a cloud of smoke emanating from bongs, pipes, one-hitters and joints. Talk about a ‘Rocky Mountain high’ ! Colorado has become a magnet for people whose sole interest in life is smoking a joint and getting stoned.

Spending two years as an Intelligence Officer on the Southwest Border I’ve seen up close and personal the destruction and brutality taking place right across our border in Mexico. The wanton barbarism of those involved in the Mexican drug trade equals if not surpasses anything we have seen from al Qaeda or ISIS. Not just beheadings are taking place but the outright butchering of other human beings, much of it inflicted while the victim is still alive.

The cartels have also shown a complete disregard for our national borders, kidnapping American citizens here in the U.S., and bringing them back into Mexico where they are subsequently tortured and killed. Yes, most of those Americans have involved themselves in the drug trade and face the potential consequences of that choice, but the complete lack of respect for our national borders by the Mexican cartels should trouble every American.

Unfortunately the insatiable appetite Americans have for drugs fuels the violence south of our border. Some say the answer is the answer to legalize drugs in the U.S. Sorry, but if anyone thinks that will stop the violence they’re dead wrong. The cartels in Mexico are interested in the accumulation of power. They will continue to kill each other and the occasional American because power and control are what they crave. I doubt too that they’ll be willing to ‘legally export’ their deadly poisons into the U.S. and pay the necessary import fees and taxes. Conforming to the law isn’t something they’ve been much concerned about nor inclined to do in the past.

What should be of even more concerned to Americans is whether or not we want a country that’s stoned out of its’ mind half the time ? Or for that matter a single state, such as Colorado appears to be now ? There are those proponents of legalized drugs usage who want the Colorado ‘failed’ experiment to spread nationwide. Those that argue that marijuana use isn’t any worse than alcohol fail to acknowledge the medical research and evidence that proves otherwise. I won’t list all the health concerns proven to be caused by continued marijuana use, but suffice to say there is a mountain of medical evidence that marijuana is much more harmful to the human body than tobacco or alcohol. (Insert here the obligatory loud chorus of marijuana users who will argue against the factual scientific and medical evidence, since it doesn’t match their arguments.)

But in addition to the destruction of our society through substance abuse, there is clear evidence that the Mexican cartels have provided assistance to some Islamic terrorist groups who are bent on causing death and destruction inside the United States. Not to say that Mexican cartels are necessarily supportive of extremist Islamic causes, they’re just businessmen. Businessman who could care less about any threat to the gringos up north. Should groups like ISIS, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda want to pay them for their assistance in getting terrorists across the border into the U.S., if the price is right the cartels will be happy to oblige.

So does the violence and drug trafficking occurring along our Southwest border impact us in the U.S. ? Does our insatiable appetite for marijuana and other drugs threaten our national security ? The answer to both questions is absolutely ‘yes’ !

Regardless of what goes on in Colorado the ‘War on Drugs’ will continue. But it will continue with the Mexican Cartels having the upper hand, since they have more allies on our side of the border than American law enforcement does. And people will continue to be butchered alive in order to satisfy the American appetite for drugs.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/dwwilber/2014/10/27/

Though many young people seem to perceive marijuana as harmless, its use may pose serious risk for adverse behaviors and health consequences.

An extensive research review published June 5 in the New England Journal of Medicineconcluded that marijuana use is linked to multiple adverse effects—particularly in youth.

“Despite some contentious discussions regarding the addictiveness of marijuana, the evidence clearly indicates that long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction,” said lead author Nora Volkow, M.D., director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and three of NIDA’s top officials.

Stanimir G.Stoev/Shutterstock

According to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana is the most commonly used “illicit” drug in the United States, with an estimated 12 percent of people aged 12 or older reporting its use in the prior year. The 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey—supported by NIDA—found that 6.5 percent of 12th graders report daily or near-daily marijuana use, with 60 percent perceiving regular use of marijuana not to be harmful (Psychiatric News, February 6). Volkow and colleagues suggested that as more states move toward policies that legalize cannabis for medical or recreational purposes, rates for marijuana use among teenagers and young adults will increase, as will the negative health consequences associated with its use.

“The regular use of marijuana during adolescence is of particular concern, since use by this age group is associated with an increased likelihood of deleterious consequences,” Volkow and colleagues cautioned.

The review, “Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use,” provided science-based reasoning to explain the onset of marijuana addiction and gave an overview of the adverse health consequences associated with marijuana use from data of 77 studies and literature reviews.

From animal studies, the authors concluded that exposure to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the primary psychoactive chemical in cannabis—in early life can recalibrate the dopaminergic system, the reward system of the brain, to become more sensitive to stimulation with drugs. The authors speculated that the findings may help to explain the increased vulnerability to abuse of marijuana and other substances in later life, which have been reported by adults who initiated cannabis use during adolescence.

The review also highlighted studies showing an association between marijuana use and impaired regions of the human brain, including the precuneas, a key node that is involved in alertness and self-conscious awareness, and the hippocampus, which is important in learning and memory. Other adverse consequences of cannabis use included impaired driving, lowered IQ scores into adulthood, and a potential risk to exacerbate psychotic symptoms in those with mental disorders. The review suggested that risks for adverse effects increase when the drug is used along with alcohol.

“Some physicians continue to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes despite limited evidence of a benefit,” noted Volkow and colleagues. “Because older studies are based on the effects of marijuana containing lower levels of THC, stronger adverse health effects may occur with the use of today’s more-potent marijuana.”

The authors emphasized that more research must be done on the potential health consequences of second hand marijuana smoke, the long-term impact of prenatal cannabis exposure, and the effects of marijuana legalization policies on public health.

“It is important to alert the public that using marijuana in the teen years brings health, social, and academic risk,” said Volkow. “Physicians in particular can play a role in conveying to families that early marijuana use can interfere with crucial social and developmental milestones and can impair cognitive development.”

Source: http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/ June 26, 2014

This article, based upon the research of professor Troy Payne from the University of Alaska, documents facts that dispel these claims. I think you will find it extremely informative. Similar information should be available in every state fighting legalization. Monte Stiles, DrugWatch International.

 It’s complicated: Marijuana law enforcement numbers in Anchorage

There are numerous criminal justice statistics cited in support of and in opposition to Ballot Measure 2 (An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana). Recently, arrest numbers, prosecution outcomes, criminal sentencing practices, and incarceration rates, have all been referenced in ads, op-eds, and at debates.

Each of these statistics provides valuable information, but each represents only one aspect of the effect of marijuana on criminal justice in Alaska. The criminal justice system itself is comprised of multiple agencies (law enforcement, courts, corrections, each at local, state, tribal, and federal levels) which, while often working together, ultimately focus on separate tasks, then record, track, and monitor their progress differently and independently.

Focusing on arrests as the sole measure of the criminal justice impact of marijuana can be misleading. Often, marijuana crimes are accompanied by other criminal activity, so it is difficult to parse out what someone was actually “arrested for.” Many data sources will only report the most serious offense. Focusing on the number of prosecutions, convictions or incarceration rates does not provide an accurate overview either, because that number misses the people who had marijuana seized, but who were not prosecuted for marijuana offenses. Additionally, prosecutorial records, and any statistics drawn from them, may not be reliable indicators because as Dean Guaneli, former chief assistant attorney general for Alaska, pointed out in an Oct. 17 op-ed, to get the full view, “you have to look at the background facts in each case.”

As previous commentators have noted, no one in Alaska has completed a detailed analysis of marijuana-case processing from start to finish. Unfortunately, I do not currently have data for that either. But each piece of information is useful in light of the upcoming election. My goal is to bring another small amount of data to the public regarding this issue — a piece of data that illustrates one aspect of the effect of marijuana on criminal justice in Alaska: interaction with the Anchorage Police Department.

I looked at the beginning of the process — from the point police seized marijuana. Most other data sources (arrests, prosecution outcomes, sentencing, incarceration) deal with much later parts of the criminal justice system. None of these alone can provide a complete picture of marijuana-case processing in Alaska. Doing so is surprisingly complicated. (Readers are welcome to register for a few justice and legal studies classes at UAA to find out exactly why, but I will explain a few reasons here.)

I requested information on every incident in which APD seized any amount of marijuana from January 2010 through the latest date available, the end of June 2013. This allows me to describe all incidents in which marijuana was seized, regardless of whether an arrest was made or charges were ultimately filed — capturing all instances where individuals encountered law enforcement because of marijuana.

An “incident” can start with a citizen call to police or through proactive policing such as a traffic stop. “Incident” is the basic unit of police work. Marijuana is seized in less than one-half of 1 percent of all police incidents in Anchorage. Marijuana was seized in about 3,400 out of nearly 900,000 police incidents from January 2010 through midyear 2013, the latest data made available by APD. While that is a small percentage of overall police incidents, APD seizes marijuana between two and three times a day, on average.

The typical marijuana seizure in Anchorage involves a small amount of marijuana — 78.6 percent of incidents where marijuana was seized involved less than 1 ounce of marijuana. Over a third of incidents, 36.3 percent, involved less than 1/8 of an ounce of marijuana.

About three-quarters of incidents (76 percent) where marijuana was seized resulted in charges being referred to the prosecutor against at least one person. I examined what APD records noted was the primary, or most serious charge. The most common primary charge in these situations was use or display of marijuana (violation of AS 11.71.060(a)(1)). Nearly a third (31.4 percent) of persons had this as their primary charge. The next most common primary charges resulting from an incident where marijuana was seized were driving with no license or with a suspended license (10.6 percent), and possession of drugs within 500 feet of a school (10.2 percent).

Despite use or display of marijuana being the most common primary charge, most primary charges were for something other than marijuana use or possession. Over half (58 percent) of incidents where marijuana was seized began with a police response to something else, such as a disturbance or a burglary. Together with the primary charge data, this suggests either 1) that marijuana is most often seized during the investigation of other crimes which vary greatly, or 2) that marijuana use or display provides probable cause for a citizen to come to the attention of police, which then leads to more serious crimes being uncovered. Either way, the available evidence suggests that APD is not focused on making arrests solely for marijuana use, display, or possession.

Demographic data was available for incidents where a person was charged. Of persons charged, 18 percent were under the age of 18 at the time of the incident. Another 23 percent of persons were between the ages of 18 and 21 years. Persons over the age of 21 but under 30 were the largest group by age, comprising 32 percent of persons charged, with people in their 30s making up 15 percent of persons charged. Those 40 years and older made up 12 percent of persons charged. The available data on race is consistent with general trends in criminal justice, with minorities over-represented relative to their percentage in the Anchorage population.

 I hope this has provided voters with more information to consider before heading to the polls in November. As I stated at the outset, these data do not present a complete picture of marijuana-case processing — doing that requires collecting, reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing data from police departments, the state Department of Public Safety, Department of Law, Department of Corrections and the Alaska Court System. We do not yet have a comprehensive criminal justice data platform that would allow such cases processing analyses to be completed quickly.

Troy C. Payne, Ph.D. is assistant professor of justice at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He teaches data analysis, criminology, and crime mapping. His research has examined the effectiveness of policing and crime prevention strategies.

Source: Troy Payne, University of Alaska 25^th October 2014

On Nov. 4, Alaskans will consider Ballot Measure 2, an initiative to legalize the sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes. And those who support that commercial trade are investing heavily in hoping you will vote “yes.” Make no mistake about it, marijuana — like tobacco and alcohol — is big business.

Like alcohol and tobacco, the costs of marijuana to public health, public safety, our youth and lost productivity, are similarly high. It’s not surprising that Outside investors would regard Alaska as fertile territory for unconditional legalization.

In 1975, our Supreme Court found a right for Alaskans to consume small amounts of marijuana in their homes in the privacy provisions of the Alaska Constitution. And in 1998, Alaskans voted to legalize marijuana for medical purposes with 58 percent support. But Ballot Measure 2 is not about “medical marijuana,” nor is it necessary in order to protect adult Alaskans who consume marijuana in their homes from police intrusion. The measure is less about freedom than it is about profit at the expense of public health. That’s why I plan to vote “no” on Ballot Measure 2.

I came to this decision after careful consideration of the medical evidence. My guide through the scientific literature was Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Earlier this year, Dr. Volkow published a peer-reviewed paper about the health effects of marijuana in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the nation’s most eminent medical publications. Volkow directs a component of our National Institutes of Health which is, of course, neutral on state level policy initiatives. Fortunately for all of us, NIH does not prohibit its scientists from entering the discussion by objectively sharing the science with policymakers and the public.

Here’s what Volkow has to say about the state of the evidence: “The popular notion seems to be that marijuana is a harmless pleasure, access to which should not be regulated or considered illegal.”

However popular notions are not always correct. One of the detrimental effects is addiction. “The evidence clearly indicates that long term marijuana usage can lead to addiction,” Volkow states. “About 16 (percent) of those who begin marijuana usage as teenagers will become addicted. And there seems to be a strong association between repeated use and addiction. About a quarter to a half of those who use marijuana everyday are addicted. …Marijuana use by adolescents is particularly troublesome.”

Those who begin using marijuana as teenagers, when the brain is still developing, are two to four times more likely to demonstrate dependence symptoms within two years of first use than those who first use marijuana as adults. And since marijuana use “impairs critical cognitive functions … for days after use many students could be functioning at a cognitive level that is below their natural capability for considerable period of times,” according to Volkow.

These effects could be even longer lasting. Adults who smoked marijuana during adolescence have fewer fibers in specific brain regions that are important to things like alertness, self-consciousness, learning and memory.

NIDA-funded research provides some support for long standing fears that use of marijuana may be a gateway to use of other drugs with even greater known adverse health effects. Truthfully, the same may be said of alcohol and tobacco. Whether the mechanism is chemical, cultural or some combination of the two, is less well known. No evidence is cited to suggest that marijuana use keeps young people away from other drugs.

The prevalence of impaired driving in Alaska is well known and deeply troublesome. On this, Volkow observes that “both immediate and long term exposure to marijuana impair driving ability; marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently reported in connection with impaired driving and accidents, including fatal accidents.” Moreover, the mixing of marijuana and alcohol can further exacerbate the dangers to public safety.

Perhaps the most startling revelation of Volkow’s research is that all marijuana is not alike. The potency of marijuana is determined by its Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, content. Analysis of seized marijuana for sale on the street demonstrates that THC concentrations have been rising from about 3 percent in 1980 to about 12 percent today. Volkow suggests that this may be the reason for increased emergency room visits associated with marijuana and a higher level of fatal crashes. Also, the initiative specifically defines marijuana to include concentrates, which can contain 80-90 percent THC. Marijuana edibles would also be legalized and commercialized under the initiative. In Colorado, child-attractive edibles like lollipops, flavored drinks and gummy bears, with multiple doses of THC, are being sold.

Marijuana is a drug and with all drugs there are risks and benefits. Research suggests that use of marijuana or some of its component chemicals can be beneficial for the alleviation of a variety of medical conditions. But patients with these conditions benefit from discussions with their healthcare providers about the risks and benefits.

The state should examine the most appropriate access for this class of users. That said, the evidence that marijuana is harmful for non-medical use is growing. That should give Alaskans pause as we enter the voting booth.

I believe strongly in working for the health, safety, educational achievement, productivity and community welfare of Alaskans. That is why I am voting “no” on Ballot Measure 2.

• Lisa Murkowski is a Republican U.S. Senator representing Alaska.

Source: www.juneauempire.com/opinion/2014-10-22

Excessive alcohol consumption is a leading cause of premature death in the U.S. and responsible for one in every 10 deaths. The statistics that describe the ways in which we drink ourselves to death are staggering. A study published in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease found that nearly 70% of deaths due to excessive drinking involved working-age adults. The study also found that about 5% of the deaths involved people younger than age 21.  Moreover, excessive alcohol use shortened the lives of those who died by about 30 years. Yes, 30 years.

One strong factor that reinforces the popular culture surrounding drinking is the glamour of advertising. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health examined alcohol-advertising placements to determine whether the alcohol industry had kept its word to refrain from advertising targeting young people. This included television programs for which more than 30% of the viewing audience is likely to be younger than 21 years, the legal drinking age in every state.

The study found that alcohol related advertising increased by 71% in the last decade; this is largely attributed to exposure on cable television. That increase coincided with a reported upsurge of alcohol consumption by high school students. In conclusion, the study suggested that if the National Research Council/Institute of Medicine’s proposed threshold of 15% exposure to advertising was implemented, young viewers would see 54% fewer alcohol ads and society would see a correlating decrease in alcohol related deaths.

What about those “drink responsibly” admonitions on so many commercials? Federal regulations do not require responsibility statements in alcohol advertising. The alcohol industry’s voluntary codes for marketing and promotion emphasize responsibility, but they provide no definition for responsible drinking. So when you see the admonition to “drink responsibly” at the end of an alcohol-related television commercial, there is no idea given as to exactly what that may mean, particularly to someone under the legal drinking age.

David Jernigan, PhD, director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said:

“The contradiction between appearing to promote responsible drinking and the actual use of ‘drink responsibly’ messages to reinforce product promotion suggests that these messages can be deceptive and misleading.”

Youth who start drinking before age 15 years are five times more likely to develop alcohol dependence or abuse later in life than those who begin drinking at or after age 21 years according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Alcohol advertising influences many people across a wide range of demographics. Regardless of the warning labels on alcohol containers, community prevention programs and general public knowledge of the risks of excessive alcohol consumption, people continue to drink in health-damaging ways. Drinking in public, at sporting events, in parks, during celebrations, etc., is firmly embedded in society as acceptable behavior. At the same time, the large number of alcohol related deaths among all age groups is a concern, especially when this drinking behavior is generally developed while individuals are underage.

Alcohol use is a major public health problem that can lead to social, financial, and health related setbacks and premature death. Talk to health care professional if you or someone close to you is struggling with excessive alcohol consumption.

Source: www.psychcentral.com/science-addiction/2014/10

The polarized legalization debate leads to exaggerated claims and denials about pot’s potential harms. The truth lies in between.

Pretty much everyone who has spent time smoking marijuana knows at least one diehard stoner. The guy whose eyes are always red, the girl who doesn’t use the term “wake and bake” ironically, the person who just can’t seem to ever get it together. These heavy smokers might work at a low-level job or they may be unemployed—but everyone who knows them well knows that they are capable of much more, if only they had any ambition.

Is this really addiction? I believe that it is (and I don’t think that’s an argument against legalization). In fact, the reasons why marijuana is addictive elucidate the true nature of addiction itself.  Addiction is a relationship between a person and a substance or activity; addictiveness is not a simple matter of a drug “hijacking the brain.” In fact, with all potentially addictive experiences, only a minority of those who try them get hooked—and people can even become addicted to apparently “nonaddictive” things, like carrots. Addiction depends on learning, context and psychology, not just neurotransmitters.

With two states having already legalized recreational marijuana use and several more considering doing so, understanding the nature of addiction is more important than ever. Partisans on both sides of the debate have made extreme claims here; some legalizers saying there’s no such thing as marijuana addiction, while some prohibitionists claim “cannabis as addictive as heroin.”

Our concepts of addiction, however, come primarily from cultural experience with alcohol, heroin and, later, cocaine. No one has ever argued that opioids like heroin don’t have the potential to cause addiction because the withdrawal symptoms—vomiting, shaking, pallor, sweating and diarrhea—are objectively measurable. Opioids cause physical dependence that is evident when they become unavailable. The same is true for alcohol, where withdrawal is even more severe and can sometimes even be deadly.

So early researchers focused on these measurable symptoms related to alcoholism and opioid addictions in defining addiction: Using a drug could lead to becoming tolerant to it, tolerance could lead to dose escalation, which could in turn lead to physical dependence, and then the addiction could be driven by the need to avoid the painful symptoms of withdrawal. It was simple and physical.

In this view, however, cocaine and marijuana were not “really” addictive. While people can experience withdrawal symptoms like irritability, depression, craving and sleep problems when quitting these drugs, these are much more subjective and therefore can be dismissed as “psychological” rather than physical. You might really want coke or pot, but you didn’t need it like a real junkie, the thinking went.

And since most of us like to believe that we have much more control over our minds than we do over physical symptoms, “psychological” addiction is seen as far less serious than the “physical” type. It’s the remnants of this kind of thinking that mainly underlie the idea that marijuana addiction doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, that view of addiction is stuck in the 1970s.

In the 1980s—ironically, not long after Scientific American caused a big controversy by arguing that snorted cocaine is no more addictive than eating potato chips—entrepreneurs began marketing a ready-made smokeable form of the drug. The birth of crack shattered the idea that “physical” dependence is more serious than psychological dependence because people with cocaine addictions don’t vomit or have diarrhea when they quit; while they may appear desperate, it’s not in the physically obvious way of heroin or alcohol withdrawal. And so, if you are going to argue that marijuana is not addictive because you don’t get sick when you quit, you also have to argue the same for crack.

In the 1970s view, cocaine and marijuana were not “really” addictive: You might really want coke or pot, but you didn’t need it like a real junkie, the thinking went.

Good luck with that one, I say. Clearly, crack-addicted people are every bit as compulsive as those with heroin problems—and their criminal involvement if they can’t afford the drug is at least equally likely, though not as common as has been claimed. Crack dealt a deathblow to the “psychological” vs. “physical” distinction—and if it hadn’t, neuroscience was creeping up to show that the psychological and the physical aren’t exactly distinct anyway.

In the ‘70s and ‘80s, researchers also began recognizing that simply detoxing heroin addicts—getting them through the two-week period of intense physical withdrawal symptoms—is not effective treatment. If heroin addiction was driven primarily by the need to avoid withdrawal, addicted people should be out of the woods after they complete cold turkey. But as those of us who have been through it know, that is far from the hardest part.

While kicking heroin isn’t fun, staying off it in the long run is the problem—those “mere” psychological cravings are what drive addiction. Physical dependence isn’t the main problem; it isn’t even necessary. Indeed, we now know that you can actually have physical dependence without any addiction at all: There are some blood pressure medications, for example, that can have deadly withdrawal symptoms if not tapered properly, but people on these meds don’t crave them even though they are quite dependent. Similarly, antidepressants like Paxil have physical withdrawal symptoms, but because they don’t produce a high, you don’t see people robbing drug stores to get them.

So what is addiction, then, if tolerance, withdrawal and physical dependence aren’t essential to it? All of these facts point to one definition that can sum up the problem: Addiction is compulsive use of a substance or engagement in a behavior despite negative consequences. (Put more in neuroscience, addiction is a learned distortion in the brain’s motivational systems that make us persist in pursuing things linked to evolutionary fitness like food and sex.) Anything that causes pleasure via these systems—and that’s basically anything that is possible to enjoy—can be addictive to some person at some time. And that includes marijuana (and, for that matter potato chips).

This doesn’t mean that marijuana addiction is necessarily as severe as cocaine, heroin or alcohol addiction—in fact, it typically isn’t. If given the choice, most families would vociferously prefer having a member addicted to marijuana rather than to cocaine, heroin or alcohol. The negative consequences associated with marijuana addiction tend to be subtler: lost promotions, for example, rather than lostjobs; worse relationships, not no relationships. And of course, no risk of overdose death.

Marijuana addiction may quietly make your life worse without ever getting bad enough to seem worth addressing; it may not destroy your life but it may make you miss opportunities.

But this is also what can make it insidious. Marijuana addiction may quietly make your life worse without ever getting bad enough to seem worth addressing; it may not destroy your life but it may make you miss opportunities. With any pattern of regular drug use, it’s important to continually track whether the risks outweigh the benefits, keeping in mind that addiction itself may distort this calculation. This is especially true with marijuana.

However, as with all other drugs, only a minority of marijuana users ever struggle with addiction. Research suggests that about 10% get hooked—and on average, marijuana addiction lasts six years. Even more than other addictions, marijuana addiction seems to be driven by self-medication of mental health problems—90% of people with marijuana addiction also have another addiction or mental illness, typically alcoholism or antisocial personality disorder.

This suggests that exposing more of the population to marijuana won’t necessarily increase the addicted population. First, people with antisocial personality disorder, by definition, tend not to be law abiding, so most have probably already tried it. Second, the percent of people with other pre-existing mental illness will not change because marijuana becomes legal—in fact, in the UK, when they reversed their prior liberalization of marijuana law because of fears related to increased schizophrenia, psychosis rates actually went up. (The link probably wasn’t causal, but it does suggest that legal crackdowns on cannabis don’t prevent related psychosis).

If some people with alcohol, cocaine or heroin addiction switch to marijuana instead, overall harm would be reduced. As I and others have been reporting at least since 2001, using marijuana as an “exit” drug is a real phenomenon, both in cocaine and opioid addiction.

When we consider the risks of various substances, we tend to do so in isolation—but that’s not how choices are made in the real world. Most people would rather their partners have no addictions—but again, some are clearly worse than others. Marijuana craving is rarely as severe as crack craving, as is obvious.

Still, like anything that can be pleasurable, marijuana can be addictive. This doesn’t mean all addictions are the same or that it is as addictive as the currently legal drugs alcohol and tobacco—the data shows it is less so.

Pretending it can’t do any harm at all, however—or that there aren’t people who are addicted to it—does no one any good. If we want better drug policy, as with other types of recovery, we need to avoid denial.

Maia Szalavitz is one of the nation’s leading neuroscience and addiction journalists, and a columnist at Substance.com. She has contributed to Time, the New York Times, Scientific American Mind, the Washington Post and many other publications. She has also published five books, including Help at Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids (Riverhead, 2006), and is currently finishing her sixth, Unbroken Brain, which examines why seeing addiction as a developmental or learning disorder can help us better understand, prevent and treat it. Her last column for Substance.com was about why the oft-documented fact that most people age, or grow, out of substance misuse is not common knowledge.

Source: www.substance.com 15^th October 2014

The drugs sent 28,000 people nationwide to the emergency room in 2011.

Attorneys general are fighting the illegal sale of synthetic marijuana with their pens.

A letter signed by 43 attorneys general — including Roy Cooper from North Carolina — was sent to nine major oil companies last Tuesday, urging them to eliminate synthetic marijuana from their gas stations’ convenience stores and retail locations.

Use of the drugs is a national problem — sending 28,000 people to the emergency room in 2011.

“Given the significant danger synthetic drugs present to users, especially our young people, we are extremely troubled that these drugs have been readily available in well-known retail locations,” the attorneys’ letter said.

Synthetic marijuana is often marketed under names like “K2” and “Spice” and is not tested for safety, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, which received 3,679 calls due to exposure to the drug in 2014.

Kelly Alanis-Hirsch, a researcher who studies substance abuse disorders at UNC, said the synthetic drug is not comparable to the organic drug, and the lack of regulation poses a serious threat to users’ health.

“It is created by spraying various chemicals on herbs or other leafy material,” Alanis-Hirsch said. “The chemicals mimic the effect of THC that appears naturally in organic marijuana, but the synthetic marijuana compounds vary by manufacturer.”

Federal and state laws prohibit the manufacture, sale and consumption of synthetic marijuana. Synthetic marijuana was made illegal in the state in 2011 when the N.C. General Assembly classified it as a controlled substance.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act, which categorized 26 synthetic cannabinoids as Schedule 1 drugs under the Controlled Substances Act — outlawing the drugs at the federal level.

But Alanis-Hirsch said that drug companies have evaded the federal law by manufacturing substances similar, but not identical, to those prohibited by the federal government.

“Recipes are changed in response to governmental efforts to make the product illegal; thus, it’s marketed as a ‘legal high,’” she said.

Mary-Nel Saarloos, a medical doctor in Asheville, said she often treats patients who have overdosed, but the constantly changing chemical components make it difficult to diagnose. Blood and urine tests often can’t detect these components of the drug, she said.

The National Association of Attorneys General called for major oil companies to revoke franchises of gas stations that violate the federal controlled substances laws.

“Young people should not die or be seriously injured from using products bought at gas stations or convenience stores,” the letter says.

Source: www.dailytarheel.com17^th February 2015

Young men who use cannabis may be putting their fertility at risk by inadvertently affecting the size and shape of their sperm, according to new research. In the world’s largest study to investigate how common lifestyle factors influence the size and shape of sperm, a research team found that sperm size and shape was worse in samples ejaculated in the summer months, but was better in men who had abstained from sexual activity for more than six days.

(Stock image) Credit: © milkovasa / Fotolia

In the world’s largest study to investigate how common lifestyle factors influence the size and shape of sperm (referred to as sperm morphology), a research team from the Universities of Sheffield and Manchester also found that sperm size and shape was worse in samples ejaculated in the summer months but was better in men who had abstained from sexual activity for more than six days.

However, other common lifestyle factors reported by men, including smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol, appeared to have little effect.

The study, published in the medical journal Human Reproduction, recruited 2,249 men from 14 fertility clinics around the UK and asked them to fill out detailed questionnaires about their medical history and their lifestyle. Reliable data about sperm morphology was only available for 1,970 men and so the researchers compared the information collected for 318 men who produced sperm of which less than four per cent was the correct size and shape and a control group of 1,652 men where this was above four per cent and therefore considered ‘normal’ by current medical definitions.

Men who produced ejaculates with less than four percent normal sperm were nearly twice as likely to have produced a sample in the summer months (June to August), or if they were younger than 30 years old, to have used cannabis in the three month period prior to ejaculation.

Lead author Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: “Our knowledge of factors that influence sperm size and shape is very limited, yet faced with a diagnosis of poor sperm morphology, many men are concerned to try and identify any factors in their lifestyle that could be causing this. It is therefore reassuring to find that there are very few identifiable risks, although our data suggests that cannabis users might be advised to stop using the drug if they are planning to try and start a family.”

Previous research has suggested that only sperm with good sperm morphology are able to pass into the woman’s body following sex and make their way to the egg and fertilize it. Studies in the laboratory also suggest that sperm with poor morphology also swim less well because their abnormal shape makes them less efficient. Dr Andrew Povey, from the University of Manchester’s Institute of Population Health, said: “This research builds on our study of two years ago which looked at the risk factors associated with the number of swimming sperm (motile concentration) in men’s ejaculates.

“This previous study also found that there were relatively few risk factors that men could change in order to improve their fertility. We therefore have to conclude again that there is little evidence that delaying fertility treatment to make adjustments to a man’s lifestyle will improve their chances of a conception.”

Although the study failed to find any association between sperm morphology and other common lifestyle factors, such as cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption, it remains possible that they could correlate with other aspects of sperm that were not measured, such as the quality of the DNA contained in the sperm head.

Professor Nicola Cherry, originally from the University of Manchester but now at the University of Alberta, commented on a recent companion paper published by the group in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: “In addition to cannabis exposure shown in this paper, we also know that men exposed to paint strippers and lead are also at risk of having sperm with poor morphology.”

Source:

University of Sheffield. “Sperm size, shape in young men affected by cannabis use.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 June 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140604202946.htm>.

Moderate alcohol intake of at least 5 units every week is linked to poorer sperm quality in otherwise healthy young men, suggests research. And the higher the weekly tally of units, the worse the sperm quality seems to be, the findings indicate, prompting the researchers to suggest that young men should be advised to steer clear of habitual drinking.

They base their findings on 1221 Danish men between the ages of 18 and 28, all of whom underwent a medical examination to assess their fitness for military service, which is compulsory in Denmark, between 2008 and 2012.

Related Articles

As part of their assessment, the military recruits were asked how much alcohol they drank in the week before their medical exam (recent drinking); whether this was typical (habitual); and how often they binge drank, defined as more than 5 units in one sitting, and had been drunk in the preceding month.

They were also invited to provide a semen sample to check on the quality of their sperm, and a blood sample to check on their levels of reproductive hormones.

The average number of units drunk in the preceding week was 11. Almost two thirds (64%) had binge drunk, while around six out of 10 (59%) said they had been drunk more than twice, during the preceding month.

The analysis showed that after taking account of various influential factors, there was no strong link between sperm quality and either recent alcohol consumption or binge drinking in the preceding month. But drinking alcohol in the preceding week was linked to changes in reproductive hormone levels, with the effects increasingly more noticeable the higher the tally of units.

Testosterone levels rose, while sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) fell; similar associations were also evident for the number of times an individual had been drunk or had binge drunk in the preceding month. Almost half (45%, 553) of the men said that the quantity of alcohol they drank in the preceding week was typical of their weekly consumption.

And in this group the higher the tally of weekly units, the lower was the sperm quality, in terms of total sperm count and the proportion of sperm that were of normal size and shape, after taking account of influential factors. The effects were evident from 5+ units a week upwards, but most apparent among those who drank 25 or more units every week. And total sperm counts were 33% lower, and the proportion of normal-looking sperm 51% lower, among those knocking back 40 units a week compared with those drinking 1-5. Habitual drinking was associated with changes in reproductive hormone levels, although not as strongly as recent drinking, while abstinence was also linked to poorer sperm quality.

This is an observational study, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. And the researchers point out that the findings could be the result of reverse causation — whereby men with poor quality sperm have an unhealthier lifestyle and behaviours to start with. But animal studies suggest that alcohol may have a direct impact on sperm quality, they say.

“This is, to our knowledge, the first study among healthy young men with detailed information on alcohol intake, and given the fact that young men in the western world [drink a lot], this is of public health concern, and could be a contributing factor to the low sperm count reported among [them],” they suggest.

And they conclude: “It remains to be seen whether semen quality is restored if alcohol intake is reduced, but young men should be advised that high habitual alcohol intake may affect not only their general health, but also their reproductive health.”

Source:

BMJ-British Medical Journal. “Moderate weekly alcohol intake linked to poorer sperm quality in healthy young men”ScienceDaily,2October2014.      <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141002221232.htm>.

Can marijuana use put offspring at heightened risk for opiate addiction, even if the use stops before the offspring are conceived? Recent animal research by NIDA-supported scientists suggests that the answer may be yes.

Dr. Yasmin L. Hurd and colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City showed that rats whose parents had been exposed as adolescents to the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana sought heroin more vigorously than the offspring of unexposed animals. Although more research is needed to confirm and explain the findings, they are consistent with other studies suggesting that a parent’s history of drug use, even preconception, may affect a child’s brain function and behavior.

Lasting Imprint

Scientists have known for a while that drugs of abuse produce some of their effects epigenetically—that is, by increasing or decreasing the rates at which the body’s genetic machinery produces certain proteins. Researchers recently reported that some epigenetic changes produced by cocaine appear to be inherited and affect the behavior of subsequent generations. In that experiment, rats whose parents had been exposed to cocaine responded differently when introduced to the drug than did rats whose parents had not been exposed.

Dr. Hurd and colleagues hypothesized that rats whose parents were exposed as adolescents to the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC) would inherit epigenetic changes that would alter their responses to heroin. To test the hypothesis, the researchers injected adolescent male and female rats with THC for 3 weeks on an intermittent schedule (1.5 milligram per kilogram of body weight every 3 days) that corresponds to the amounts consumed by a typical recreational marijuana user. They waited 2 to 4 weeks for the drug to wash out of the rats’ bodies, then paired and mated them.

Figure 1. Offspring of THC-Exposed Parents Work Harder To Get Heroin  When only a single press of a lever was required to obtain a dose of heroin, the offspring of THC-exposed and unexposed rats self-administered similar amounts of the drug. However, when the researchers raised the work requirement to 5 lever presses for a single dose, the rats whose parents had been exposed to THC pressed almost 3 times as often as the offspring of unexposed rats.

When the offspring of these matings reached adulthood, the researchers presented them with a lever that, when pressed, delivered heroin (30 micrograms per kilogram of body weight). At first, the animals self-administered the drug at roughly the same rates as a group of control animals whose parents had not been exposed to THC. However, when the researchers made the animals work harder for the drug—requiring them to press the active lever at least 5 times to receive a dose—those whose parents had been exposed to the drug pressed on average nearly 3 times as often as the control rats (see Figure 1).

When the researchers removed the animals’ access to heroin, the THC-exposed rats’ offspring exhibited more pronounced withdrawal symptoms, such as increased locomotion and repetitive behaviors. Also during withdrawal, the two groups of rats differed in their readiness to approach a novel stimulus in their environment.

Figure 2. Offspring of THC-Exposed Rats Show Long-Term Depression of Synaptic Activity in the Striatum Medium spiny neurons in the dorsal striatum of rats whose parents had been exposed to THC responded less to electrophysiological stimulation than the neurons in rats whose parents had not been exposed to THC.

Using electrophysiology, the researchers also demonstrated that the offspring of the THC-exposed rats had altered neuronal functioning (see Figure 2). The specific alteration that they observed—enhanced long-term synaptic depression of medium spiny neurons in the dorsal striatum—has been associated with addiction in previous studies. The neurons are less responsive to stimulation, which inhibits an individual’s ability to adjust to experience and results in habitual and compulsive behaviors rather than adaptive ones.

To identify the epigenetic factors that might underlie the differences they had observed in the offspring of the THC-exposed animals, the researchers assayed concentrations of messenger RNA (mRNA) for key proteins in the brain. The formation of mRNA is the first step in the process of protein production, and mRNA levels indicate how much protein is being produced at a given time. The researchers’ analysis showed that, during adolescence, the THC-exposed animals’ offspring had higher levels of mRNA for glutamate receptors and for the cannabinoid 1 receptor in the ventral striatum. During adulthood, the offspring of the THC-exposed rats had less mRNA for N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-type glutamate receptors in the dorsal striatum (see Figure 3). Reduced production of glutamate receptors could underlie the reduced responsiveness to stimulation researchers observed in that brain region.

Figure 3. Offspring of THC-Exposed Parents Show Decreased Expression of Genes for Key Receptor Genes in the Brain Expression of genes for the glutamate-responsive receptors NMDA (Grin1 and Grin2A) and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionate (AMPA) (Gria1) and for the endocannabinoid receptor CB1 (CNR1) was lower in the dorsal striatum of adult rats whose parents had been exposed to THC. These changes in gene expression suggest an epigenetic effect of THC on glutamate and endocannabinoid signalling in the brain.

Is It Real?

The Mount Sinai researchers took pains to rule out potential nonepigenetic explanations for the differences they observed between their groups of rats. One concern was that the THC-exposed rats’ pups might themselves be exposed to the drug during gestation, resulting in altered brain development. To preclude this possibility, the researchers postponed mating their THC-exposed animals until sensitive gas chromatography and mass spectrometry confirmed that no drug remained in the animals’ blood or brain tissue. Another concern was that the THC-exposed animals might parent differently than the unexposed animals, potentially altering their offspring’s responses to heroin. To prevent this, the researchers removed the THC-exposed animals’ pups from their parents immediately after birth and had unexposed dams raise both groups of offspring in mixed litters.

Despite these careful controls, Dr. Hurd and colleagues say that they cannot completely rule out nonepigenetic explanations for the alterations they observed in their THC-exposed rats’ offspring until they see what happens in the next two generations of their germ line. The researchers are proceeding with this work.

“The idea of cross-generational transmission of complex traits such as drug responses without alterations to the genome is contentious,” says Dr. John Satterlee, Project Officer at NIDA’sGenetics and Molecular Neurobiology Research Branch. “Is it real? And if it’s real, how is it transmitted?” he asks.

Dr. Satterlee agrees with Dr. Hurd that studies on future generations are needed to definitively rule out the possibility that nonepigenetic factors led to the observed effects in the offspring. Previous exposure to THC theoretically could affect the womb or placental formation, he says, or lead to changes in the parents’ microbiome—the assemblage of microorganisms in the gut controlling a variety of conditions and behaviors—that were then transmitted to their offspring.

“If the effect is real, it’s important,” Dr. Satterlee says. “If studies show that marijuana use also shows cross-generational effects in people, those results would add to the known dangers of the drug and amplify the importance of prevention efforts, especially those aimed at youth,” he adds.

This study was supported by NIH grants DA030359 and DA033660.

Source: Neuropsychopharmacology. 39(6):1315-1323, 2014. Abstract

Szutorisz, H.; DiNieri, J.A.; Sweet, E. et al. Parental THC exposure leads to compulsive heroin-seeking and altered striatal synaptic plasticity in the subsequent generation.

It is widely known that drug legalizers will not be content with the legalization of pot. Their ultimate goal is the legalization of all drugs.

In using a few of their favourite tactics, they now argue that:

LSD and other psychedelic drugs are “safer than alcohol” 

LSD and other psychedelics have “positive psychological benefits” and the ability to “defeat addiction”

The prohibition of psychedelics is a violation of “human rights” (including the right to “belief and spiritual practice, full development of the personality, and free-time and play.”

In other words – safer than alcohol, with medical properties, and fun.

According to long-time legalization advocate David Nutt, speaking at a briefing in London:

“We’ve banned research on psychedelic drugs and other drugs like cannabis for 50 years. Truly, in terms of the amount of wasted opportunity, it’s way greater than the banning of the telescope. This is a truly appalling level of censorship.”

The movement to legalize drugs follows a predictable pattern that must be recognized. 

1.  Ignore existing laws

2.  Decriminalize use

3.  Open the door for medi-pot (CBDs)

4.  Expand medical use to include everything under the sun

5.  Full legalization of marijuana for recreational use

Despite overwhelming evidence of their intent, states seems to be following this pattern as if the pro-drug forces are interested in only the next step, when in fact their long game is “all drugs, by anyone, and all the time.”

This surrender to the drug culture, where we allow a very small minority of the population to dictate policy, laws, and even constitutions, is creating disastrous results and permanent damage to society.

Drug education works when we do enough of it. Surrender is not an option.

Source: Letter from Monte Stile to DrugWatch International 7^th March 2015

Feb. 24, 2015 8:30am

Jennifer Kerns is a branded contributor to The Blaze and other publications where she writes about the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, the future of the GOP, limited government battles and other political hot topics. She served as Spokeswoman for the historic Colorado recalls, as Spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, twice as an Appointee of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and as Spokeswoman for Prop. 8 which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During her career as a GOP strategist, she has been described as one of “the most relevant Press Secretaries in the West” — winning every major newspaper endorsement for her candidates. Proud of her ability to win over tough liberal reporters and coalitions, she made her mark by being the first known Press Secretary in history (Republican or Democrat) to win 52 unanimous endorsements from such liberal publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and the Spanish-language La Opinion – arguably among the toughest Press Corps, in the most populous State in the nation.

What a long, strange trip it’s been for pot legalization in Colorado. First, the law came under fire last year for not protecting youth as scores of children were taken to emergency rooms after ingesting their parents’ pot edibles.

Just a few days ago, nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration — both Republican and Democrat — signed onto an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Colorado’s legalization of marijuana citing numerous public safety concerns.

Now, Colorado health professionals are coming forward to report an emerging trend: expectant mothers who are addicted to pot.

The emerging health crisis is creating what is undoubtedly our generation’s version of 1980s “crack babies.” Health practitioners specializing in the field of Obstetrics & Gynecology spoke to me on condition of anonymity to report an alarming rise in pregnant patients showing up in emergency rooms and doctors’ offices and presenting mysterious complications including abdominal pains, cold sweats, shakiness, insomnia, weight loss and a host of psychological problems. According to the physicians, as routine pot smokers cease consumption of marijuana upon learning they are pregnant, it can lead to violent or painful withdrawal from tetrahydrocannabinol — also known as THC — the addictive substance found in marijuana.

The emerging situation is not unlike babies who are addicted to crack.

Physicians say the exact cause and treatment of symptoms are initially difficult to pinpoint as patients either don’t admit to prior pot use, or aren’t aware that weeks-old or even months-old marijuana consumption can remain in the body and cause such withdrawals, thus affecting children in the womb.

While the physicians in Colorado commend pot users for refraining from the use of marijuana during pregnancy, they regret to inform the patient that it is the first step in a potentially long battle.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, the presence of THC in foetuses can lead to impairment of foetus growth and low birth weight.

The March of Dimes reports that the presence of marijuana can lead to premature birth. It can also create problems with brain development which may later affect a child’s “behavior, memory, problem-solving skills and ability to pay attention.” It can also create neonatal abstinence syndrome, in which a baby gets addicted to a drug before birth “then goes through withdrawal after birth.”

In order to treat symptoms as well as help alleviate the pain of the withdrawal process, the physicians in Colorado report they have had to reintroduce doses of THC to expectant mothers, which of course leaves their babies susceptible to addiction and the complications above which often must be treated in neonatal units. The emerging situation is not unlike babies who are addicted to crack.

Cases of THC addictions during pregnancy are so much on the rise that Colorado’s health professionals have begun to bone up on the subject matter of THC and other complications from pot.

At a recent three-day nursing conference, Colorado OB-GYN nurses spent the entire final day of the conference covering THC-related topics. All of this presents new challenges for Colorado which is already struggling to keep up with demands placed upon the state by Obamacare.

And now that another state has legalized pot, these cases could become an epidemic.

These gestations, which I call “pot pregnancies,” are yet another chapter in a legalization experiment that has gone horribly awry at an expense to public health and to children — both born and unborn — who have no say in the matter.

While the Colorado legislature rushes to fix many side effects of legalization one has to ask, “Does the benefit of legalizing this substance outweigh the risk to public health?”

Those who suggest it does are simply blowing smoke.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/ 24^th Feb. 2015

International Narcotics Control Board report says US and Uruguay are breaking drug treaties and warns of huge rise in abuse of ADHD treatment Ritalin

The United Nations has renewed its warnings to Uruguay and the US states of Colorado and Washington that their cannabis legalisation policies fail to comply with international drug treaties.

The annual report from the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, which is responsible for policing the drug treaties, said it would send a high-level mission to Uruguay, which became the first country to legalise the production, distribution, sale and consumption of cannabis for recreational purposes.

The UN drug experts said they would also continue their dialogue with the US government over the commercial sale and distribution of cannabis in Colorado and Washington state.

The possession and cultivation of cannabis became legal on 26 February inWashington DC. Voters in Oregon and Alaska have also approved initiatives to legalise the commercial trade in cannabis for non-medicinal purposes.

The INCB said it “continues to engage in a constructive dialogue” with the US government on cannabis developments and it is clear the UN is putting strong pressure on the US government to ensure that the drug remains illegal at a federal level.

The US government has issued new guidance to banks on their provision of services to marijuana-related businesses and all state attorneys have been reminded of the need to investigate and prosecute cannabis cases in all states.

The INCB said it was aware that the US government intended to monitor the impact on public health of legalising cannabis and has again reminded the Obama administration that the position in Colorado and Washington meant the states were failing to comply with the treaties.

Lochan Naidoo, the INCB president, said the limitation of use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to medical and scientific purposes was one of the fundamental principles underpinning the international drug control framework. “This legal obligation is absolute and leaves no room for interpretation,” he said.

The UN body also renewed its call for the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences and voiced concern that Oman was proposing to make use of the death penalty for drug-trafficking offences.

The INCB’s annual report records a further rise in the number of new “legal highs” or psychoactive substances that have been identified. The number has risen from 348 to 388 in the past year – an increase of more than 11%. More than 100 countries are taking action against “legal highs” and the INCB has welcomed moves by China, considered by many to be one of the main sources, to start banning these synthetic substances that imitate the effects of traditional drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy.

The UN drug board also warns of a 66% increase in the global consumption of a stimulant, methylphenidate, which is primarily used in the treatment of ADHD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and is better known by one of its trade names, Ritalin. The rise has been seen in its use by teenagers and young adults in the US, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Australia.

It also highlights the lack of access for 5.5 billion people to medicines containing drugs such as codeine and morphine, which means that 75% of the world’s population do not have access to proper pain-relief treatment.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/society 3^rd March 2015

An ITV documentary will take a look at the impact of drinking alcohol in pregnancy as one in 100 babies are born in Britain each year brain-damaged with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

These babies will go through life with a range of developmental, social and learning difficulties. A few will have tell-tale facial features which will make it easier to get a diagnosis and access support, but the majority will battle with an invisible disability.

What is FASD?

Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is a series of preventable birth defects caused entirely by a woman drinking alcohol at any time during her pregnancy, often even before she knows that she is pregnant.

The term ‘spectrum’ is used because each individual with FASD may have some or all of a spectrum of mental and physical challenges. In addition each individual with FASD may have these challenges to a degree or ‘spectrum’ from mild to very severe.

These defects of both the brain and the body exist only because of prenatal exposure to alcohol.

What are the guidelines?

The Government’s current guidelines advise that those who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should avoid alcohol altogether – but then adds: “If women do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, we recommend they should not drink more than one to two units once or twice a week and they should not get drunk.”

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had taken a similar view, although they referred to one or two units a week as a safe amount.

Spokesman Dr Pat O’Brien said: “If nobody drank any alcohol in pregnancy there would be no Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and no Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. But on the other hand if you look at all of the evidence there appears to be a safe level of alcohol intake in pregnancy.”

However earlier this month they updated their advice, recommending that pregnant women do not drink alcohol during the first three months of pregnancy. The advice does say that drinking small amounts of alcohol after this time does not appear to be harmful for the unborn baby, but that pregnant women should not drink more than one or two units, and then not more than once or twice a week.

Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, former Children’s Commissioner for England, said: “Exposure to alcohol before birth is the single most important preventable cause of incurable brain damage. And it’s an issue which affects all of us in society.”

Source: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/ 3rd March 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: KEVIN@LEARNABOUTSAM.ORG

Today, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) President Kevin A. Sabet released a statement on the lawsuit brought law enforcement officials in Colorado, Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado’s Amendment 64:

“Big Marijuana must be feeling the heat, and I’m sure they are lawyering up. This is now the latest in a series of lawsuits against legalization, and we support this action because Colorado’s decisions regarding marijuana are not without consequences to neighboring states, and indeed all Americans. The legalization of marijuana is not implemented in a vacuum. The current policy of denial about federal law is untenable. Surrounding states have seen a surge in marijuana-related trafficking activity. Dealers and traffickers are openly bragging about how they have been able to smuggle state-sanctioned marijuana out of Colorado. The underground market has thrived under Amendment 64, and ever-potent gummy bears, candies, and concentrates have flooded the national marijuana market.

“We don’t think people should go to jail for smoking a joint, but we also don’t want to create Big Tobacco 2.0. Although states should be able to determine appropriate penalties, we need uniform federal drug laws regarding legalization.

“We hope Attorney General-nominee Loretta Lynch will seriously consider the ramifications of ignoring federal law, and will understand that creating a Big Marijuana industry serves no one except the profiteers who hope to follow in Big Tobacco’s footsteps.”

Source: KEVIN@LEARNABOUTSAM.ORG 5th March 2015

Tough new laws, a boost to police to crush ice drug labs and better access to rehabilitation and needle exchange programs are central to the Andrews government’s $45.5 million plan to tackle Victoria’s ice epidemic. The package has been widely applauded as a positive first step by police and frontline social workers.

Premier Daniel Andrews said 80,000 Victorians used the highly addictive drug in the past year, which has driven up crime and made attacks on frontline service workers more common. The previous government introduced tougher sentences for people convicted of attacking emergency service workers, and Labor will spend $1 million to better protect and train frontline staff to deal with ice users. Mr Andrews said workers, including emergency services, had been getting by “on their wits” when dealing with ice users .

Under the $45.5 million package, $18 million has been allocated for more rehabilitation services, particularly in rural areas which have been struggling to keep up with demand. More users are now injecting the drug so existing needle and syringe programs will also be bolstered to reduce the danger of disease.

Labour will pursue four new laws in parliament, including punishing those who publish ice “recipe books” as well as those who push drugs near schools. Dealers who use stand-over tactics to force buyers to sell ice will also be punished as will landlords who allow manufacturing or dealing on their premises. “If you are a landlord or a nightclub owner and you turn a blind eye to the fact this poison is being manufactured in your premises or being dealt in your premises you are part of the problem.”

The $45.5million will be in May’s budget and will be spent over the next four years.

Police will receive a $4.5 million investment to expand the Forensic Drug Branch which will crackdown on clandestine drug labs, as well as increasing drug profiling and intelligence. A further $15 million will be spent on new drug and booze buses. Families of addicts will also receive a $4.7 million fund to help people identify users and direct them to services. Support for families will also be expanded and a dedicated Ice Help Line will be set up.

Sam Biondo, executive officer of the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, said it was a “very positive move” to begin to address the complex problem. But Mr Biondo said there were still many issues that needed to be tackled, including looking at how the justice system approached the drug users.

He said the Napthine government’s  “tough on crime” rhetoric had helped exacerbate the problem, with Mr Biondo calling for a discussion on how people were rehabilitated. “There were a lot of words but the only actions were in corrections,” Mr Biondo said. He said diversion schemes would deliver far better outcomes than simply sending people into prison.

The Premier also flagged working with the Commonwealth and other states about stopping the importation of drugs as well as cracking down on “unexplained wealth” from suspected drug players.

The opposition welcomed the plan but also accused Labour of ripping out $5 million from community education forums and community grants programs.

“The fight against ice has bipartisan support, but Daniel Andrews’ record must be judged on his acts in cutting funding to ice programs,” opposition spokesman Tim Bull said. 

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-ice-crackdown 5^th March 2015

ONDCP DIRECTOR BOTTICELLI SITS DOWN WITH KEVIN SABET OF SAM IN “FACE TO FACE” SERIES INTERVIEW

Botticelli on marijuana: “Just to be clear, this administration, this office, is opposed to legalization. From the time that I have been in this job, the time that I’ve been in Massachusetts, I’ve never been in favor of either medical marijuana or legalization….you can begin to see that the exact same things that we had to undo with the tobacco industry are now happening with the commercialization of marijuana.”

Botticelli on Colorado: “We’re beginning to see an emerging picture, particularly in Colorado around that… Clearly, there have been some challenges.”

About D.C.’s legalization efforts: “My comments were taken out of context by some as a way to say that I supported marijuana legalization. Nothing can be further from the truth…so I feel like that was a little bit disingenuous and a little bit taken out of context in terms of what those comments were.”

About the Recovery Community: “I do wish the recovery community was much more involved in (anti-legalization efforts).”

WASHINGTON, DC – Last week, in the first of a new series of interviews Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) representatives will conduct with key leaders, SAM President Kevin Sabet sat down with Michael Botticelli, the recently confirmed director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in Mr. Botticelli’s office at the Executive Office of the President. The interview was a candid conversation about drug policy — especially as it pertains to issues related to marijuana legalization.

“Director Botticelli was refreshingly candid during our interview,” Dr. Sabet said. “He very clearly outlined his unequivocal opposition to legalization and, even more interestingly, he used his own personal, past struggle with addiction to call for the recovery community to speak up about this issue.” The interview can be seen below.

SAM is a non-profit, science-oriented, public health organization dedicated to getting the science out about marijuana and stopping Big Marijuana. It advocates for a health-first approach, and boasts numerous top public health researchers on its advisory board.

TRANSCRIPT:

Kevin: I’m here with Director Botticelli. Michael, thank you so much for being with me. This is the first episode of Face-to-Face with SAM, so thank you for doing this. How do you like it here? You’re getting used to the offices and the digs. What surprised you about your first couple of weeks as director?

Michael: One is that there is a level of authority that confirmation brings that I don’t think I really anticipated until it actually happened. I feel I’ve been given a unique opportunity here to use the next couple years to think about how we advance good science and evidence-based drug policy in the United States. We’re facing some really critical issues, but we also have incredibly exciting opportunities when we think about Criminal Justice Reform and the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Part of the reason I love this job is I feel like there have been very few times over the past thirty years where we’ve had this confluence of better science and better data, better medications, better insurance coverage, parity for insurance coverage. That’s all offset by clearly some urgent and pressing issues that we have before us. It’s one of those things that sometimes I wake up at 3 o’ clock in the morning and say, “Oh, my God. They picked the wrong guy.” But it’s great to be here. It’s great to be having the support of not only ONDCP staff, but also a tremendous amount of supporting partnerships with many organizations on the outside. The continuing focus is how do we make sure we’re all moving together for a common purpose?

Kevin: That’s a very glass-half-full perspective, which is helpful. A pessimist would look at the glass half empty and say this is a very challenging time for drug policy, especially with regard to marijuana and just legalization in general. They would say maybe ONDCP is less relevant than during the crack epidemic, when Congress demanded this kind of coordination. Before asking your opinion on things or the position, how do you see things right now with marijuana? When you think about marijuana, what comes to your mind?

Michael: There are a number of issues. Just to be clear, this administration, this office, is opposed to legalization. This is not from an ideological perspective. When you look at the research, the science, and the data behind the health harms of marijuana, particularly as it relates to youth in this country, I think we have some real challenges and hurdles facing us. The American Academy of Pediatrics did a very thoughtful piece a number of weeks ago. They came out against medical marijuana and legalization, and they did it by looking at all the attendant health harms, particularly as they relate to youth. They said that for any policy position, the most salient criteria should be what its impact is on youth in this country. That I think is where the basis of our policy comes from. We’ve made substantial gains in many areas around public health and substance use in this country when you look at youth who smoked tobacco, youth who used other substances. But unfortunately, marijuana is going in the opposite direction. Clearly, that is tagged to their perception of risk, to the messages.

Kevin: Why do you think it’s gone up?

Michael: Clearly, youth are getting messages that marijuana is a benign substance and in many cases helpful because of medical marijuana. It is astounding to me the speed with which it’s been engrained in popular culture. So it’s hard to turn on a TV show these days and not hear people making jokes about smoking marijuana. So they are getting messages that are very disingenuous and are really not speaking to them about what the health harms are. I’ve talked to many kids across the country, and I often ask them what they think about things, like what do they think about tobacco, and universally kids don’t want to smoke because they know it’s harmful. They’re worried about the chemicals that are in them. But when I ask them about marijuana, it’s the exact opposite. They think it is helpful, so they’re buying into all of the messages that unfortunately legalization efforts have said. I’ve been doing public health work for a long time, and it took us 50 years to undo what the tobacco industry did. I think many of us are concerned that Big Marijuana is using the same strategies. So if you think of what Big Tobacco did, they said, “Our product is helpful. It relaxes you. It makes you feel better.” They had physicians promoting it. They used very funny cartoon characters to market their products and they refused to reveal the ingredients of their products. And I think you can begin to see that the exact same things that we had to undo with the tobacco industry are now happening with the commercialization of marijuana.

Kevin: I have to push back a little bit. People would say, “That’s good. That’s the administration’s position, but we have federal law that covers Colorado. It’s not being enforced. Why not?” It’s a little unfair since you’re new to the position, but you do represent the administration, so why not? What’s going on, as the Control Substances Act, given that it hasn’t changed, why isn’t it (the Controlled Substances Act) being enforced?

Michael: The Department of Justice issued guidance that with limited federal resources we’re not going to go after low-level offenders for this issue. I think they have sent a message to Washington and Colorado via their Cole memo of their eight public health and public safety priorities and they are monitoring the situation to make sure that Colorado and Washington are complying with those. I just spent some time with Colorado Gov. (John) Hickenlooper who quite honestly has not been a supporter of legalization. We’re beginning to see an emerging picture, particularly in Colorado around that. The Department of Justice has clearly said, “We’ll continue to go after what we believe are egregious cases as it relates to public health and public safety issues.” They’ll continue to prosecute those cases where they find them.. I think people conflate sometimes what the Department of Justice will use their limited enforcement resources for versus whether the administration supports legalization.

Kevin: How is that in terms of the monitoring? You’re saying the emerging picture doesn’t look good. Is this something that you and your Justice colleagues are looking at closely?

Michael: Actually, ONDCP has been leading a Federal Interagency [Working] Group to look at federal state and local data to have a much more accurate picture. I think none of us want to react to anecdote, so we want to make sure we have the most robust data that we can to really look at in terms of what is happening in Washington and Colorado. Clearly, there have been some challenges, and I think even Colorado has focused on edibles as a significant issue with emergency department mentions particularly among kids. So even Colorado is understanding that particularly edibles are presenting a problem. There are instances of increased calls to the poison control lines, increased emergency department visits, increases in drugged driving arrests. I think that we again have to continue to rely on the data to give us an accurate picture of what we have.

Kevin: Is there a trigger for enforcement or is there a world where we can imagine one day, it’s going to say, “Oh, we see this x number of increase in problems, and DOJ is going to say, “Great, we’re going to enforce the law now…” Do we know?

Michael: Beyond the eight enforcement priorities in the Cole memo, I don’t think there’s a bright line that’s been determined by the Department of Justice at which point they are going to say we need to take subsequent actions on this. We see our role in terms of making sure that we have the best accurate picture to make that determination.

Kevin: Let’s talk about D.C. You made some comments. A legalization advocate asked you what you think about D.C. and marijuana. And you’re a D.C. resident, and you basically articulated the President’s budget position, which was that we’re not going to interfere in D.C. home rule. Some people interpreted that – and the legalizers certainly did – that federal law doesn’t matter and it is a home rule issue. Here’s a chance to clarify.

Michael: A couple things. One is when we look at how the President has used his budget authority, clearly, he has used home rule and home rule law as a way to continue to make sure that the District doesn’t use federal funds in ways that are against federal policy. For instance, where there have been attempts by Congress to institute restrictions on abortion funding and contraception the President has used the home rule as a way to challenge that. This was standard operating procedure as it relates to the federal budget and putting restrictions on how the District spends its dollars. In those comments I said I was opposed to legalization. My comments were taken out of context by some as a way to say that I supported marijuana legalization. Nothing can be further from the truth. From the time that I have been in this job, the time that I’ve been in Massachusetts, I’ve never been in favor of either medical marijuana or legalization, so I feel like that was a little bit disingenuous and a little bit taken out of context in terms of what those comments were.

Kevin: We’ve seen that, because the narrative the legalization advocates want to paint is that everyone is on their side, and now they can say, “Hey, even the new progressive drug czar’s on our side.” I think that’s something that they love to do. They want to mainstream their message. It’s their press posture M.O. nowadays.

Michael: It was very clear if you look at my entire comments during the course of that whole symposium, and even in the context of those comments, that we continue to oppose legalization.

Kevin: As the first director in recovery, how does this issue and should it affect the recovery community? When I say this issue, I mean legalization because I’ve kind of gotten this sense that it’s easier to ignore the issue for a lot of outside NGOs, frankly. Tell me what you think about that and also how you think this issue affects recovery policy but also recovery from an individual point of view.

Michael: I’ll talk from an individual perspective. I think people in recovery should take their own action. It’s been a long time now, but I think back to my early days of recovery, and I remember how hard it was for me to do things like walk down the street and walk near the bars that I used to hang out. I used to cross the street. And I think we know for people in early recovery, there are lots of triggers, and part of that learning curve of recovery is to learn how to understand what those triggers are. But even 26 years out, it’s a lifelong illness. As a person in recovery, I don’t want to be walking down the street and smell marijuana smoke. I don’t want to be walking down the street and see one more temptation because there is a marijuana dispensary down the street. We are already inundated through every vehicle in this society about issues around substance use and using drugs. I, as a person in recovery, don’t want more of that. I want less of it. I want to live in a healthier community and, quite honestly, I make those choices as a person in recovery. I choose to live in places, specifically in those communities, that are going to support my recovery. It’s a real challenge. There are so many people who don’t make it to long-term recovery. And I think assaulting people with seeing people smoke, and the smell and dispensaries and advertisement is yet one more thing that people, particularly people in early recovery, have to deal with and struggle with. I find it really tragic, quite honestly, that our communities now are making it harder for people particularly in early recovery to sustain that kind of lifestyle.

Kevin: Absolutely. I have a friend, 18 years in recovery, who had to leave a movie theatre in Colorado the other day and call his sponsor because of the smell. It’s amazing.

Michael: It’s very disturbing. On a personal note, I do wish the recovery community was much more involved in this, because I do think a lot of people probably feel the same way that I do. I’ve talked to other people in recovery who do feel the same way. I think our entire movement around recovery community organizations and recovering communities is precisely about how do we create communities that support and sustain people in recovery. I feel like their needs have not been heard and attended to as we think about what’s right to do for our communities. I agree that we’ve got to look at disproportionality in our criminal justice system, but how do we attend to the needs of everybody in our community, and I think the recovery voice often is not vocal. It’s clearly not heard as we’re thinking about, quite honestly, the commercialization.

Kevin: Absolutely. It’s very possible you could serve as a long-serving drug czar, but it’s also possible you will also be one of the shortest given the length of the current administration. Everyone who is in this office, sitting in these chairs, realizes there is a finite amount of time and thinks about, “What do I want to get done?” What are you thinking about as you’re beginning in terms of when you leave in two, five, eight, ten years? What do you want to get done? What do you want to be focusing on?

Michael: One of the biggest challenges that I had to come to terms with when I first came here even as a deputy is to really retrain my mind that I’m here for a time-limited period. I worked for the public health department for twenty years. I was the director in Massachusetts for nine years. So you can think about short-term, medium, long-term goals. But I think about it in a number of ways, and I think there are some things that we can do now that could really impact the trajectory of how we think about substance use issues. Over the next couple years in partnership with many of our partner organizations, I fundamentally believe that we can continue to reframe how people with substance use disorders are perceived in the United States. I really do. We’ve come a long way. I know that lots of polls show that people would rather see people get treatment rather than incarceration, but I also know there are still significant stigma, and people still feel like this is a moral issue. I think that we can really continue to change the way we think about this illness.

Clearly dealing with the prescription drug, heroin and overdose issue is something that I feel particularly important for me and our office. When you look at the morbidity and mortality, we have to focus a lot of time and energy on this. In doing so, I think we can use these opportunities to engage people who have really never cared about drug policy issues before. One of the beneficial things around the magnitude of the opioid issue is that there are a lot more people now at the federal level, at the state level, at the local level who are really concerned about this. I think we should use that as an opportunity to focus on solutions not just specifically as they relate to the heroin and prescription drug issue but that we really begin to implement the systemic changes that we’ve known for a long time need to be put in place. Let me give you an example. Colleagues in Massachusetts have done a great job at making sure that private insurance companies are meeting the requirements of parity, that they’re implementing good, evidence-based programs, that they’re really stepping to the table to do that. It’s those kinds of solutions that I think can work for everybody. The last piece, I give a lot of credit to this administration of focusing on Criminal Justice Reform. I think there are some substantial changes we already have made and that we can continue to make over the next couple years as we think about particularly dealing with people with substance use disorders as it relates to intersection with the criminal justice system.

Kevin: How do we talk about that issue in the nuanced way that it deserves, because clearly, I think it’s oversimplifying when we just say everyone who’s a drug user enters the criminal justice system, it’s only “treatment over incarceration,” because if there’s a crime involved, I think, people are saying there should be some kind of penalty for that in conjunction with treatment. It’s not always treatment over incarceration for a user if they’re there for something other than use.

Michael: I think of it in three buckets. One is we know there is a huge and extraordinary number of people who are intersecting with the criminal justice system largely as a result of their substance use disorder. Only one in ten people [is] getting access to treatment historically.

Kevin: These aren’t people that are in there for drug offenses. These are people that are there, committed their crimes, and they have a drug problem, correct?

Michael: And they have a drug problem, so how do we through policy and practice divert people away? For example, the commissioner of police in New York City has actually begun to open assessment in triage centers. So cops on the beat actually have some place to take someone with a substance use disorder rather than sending them to Rikers Island, which I think is great. So there are things we can do on the policy and practice level to be able to do that. There are certainly those people that you mentioned who need to be incarcerated but also have a substance use disorder, so we want to make sure there’s good, effective treatment behind the walls. We also know that the vast majority of those people are coming back to our community. So how do we make sure we have good reentry services, that we’re linking people to care, that we don’t continue to have real legal and other barriers for people to reengage with their community? No matter where I go across the country, the two biggest issues I hear in terms of people supporting long-term recovery are stable housing and stable employment. If you have a criminal record, your chances are minimal in terms of finding that, so there’s been a lot of work happening particularly through the Reentry Council at the White House as well as at the Department of Justice about how we think about diminishing those real barriers that people have to sustain their recovery.

Kevin: And one of the things that SAM talks about is we don’t need to penalize somebody for life and give them the criminal records, so they can’t go and become productive members of society, because the original intent of these things is to deter.

Michael: Generally, if people don’t commit another crime within three years, there’s very little likelihood for the rest of their life, but often, criminal records are used for much longer periods of time in an effort around public safety. One of the things that I think is really helpful here, is that we really have bipartisan support within Congress, within states for wholesale Criminal Justice Reform. So we have some very conservative states, like Texas and Kansas, who basically realize we cannot sustain these correctional costs, and they’re implementing a wide variety of what we know to be effective practices to keep people out of incarceration.

Kevin: Our field’s challenge is to define that criminal justice reform not by legalization, which is what some people want to define it as, but as real strategies and programs.

Michael: We need trusted messengers in this discussion. I think that there are some people who will always cast a degree of skepticism as it relates to government and what our messages are, but we also want to make sure that we have trusted messengers in the medical field, in all of the areas that we need to do this work, because I think it’s really important for us to make sure that not only are we educating the public but [also] we’re educating other stakeholders in terms of what are the issues that we have here and what do we know to be effective in the work that we do.

Kevin: Director, thank you so much for doing this.

Michael: Thank you, Kevin, and thank you for your efforts.

Source: http://learnaboutsam.org/ 4^th March 2015

Nearly five young people are being admitted to hospital every day in NSW because of alcohol, exclusive data from NSW Health shows.

The figures show the huge toll alcohol is taking on children and young people in NSW, with a child aged between zero and four admitted to hospital almost every week because of injuries linked to their parents’ drinking. 

In total, nearly 1800 children aged between zero and 19 were so injured by their own drinking or that of others they were admitted to hospital in the 2012-13 financial year.

Experts say the government needs to urgently crack down on alcohol sales to children by introducing undercover stings, while parents need to heed the message that providing alcohol to their kids is dangerous.

The director of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth, Mike Daube, said the hospital admissions were just the tip of the iceberg.

“This is only injuries so severe they need hospitalisation, and even then it is five a day in NSW alone,” he said. “This comes in a week when research has shown more than half of kids say it’s easy to buy alcohol.

“How many more wake-up calls do we need … state governments need to crack down on this issue.”

In the 2012-13 financial year, the last for which information is available, 1565 teenagers aged 15 to 19 year were admitted to hospital because of problems linked to alcohol. The overwhelming majority were male.

The injuries could involve problems directly caused by alcohol consumption, or injuries linked to alcohol, NSW Health said. Last month a 19-year-old student, Carl Salomon, died after falling from a crane into water in Balmain after a night out drinking.

And the harm doesn’t stop with teenagers. More than 50 children aged between zero and four and 70 aged five to nine were treated in hospital because of injuries linked to alcohol. Even more would have suffered from problems linked to foetal alcohol syndrome, which occurs in a baby whose mother drinks heavily while pregnant, that are not included in the data.

The chief executive of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Michael Thorn, said cheap, two-for-one and similar alcohol deals encouraged young people to binge drink. “Kids are very price-sensitive,” he said. “And they don’t take it home if they haven’t drunk it all”.

This week the foundation released a report into alcohol’s impact on children and families that found up to a quarter of people could be experiencing harm from the drinking of family members.

“Being raised in a harmful environment is very deleterious to a child, it affects their education, their development, their wellbeing, and it certainly increases their likelihood of health problems later,” he said.

Jo Mitchell, the director of the centre for population health in NSW Health, said dangerous drinking did not just occur among young people. “This is a serious public health issue across all age groups,” she said. “Often people think there’s a specific problem for young people … whereas the data shows that across the board there are high levels of risky drinking among adults as well.”

A new NSW Health data snapshot shows the rate of alcohol hospitalisations in NSW increased by 35 per cent from 1998-99, with nearly 52,000 hospital cases linked to alcohol in 2012-13.

But she said there had been some good successes in recent years in decreasing drinking rates. The department was also focused on delaying the age at which young people drank, and raising awareness among parents about the dangers of alcohol supply.

One such program, called “Stop the Supply“, has been run by the Northern Beaches Community Drug Action Team.

Team chairwoman Susan Watson said many parents were not aware of the dangers of youth drinking.

“We know that alcohol causes damage to [a growing] brain, and we didn’t know that years ago … so it’s really about starting conversations with parents about that,” she said. “It can be really difficult for parents to make these decisions when there is all this pressure out there, not just from themselves but from other parents.”

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/children-admitted-to-hospital-because-of-alcohol 1^st March 2015

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — As the prescription drug and heroin epidemic continues to worsen on Staten Island and elsewhere, Borough President James Oddo plans on combating that by impressing on kids the importance of staying away from drugs.

He outlined an initiative recently during an editorial board meeting with the Advance, beginning with fifth-graders and imparting on them why they are “Too Good For Drugs.”

The aptly named program will either pair classroom teachers with police officers during the school day or pair after-school leaders with officers to teach students “an evidence-based program that has proven to work,” Oddo said.

The program will be piloted in the spring in one public school in each Staten Island police precinct and later broadened to other public and private schools.

In the 120th Precinct, PS 16 will pilot the program; PS 44 in the 121st Precinct; PS 8 in the 122nd Precinct; and PS 3 in the 123rd Precinct.

STATEN ISLAND’S EPIDEMIC

Statistics show that alcohol and substance abuse among high school students is higher on Staten Island than the city average. That applies to all categories of use, including for alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, opioids and other prescription drugs.

Oddo’s director of education, Rose Kerr, said the NYPD, Department of Education and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York reviewed the curriculum and found “that it will be one that can be adapted to the police officer in the classroom.”

There will be a mechanism, she said, to monitor behavioral changes or use feedback forms to determine effectiveness of the curriculum and then decide how to spread it to other schools.

Oddo said of the initiative, “to a certain degree, it’s the same approach” as the D.A.R.E program, which is no longer implemented in NYC schools.

Ms. Kerr said, “The curriculum is contact-based on specifically ways in which abuses can be combatted: Decision-making skills and other content and life skills.”

She added, “We are hoping that this will be an ounce of prevention as opposed to a cure. We need the prevention piece, we need young ones to think differently and make different choices.”

‘IT’S THE BEGINNING’

Oddo said it became clear that high school and even middle school is too late to begin talking to kids about substance abuse.

He hopes to “start at the fifth grade and then grow this curriculum so that at each grade, in multiple steps along the way, these kids have the right message to kind of counter the pressures.”

Oddo added, “Is this the panacea? No. But it’s the beginning of getting a much larger presence in our schools, to get much more aggressive with this captive audience to fight this. Because this is life and death and there’s been, frankly, too much death.”

Source: http://www.silive.com/news 27^th Feb.2015

Seeking professional help for addiction is usually overwhelming. In this professional’s opinion, AA and NA (along with your primary care physician) are better starting points, but if you’re going to add a trained clinician, please consider starting with counseling and not therapy.

There’s an important difference between the two. Therapy is about the past and how it continues to affect us today. Counseling is about dealing with today forward. We’re putting the cart before the horse when we consider how and why everything went to hell. It’s infinitely better to concretely plan and be accountable for taking the steps to get out of hell.

You can deal with the past when your ass is no longer on fire.

Go see your doctor and make sure you’re medically safe. Go to a meeting and ask for help. See a counselor if you want additional support but interview them to ensure that they have a thorough understanding of how to treat addiction (your health insurance company will pay virtually any clinician with a masters degree whether they know what they’re doing or not).

How to Pick the Right One:

One of my biggest criticisms of counselors and therapists alike is that a lot of us talk pretty but don’t get down to the nitty gritty of what (specifically) folks need to do in order to change. When you meet with a counselor ask them what their experience is in treating addiction and to what extent they are willing to offer you specific steps toward recovery.

These are the basics that I recommend after a person’s medical well being is assured:

Keep it simple and be willing to make an honest effort. Are you willing to not drink today? Just for today, are you willing to do whatever it takes to not drink? Stop thinking about the rest of your life and focus on not drinking for the next 24 hours. I am totally, unapologetically biased in favor of 12 step programs and so I offer the adage:

Don’t think. Don’t drink. Go to meetings.

If that’s all we do, we’re well on our way.

People often ask me how to not drink. I annoy them by starting with common sense: Get the alcohol out of your home, office, garage, etc. Stay out of bars. Stay away from people you drink with. Do not go to the liquor store. Do not buy alcohol. Then we move on to what they’re really asking, which is what are they supposed to do instead of drinking:

Next step: embrace responsibility and accountability. If you’re doing treatment and a 12 step program you can have at least two folks assisting you with this – your counselor and a temporary sponsor. You don’t need to make huge commitments. You need someone to call and lean on (especially when you crave a drink), guidance for when you’re not sure what to do next, and you need a relapse prevention plan because:

There are few things more dangerous than a person in early recovery with too much time on their hands. AND because the worst possible time to make a plan is when we’re already scared/squirrelly/antsy. There’s a balance to be struck here: We can’t over commit ourselves to the point of going 100 mph but we have to structure our day to incorporate people and meaningful activities that do not include alcohol/drugs.

Personalize Your Plan/Get Specific:

I spoke recently with an active alcoholic who told me he can’t stop drinking screwdrivers (vodka and orange juice). I’m suggesting he brush his teeth once per hour because orange juice and toothpaste are one of the most disgusting combinations I can think of. Put it under the category of “whatever works.”

I note the habits and routines that are part of a person’s life – everything that gets associated with drinking or using. Example: You put on ESPN and crack open a beer. Ok, how about we temporarily ban Sports Center in order to reduce temptation. Instead, let’s change things up and consciously choose what to do instead. Example – put on loud music and drink huge quantities of water (vital in early recovery as your body seeks to right itself).

The same individual was able to share with me how their drinking has had a negative impact on their loved ones. I’m suggesting that conversations with the family are a great starting point. Generally this is poorly received. Folks get concerned about “burdening”, “imposing” or “getting their hopes up.” I ask if this was a concern when they were drinking/using? Whether we tried to hide it or not it’s almost always had some effect. Talk with them. Let them support you and be part of the solution if they’re willing.

Again we’ll deal with the past after the storm has past. Be clear about this and marshal all the support you can. Getting clean/sober is one of the most bad ass things a human being can do and the road to recovery is long and winding. First things first.

Source: recoveryrocks.bangordailynews.com 27^th Feb. 2015

It is widely known that drug legalizers will not be content with the legalization of pot. Their ultimate goal is the legalization of all drugs.

In using a few of their favourite tactics, they now argue that:

LSD and other psychedelic drugs are “safer than alcohol” 

LSD and other psychedelics have “positive psychological benefits” and the ability to “defeat addiction”

The prohibition of psychedelics is a violation of “human rights” (including the right to “belief and spiritual practice, full development of the personality, and free-time and play.”

In other words – safer than alcohol, with medical properties, and fun.

According to long-time legalization advocate David Nutt, speaking at a briefing in London:

“We’ve banned research on psychedelic drugs and other drugs like cannabis for 50 years. Truly, in terms of the amount of wasted opportunity, it’s way greater than the banning of the telescope. This is a truly appalling level of censorship.”

The movement to legalize drugs follows a predictable pattern that must be recognized. 

1.  Ignore existing laws

2.  Decriminalize use

3.  Open the door for medi-pot (CBDs)

4.  Expand medical use to include everything under the sun

5.  Full legalization of marijuana for recreational use

Despite overwhelming evidence of their intent, states seems to be following this pattern as if the pro-drug forces are interested in only the next step, when in fact their long game is “all drugs, by anyone, and all the time.”

This surrender to the drug culture, where we allow a very small minority of the population to dictate policy, laws, and even constitutions, is creating disastrous results and permanent damage to society.

Drug education works when we do enough of it. Surrender is not an option.

Source: Letter from Monte Stile to DrugWatch International 7^th March 2015

Nick Clegg ignited a huge controversy last night by claiming that all drug users should be treated as ‘victims’. The Liberal Democrat leader said they should not be given criminal records for possessing illegal substances – even if they they are caught with ‘harder’ drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine.

Meanwhile, Sir Richard Branson made the astonishing claim that smoking powerful skunk cannabis does not cause ‘any harm’ – despite evidence that a quarter of new cases of psychosis are linked to it.  Announcing his party’s new drugs policy yesterday, Mr Clegg said: ‘We shouldn’t be treating the criminal “Mr Bigs” the same as the users. The latter are the victims of the former.’

But his comments were dismissed by the head of the Chatham House think tank Robin Niblett, who said: ‘Are all users victims or is there a large proportion of people who enjoy drugs and take them recreationally? It is a question of demand, rather than people who need to be treated for an addiction.’

Other experts have also questioned whether it is right to label all drug users as victims. Stuart Waiton, senior lecturer in sociology at Abertay University, said: ‘The problem we have today is that society finds it difficult to hold people to account for their actions.

‘The idea of moral responsibility is very weak because we assume that everyone’s a victim. People don’t need medical support – unless their bodies are falling to bits – they need to take responsibility for their own actions.’

The Lib Dems’ new policy would end prosecutions for people caught with small amounts of drugs for ‘personal use’. It would cover all drugs. Mr Clegg said the policy would be included in the Lib Dem manifesto.

It is widely seen as a pitch to win back young voters disillusioned by the party’s betrayal over university tuition fees.

The Liberal Democrat leader said drug users should not be given criminal records for possessing illegal substances – even if they they are caught with ‘harder’ drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine

With neither Labour nor the Tories backing decriminalisation, it is unlikely to become government policy even if the Lib Dems remain in power after the election.

Mr Clegg received a public endorsement yesterday from Sir Richard, who suggested that smoking skunk is safe.

The Virgin tycoon shared a platform with the Lib Dem leader to promote the party’s pledge. He said: ‘Of people taking hash [cannabis], something like 99 per cent do not have a problem … Take people taking skunk.

‘It’s slightly worse than alcohol. But there are a lot of people doing it for recreational purposes and they enjoy doing it and it’s not doing them any harm.’   A study last month by Kings College London found that 24 per cent of new cases of psychosis are linked to the use of skunk.

The report concluded that smoking skunk trebles the risk of someone having a psychotic episode.

Last night, Mr Clegg also insisted that the so-called ‘war on drugs’ was ‘not working’, although he was later forced to concede that official figures show drug use has been falling in Britain for years.

Downing Street rejected Mr Clegg’s analysis and said it was not supported by David Cameron.

Andy Cook, chief executive of charity Twenty Twenty, which works with disadvantaged young people, said: ‘Cannabis is ruining the life opportunities of those we work with, so the idea that society would be better off if  this stuff was decriminalised is crazy. ‘Making it more easily available and more culturally acceptable will mean that more of our young people would take it. The result will be that more of our young people would fail to make the most of their potential.’

Source:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2980158    5th March 2015

The Northern Grampians Highway Patrol said roughly one in two drivers tested positive for drugs like cannabis or methamphetamines.

Acting Sergeant Shaun Allen said they were disappointed in the results.

“They’re certainly over-represented now in our statistics and especially in relation to serious collisions, we’re finding that more and more are positive in regards to drugs,” he said.

He is urging people not to get behind the wheel if they have been using drugs.

“We random drug test drivers and if they become positive with our tests, they get sent away for a proper laboratory test and then if it comes back then we prosecute on that,” he said.

“There’s no level with drugs, you’ve either got them in your system or you haven’t.”

Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/   Feb.2015

Researchers led by Catherine Fortier at Harvard Medical School found that chronic alcohol misuse damaged white matter in areas of the brain that are important for self-control and recovery from alcoholism. The findings appeared in the December 2014 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Using high-resolution diffusion magnetic resonance brain scans, the researchers compared a group of 20 healthy light drinkers to a group of 31 individuals with a history of alcoholism. The recovering alcoholics drank heavily for an average of 25 years and had been sober for about five years.

Compared with the light drinkers, the abstinent alcoholics showed pronounced reductions in the structural integrity of frontal and superior white matter tracts. According to the authors, the results suggest altered connectivity in frontostriatal circuits—pathways associated with the amygdala, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, regions that are involved in the brain’s reward system. These networks are essential for controlling impulsive behavior and stopping drinking.

The study also found that longer and heavier alcohol abuse was associated with greater damage. The findings pointed to possible recovery of white matter tissue in drinkers who became abstinent before they turned 50 years of age.

The authors recommend that future investigations should continue to explore white matter changes due to alcohol misuse, including measurements related to the severity of alcoholism and questions about tissue recovery with maintained abstinence.

Source:  Adapted from the story published in the NIAAA Spectrum, February 2015, Volume 7, Issue 1 Fortier, C.B.; Leritz, E.C.; et al. Widespread effects of alcohol on white matter microstructure. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. Nov. 18, 2014 [Epub ahead of print]. PMID: 25406797

February 24, 2015

Work loads in high school can be extreme, causing some kids to think about cheating or taking study drugs. GSE senior lecturer Denise Pope comments on the problem and possible solutions, such as cutting homework load and ensuring kids get enough “play time, down time and family time.”

In a shifting economy without any assurances of success, there’s a lot of pressure on students to succeed in school. More and more kids are going to college and the application process is competitive. To help stand out, students are taking on tougher course loads, along with extracurricular activities and leadership roles. In order to pack everything in, some kids turn to prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin to stay awake and focus on school work and test prep. They can obtain the medication from doctors, peers and sources they find online. However, many of these students, both in high school and in college, don’t know the physical or neurological ramifications of taking drugs that haven’t been prescribed to them by a doctor.

“We live in this culture of excellence,” said Michael McCutcheon, a counseling psychology phD candidate at New York University, on KQED’s Forum, “and if you are at a competitive high school and you know the culture really only celebrates success or money, then everything is riding on this test.” That overwhelming pressure – the feeling that every test and grade matters for ones future – combined with ease of access to these drugs makes their use seductive. Stanford Graduate School of Education senior lecturer Denise Pope found similar experiences among thousands of high school students she has interviewed or observed in her work.

“These kids are completely overloaded,” Pope said. “They come from high achieving schools, but these kids feel like there’s more homework than there is time in a day.” She cited increased pressure to take Advanced Placement or honors classes that require lots of homework, along with the explosion of extracurricular activities and the time students devote to them as some of the reasons for increased stress.

“The kids who cheat in high school, absolutely cheat in college,” Pope said. “My guess would be that if this is negative coping strategy that you are employing, it’s your go-to strategy when you have the stress and overload in college.”

Indeed, study drugs are most often used by high achieving high school students and among college student-athletes and those who participate in the Greek system. A 2009 review of the literature on study drugs found that anywhere between five and nine percent of middle and high school students, and five to 35 percent of college students use prescription drugs to stay awake and focus longer than they would normally.

What Study Drugs Do to the Brain

Drugs like Adderall and Ritalin are prescribed to kids with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). These kids are easily distracted by visual or auditory background noises, which can overwhelm them and

make it hard to focus. People with ADD or ADHD don’t produce enough dopamine in the brain, which the drugs help correct.

“They are meant to increase dopamine in the brain, which regulates two things: executive functioning and the rewards system in the brain,” said Michelle Goldsmith, assistant clinical professor at Stanford. “Both of those things come into play when we talk about attention.”

For kids who actually need Adderall or Ritalin, the brain’s dopamine pathways aren’t strong enough to circulate the neural signals that make certain mental processes go. For those kids the added dopamine can have a huge influence on ability to focus, but also comes with some less desirable side effects when the drug wears off like fatigue, depression and mood-swings. There’s a lot less known about how the drug affects brains that start out with normal dopamine levels because clinicians consider it too risky to conduct a study that would subject “normal” students to the drug.

“The question is do they really help normal people with learning,” Goldsmith said, “There hasn’t been any reason to study them because the risks are so significant.” Those risks include depression, psychosis, mood swings, suicidal thoughts, seizures, decreased appetite and insomnia.

Read the full story at KQED. Denise Pope is a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success(link is external).

Source:   https://ed.stanford.edu/     http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/02/teaching-kids-to-learn-without-study-dru. 24th February 2015

FRIENDSWOOD, Texas.USA

Police say marijuana in the form of “wax” and “butter” now are among the contraband they’re keeping an eye out for in Friendswood. Police discovered the use of the different forms of marijuana during a traffic stop Friday evening in the 200 block of East Edgewood. An officer says he picked up the smell of air freshener and marijuana when he approached the driver, Damon Joshua Fraser, of Friendswood.  During a search of the vehicle, he found two brown, marijuana-smelling substances wrapped in white wax paper. A field test detected THC, the chemical that triggers marijuana’s psychological effects, in both substances.  It was later determined the hard, brown substance resembling broken glass shards is referred to as marijuana “wax,” and the pasty brown substance is called marijuana “butter.”  Fraser, 28, was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 2 and driving while license invalid. His bond was set at $26,000.

Source:  http://abc13.com/news/marijuana-butter-wax-debut  9th Feb  2015

Despite high levels of marijuana use in the United States, little is known about the effects of recreational marijuana use on daily life. Most studies exploring this issue have either been conducted in a laboratory setting or have relied on retrospective reports of mood and use, which can be unreliable.

One method to better capture information about experiences in real-life settings is Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), where participants answer specific questions as they go about their typical, daily routines. In a recent 14-day study using a smartphone-based EMA, recreational marijuana users (average use of 4.5 days over the past 30 days) who also drank alcohol at least once per week answered questions each day regarding their alcohol consumption, marijuana use, and number of cigarettes or cigars smoked.

Participants also answered questions to assess hostility following any interaction with another person that lasted longer than five minutes. In addition, end-of-day surveys were completed to measure impulsivity. For each subject, days of marijuana use and non-use were compared to look for changes in impulsivity and hostility. Results showed that marijuana use was correlated with increased impulsivity on the day of use and the following day. Participants also reported higher hostility ratings – for both themselves and their perception of others – on the day they used marijuana. This effect did not last into the next day and appeared to lessen as the study progressed. Results were not impacted by other variables measured, such as alcohol or nicotine use.

While this research couldn’t determine whether marijuana caused these effects – or if increased impulsivity and/or hostility were stressors that led to marijuana use – these results highlight the need for further research to determine how marijuana impacts the daily experiences of recreational users.

Source: Effects of marijuana use on impulsivity and hostility in daily life; Emily Ansell, Holly Laws, Michael Roche, and Rajita Sinha; Drug and Alcohol Dependence; Published

Online: January 6, 2015. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871614020092  February 2015 

Previous research has suggested a link between intelligence and various health outcomes. New findings show a link between a lower IQ and greater and riskier drinking among young adult men.

The poor IQ-test results may also be linked to other disadvantages such as lower socio-economic standing.

Although several studies have shown an association between intelligence and various health-related outcomes, the research on cognitive abilities and alcohol-related problems has been inconsistent. A new study of the association between IQ-test results and drinking, measured as both total intake and pattern of use, has found that a lower IQ is clearly associated with greater and riskier drinking among young adult men, although their poor performance on the IQ-test may also be linked to other disadvantages.

“Previous results in this area have been inconsistent,” said Sara Sjölund, a doctoral student at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden as well as corresponding author for the study. “In two studies where the CAGE questionnaire — a method of screening for alcoholism — was used, a higher cognitive ability was found to be associated with a higher risk for drinking problems. Conversely, less risk has been found when looking at outcomes such as, for example, International Classification of Diseases diagnoses of alcoholism, alcohol abuse, and dependence.”

“In this study of a general population, intelligence probably comes before the behavior, in this case, alcohol consumption and a pattern of drinking in late adolescence,” said Daniel Falkstedt, assistant professor in the department of public health sciences at Karolinska Institutet. “It could be the other way around for a minority of individuals, that is, when exposure to alcohol has led to cognitive impairment, but this is less likely to be found among young persons of course.”

Sjölund and her colleagues analyzed data collected from 49,321 Swedish males born during 1949 to 1951 and who were conscripted for Swedish military service from 1969 to 1971. IQ results were available from tests performed at conscription, and questionnaires also given at conscription provided data on total alcohol intake (consumed grams of alcohol/week) and pattern of drinking, as well as medical, childhood and adolescent conditions, and tobacco use. Adjustments were made for socio-economic position as a child, psychiatric symptoms and emotional stability, and the father’s alcohol habits.

“We found that lower results on IQ tests in Swedish adolescent men are associated with a higher consumption of alcohol, measured in both terms of total intake and binge drinking,” said Sjölund. “It may be that a higher IQ results in healthier lifestyle choices. Suggested explanations for the association between IQ and different health outcomes, could be childhood conditions, which could influence both IQ and health, or that a socio-economic position as an adult mediates the association.”

“By taking into account as little as four measured characteristics of the men, including their backgrounds,” added Falkstedt, “the authors seem to be able to explain a large part of the association between IQ and heavy drinking. I think this may be a main message of this large cohort study: poor performance on IQ tests tend to go along with other disadvantages, for instance, poorer social background and emotional problems, which may explain the association with risky alcohol consumption. In reality, other differences of importance are likely to exist among the men, which could further explain the IQ-alcohol association.”

Both Sjölund and Falkstedt noted that results may vary among cultures and countries.

“I think that large parts of the association between IQ and alcohol consumption may be indirect and mediated by experiences in everyday life and differences in social situations,” said Falkstedt. “It is not necessarily about making intelligent or unintelligent choices. For instance, in countries with weak social-safety nets and high alcohol consumption among low-wage workers and the unemployed, I assume the association could be stronger than in economically more-equal countries, perhaps also among the young.”

“I hope that our findings add to the general understanding of drinking behaviours and what factors that may influence them,” said Sjölund. “However, we must be very careful in making any attempt to generalize our results to women, since their level of consumption and patterns of drinking likely differ in comparison with men.”

“I think a higher intelligence may give some advantage in relation to lifestyle choices,” noted Falkstedt. “However, I think it is very important to remember that intelligence differences already existing in childhood and adolescence may put people at an advantage or disadvantage and may generate subsequent differences in experiences, and accumulation of such experiences over many years. Therefore, another important explanation of ‘bad choices’ among lower-IQ individuals may be feelings of inadequacy and frustration, I think. A number of studies have shown that a lower IQ in childhood or adolescence is associated with an increased risk of suicide over many years in adulthood.”

 Source: Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. “A lower IQ has been linked to greater and riskier drinking among young adult men.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 February 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/15022019

I K Lyoo, S Yoon, T S Kim, S M Lim, Y Choi, J E Kim, J Hwang, H S Jeong, H B Cho, Y A Chung and P F Renshaw

Abstract

Adolescence is a period of heightened vulnerability both to addictive behaviors and drug-induced brain damage. Yet, only limited information exists on the brain mechanisms underlying these adolescent-specific characteristics. Moreover, distinctions in brain correlates between predisposition to drug use and effects of drugs in adolescents are unclear.

Using cortical thickness and diffusion tensor image analyses, we found greater and more widespread gray and white matter alterations, particularly affecting the frontostriatal system, in adolescent methamphetamine (MA) users compared with adult users.

Among adolescent-specific gray matter alterations related to MA use, smaller cortical thickness in the orbitofrontal cortex was associated with family history of drug use. Our findings highlight that the adolescent brain, which undergoes active myelination and maturation, is more vulnerable to MA-related alterations than the adult brain.

Furthermore, MA-use-related executive dysfunction was greater in adolescent MA users than in adult users. These findings may provide explanation for the severe behavioral complications and relapses that are common in adolescent-onset drug addiction. Additionally, these results may provide insights into distinguishing the neural mechanisms that underlie the predisposition to drug addiction from effects of drugs in adolescents.

Source:  Molecular Psychiatry , (10 February 2015) | doi:10.1038/mp.2014.191

Powdered gelatin was invented in 1845, powdered fruit drink in 1928. Given the success of Jell-O and Kool-Aid, it’s strange that it took this long for powdered alcohol to show up. But “alcohol” is soon to be on the market, joining another ill-advised product, powdered caffeine. Both are highly concentrated forms of legal substances that carry substantial health risks. Lawmakers should move to ban both.

The inventor of Jell-O, when applying for a patent, called his substance “portable gelatin.” Similarly, the man behind Palcohol touts its portability and markets it like a health drink. “Palcohol is a boon to outdoors enthusiasts such as campers, hikers and others who wanted to enjoy adult beverages responsibly without the undue burden of carrying heavy bottles of liquid,” the website says. (Have these people not heard about flasks?)

It’s likely Palcohol will appeal more to teenagers and alcoholics than mountain climbers, who are more inclined to pack kale smoothies than bourbon and Coke. Its size and weight make it easy to hide; its portability screams potential for abuse.

Even worse is powdered caffeine, blamed for at least two deaths and dozens of hospitalizations for erratic heartbeat, seizures and vomiting. One teaspoon supplies the jolt of 25 cups of coffee. As a dietary supplement, powdered caffeine doesn’t need Food and Drug Administration approval, but in December the agency asked consumers to shun it because of the danger of overdose.

Several U.S. senators recently asked the FDA to ban sales of powdered caffeine, and the agency wants consumers to report adverse reactions. Palcohol should be banned outright, as six states have already done.

THIS editorial appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Feb. 12.

Source:  www.edmonds.com    16th Feb.2015

By Kathy Gyngell

I have always loathed cannabis and what I’ve seen it does to people. From my very first encounter at university when I watched the making and the passing of the spliff ritual, I thought it was pathetic and that the people doing it were boring.

I avoided them and their singularly ‘funless’ parties. Stoned, introverted and unattractive young men became even less attractive as they became more introverted. Maybe it helped their relations with men, but not with women.

Nor, in my early days working in TV, was I impressed to find food laced at parties – to have a bit of a laugh with non-using guests. The choice was made clear – between being stoned or stuffy. I chose stuffy. Why you had to be drugged up to socialise escaped me. It seemed to have the very opposite effect – dulling,  stupefying and rather unpleasant.

So when, as a mother,  I encountered teenage boys using the evil weed I was alarmed. These were no ‘uni’ students but little more than children. It did not take great powers of observation to see how it affected their behaviour, their motivation and how addictive it was. Worse, noxious skunk was beginning to dominate the market

I came down like a ton of bricks – boys who ‘did drugs’ were absolutely not welcome in my home.  I  ‘banned’, as far as I could, all social contact with families where the parents had a liberal attitude to drugs. It was a revelation to find myself  unpopular and on my own in daring to make my views public and clear.

Since then I have observed one tragedy after another: some in families anguished by their own naivety that they became aware of drug-taking or its risks too late; others distraught at the life-time sentences to which they and their sons had been condemned.

Their futures – with their sons’ lives suspended between secure mental units or so-called community care on compulsory injected anti-psychotics – were no future at all.  Only the very brave shouted  their plight from the rooftops to alert everyone else; for many the shame was too huge. And there was still denial too.

What is so shocking is that the science detailing these very real risks has been in the public domain for years,  that resistance to acknowledging it goes back years and right to the top of our political establishment. For a historical account, Peter Hitchens’s book is a must read.

As a result of this liberal ‘cannabis conspiracy’, over the years ever younger children have begun taking the drug and in ever stronger doses.

The extent of this silent cultural  revolution can be seen in a  Conservative-led Coalition  happy for children to be left to make their own ‘informed choices’ about  cannabis use.  Yes, the mantra of ‘informed choice’ is still official policy bleated out by every health minister since 2010.

What’s more, it is still based on outdated, inadequate (in places downright wrong) official information.  This is despite the persistent representations of the campaigner Mary Brett of the charity Cannabis Skunk Sense.

The simple fact the Government ignores is that children aged 12, 14 or even 16,  are not equipped to make such a choice. They are immature and their brains are still forming. So the question is whether new research, published this week, will make a difference and act as a wake-up call. It is the work of a team of 23 scientists under the direction of the impressive and indefatigable Sir Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research at King’s College, London.

It shows that cannabis use triples psychosis risk and that use of high potency strains is responsible for 24 per cent of new cases of psychotic mental illness.

It should, as Professor Murray says, see an end to the sceptics’ claim that cannabis use is not an important cause of schizophrenia-like psychosis.  It should alert government to the fact  that “we could prevent almost one quarter of cases of psychosis if no-one smoked high potency cannabis (saving) young patients a lot of suffering and the health services a lot of money.”

It should indeed.  But the jury is out on whether it will change the UK’s persistent culture of denial about cannabis,  which has peopled  mental health units with psychotic young men and which is still priming a public health time-bomb.

Depressed motivation, significantly lowered IQ, impaired cognitive functioning, cancer and paranoia are all outcomes of early and regular cannabis use, details of which research can be found on the new Cannabis Skunk Sense website.

Will this new evidence stop in his tracks our arch drug-liberalising deputy PM Nick Clegg, desperate in his search of the youth vote? It ought to. That is why I will be watching carefully when he gives keynote speech to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s ‘International Conference on Drugs Policy’ on March 12th. Will he even refer to this latest and most comprehensive and irrefutable of research?

Or following  HASC’s bizarre recommendation of two years ago to downgrade cannabis to Class C, will Clegg continue to bang the Lib Dem drum  for outright legalisation?

That, sadly, is my bet.

Source:  http://conservativewoman.co.uk/    17th Feb.2015

Cocaine addicted individuals may continue their habit despite unfavorable consequences like imprisonment or loss of relationships because their brain circuits responsible for predicting emotional loss are impaired, according to a study conducted at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and published today in The Journal of Neuroscience.

The study focuses on the difference between a likely reward (or loss) related to a given behavior and a person’s ability to predict that outcome, a measurement known as Reward Prediction Error, or RPE. Such RPE signaling is believed to drive learning in humans, which guides future behavior. After learning from an experience, we can, in the best case, change our behavior without having to go through it again, and thus maximize rewards and avert expected losses. Past research has determined that prediction of actual reward or loss is managed by shifting levels of the nerve signaling chemical dopamine produced by nerve cells in the midbrain, where changes in dopamine levels accompany unexpected gains and losses.

The Mount Sinai study recorded the brain activity of 75 subjects (50 cocaine users and 25 healthy controls) using EEG, a test that detects electrical activity in the brain, while subjects played a gambling game. Each person had to predict whether or not they would win or lose money on each trial.

Results showed that the group of the 50 cocaine users had impaired loss prediction signaling, meaning they failed to trigger RPE signals in response to worse-than-expected outcomes compared to the 25 healthy people comprising the control group. The results offer insights into the compromised ability of addicted individuals to learn from unfavorable outcomes, potentially resulting in continued drug use and relapse, even after encountering numerous losses.

“We found that people who were addicted to cocaine have impaired loss prediction signaling in the brain,” said Muhammad Parvaz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the lead author of the study. “This study shows that individuals with substance use disorder have difficulty computing the difference between expected versus unexpected outcomes, which is critical for learning and future decision making. This impairment might underlie disadvantageous decision making in these individuals.”

Next, the study looked at individual differences among the 50 cocaine users. Half of the subjects had used cocaine within 72 hours of the study and the other half had abstained for at least 72 hours. The cocaine addicted individuals with the more recent use had higher electrical activity associated with the brain’s reward circuit when they had an unpredicted compared to a predicted win, a pattern that was similar to the 25 healthy controls. The cocaine users who had abstained for at least 72 hours did not show this higher activity in response to an unpredicted win. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that in addiction the drug is taken to normalize a certain brain function, which in this case is RPE signaling of better-than-expected outcomes.

“This is the first time a study has targeted the prediction of both gains and losses in drug addiction, showing that deficits in prediction error signaling in cocaine addicted individuals are modulated by recent cocaine use,” said principal investigator Rita Goldstein, PhD, Chief of Neuropsychoimaging of Addiction and Related Conditions, Chief of the Brain Imaging Center, and Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine. “Direction of results supports the self-medication hypothesis in drug addiction whereby drug self-administration improves response to reward in drug addicted individuals. The reductions in prediction of loss across all cocaine addicted individuals included in this study are also of great interest; they could become important markers that can be used to predict susceptibility for addiction or relapse or to develop targeted interventions to improve outcome in this devastating, chronically relapsing disorder.”

Source:  The Journal of Neuroscience.   3rd Feb 2015

The American Academy of Paediatrics published a policy statement in January about the impact of marijuana use on youth. The AAP is strongly opposed to legalizing marijuana due to the potential impact on child and adolescent health.

Marijuana use is common in the U.S. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimates that more than 12 percent of those over age 12 years have used marijuana in the last year; the rate of use has been increasing since the 1990s. Statistics show that if this trend continues, marijuana use will overtake cigarette smoking for high school seniors.

The active ingredient in marijuana is a chemical called tetrahydrocannabinol. This chemical stimulates brain receptors and produces hallucinations, illusions, dizziness, altered perception, impaired thinking and sedation.    Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia permit marijuana to be prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes. Two states, Colorado and Washington, allow its sale for recreational purposes and Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia voted in November to legalize marijuana.

There are many actual and potential risks from legalized marijuana. Legalizing marijuana portrays marijuana use as harmless and results in the commercialization and marketing of a proven harmful substance. Even with strictly enforced age restrictions, increased adolescent use would occur.

Commercialization will lead to the production of stronger marijuana products. The concentration of the active ingredient in marijuana has increased four times since the 1980s. The ingestion risk of edible marijuana products such as cookies and chocolates is 10 times higher when compared to smoking marijuana. Smoking effects are seen within seconds, but oral ingestion effects are much slower. This increases the risk of ingesting more of the chemical before feeling satisfied.

Accidental ingestion of marijuana-laced food products has led to young children being admitted to intensive care units for sedation and respiratory failure in the states that have legalized marijuana. Common negative effects in teens include decreased scholastic and sports participation and performance, a loss of interest in outside activities, a withdrawal from peer interactions, increased risk-taking behaviors, decreased driving skills, damaged lung function and increased interpersonal problems with family and friends

Marijuana is an addictive substance. It is estimated that 9 percent of all those who experiment with marijuana will become addicted to it. When this estimate is limited to teens, the addiction risk increases to 17 percent. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 2.7 million people in the U.S. over age 12 met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for addiction to marijuana.

Addiction symptoms are often overlooked because withdrawal symptoms may be minor or absent. Studies have repeatedly shown that teens who use marijuana several times per week have difficulty quitting, and the younger a child is when marijuana use starts, the greater the deleterious effects and the higher the chance for addiction.

Marijuana legalization poses a monumental risk to children and teens. The history of alcohol misuse by teens proves the limited potential of regulations and penalties to limit access by teens. The answer is clear. Legalizing marijuana is a risk we should not take.

JOE BARBER, M.D., is a pediatrician and child neurologist at Children’s Community Care Pediatrics-Erie Pediatrics. He is division chief of the Department of Pediatrics at Saint Vincent Hospital and is active on social media (www.drjoebarber.com).

 Source: www.goerie.com   6th Feb 2014

To go or not to go? That is the question when invited to take part in supposedly objective drugs conferences and television investigations, behind which  looms the constant presence of one Sir Richard Branson.

Two seemingly flattering invitations to drugs policy events came my way this month. The first was to be invited to a Home Affairs Select Committee event at the University of Cambridge’s Homerton College on March 12th.  At first sight, it felt a welcome recognition of my longstanding work in the field of drug addiction, and of my new recovery solutions service (DB Recovery Resources). Moreover, it seemed like an opportunity to guide and inform public opinion – even as far as the United Nations.

But I was torn for days on whether to accept or not. Finally, I regretfully declined. Why?

The Home Affairs Select Committee’s invitation was entitled “The International Conference on Drugs Policy” and its findings at the end of the day were to be fed into the influential UNGASS, the United Nations General Assembly’s Special Session on world drug problems in 2016. Tempting. But a closer look raised concerns.

What exactly was a Parliamentary select committee doing hosting a drugs policy conference? Why had they chosen deputy prime minister Nick Clegg who, at the time of my invitation, was scheduled to chair it? He is a recognised proponent of drugs legalisation, going so far as to include it in his election pledge.  So I was aware of the agenda and bias of the conference before I was invited.  The list of speakers spoke for itself. Every single speaker bar one  – Sarah Graham, an addiction therapist – turned out to be  a high-profile legalisation campaigner, several from organisations funded by the convicted insider trader and fomenter  George Soros.

Only after I had publicised the biased agenda on my daily newsletter did HASC kindly invited me to attend. They also at the same time added a second ‘non-legalisation’ speaker to their invite list: Professor Neil McKeganey. But I could see it was still skewed. We would be the minority underdog against high-profile and well-funded legalisation campaigners, like Dr Julian Huppert MP, Baroness Molly Meacher, Roberto Dondisch from Mexico, Danny Kushlick of Transform, Professor David Nutt, who famously said taking ecstasy was less risky than horse riding, former policeman and cannabis activist Tom Lloyd, and last but not least Mike Trace, who was forced to resign his UN role when the Daily Mail revealed him to be the driving force behind an effort to disband the world’s anti-drug laws by stealth.

What chance would I have to support my colleagues?

Would this be like National Treatment Agency meetings I had attended too many times in the past (before it was abolished)  where vested-interest findings and recommendations were written before the meeting and then presented as an impartial consensus of all those present – and absent? Would it be like the self-styled United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission meetings (before it closed) which exploited the names of attendees as supporting its predetermined ‘consensus agreement’, when in reality there was a dearth of support?

Was I confident that any anti-legalisation points would be included in the final report to UNGASS? That I sadly declined the invitation gives you the answer.   No.

The worry is now that UNGASS may believe this Home Affairs Select Committee report, that UK taxpayers are unwittingly funding, to be impartial.  Better to blog, I thought, and hopefully open their eyes to the truth.

The second ‘flattering’  invitation was to appear on Channel 4’s Cannabis Live programme on 3 March. Although warned in advance about its inherent bias – it was funded by both C4 and Soros-supported organisations, and known legalisation proponents were booked as its speakers – I decided to accept in the hope I would be able to capture some airtime for anti-legalisation views. (Declaration: my view is informed by the basic laws of supply and demand: increased availability leads to increased consumption. In addition there is, to my very real knowledge, so much disinformation about pot in the public domain that few people can make an informed choice).

It was the right decision; although it was questionable whether there was a need for a programme experimenting ‘live’ with substances that are already known to have significant and very negative side effects. It was also worrying that Professor Nutt was  an “independent” scientific expert on it, given his obsession with cannabis legalisation and his well known insistence that it is less harmful than alcohol.

A plus turned out to be Jon Snow’s and Andrew Marr’s very negative experiences when skunk was tested on them. Perhaps that’s why presenter Snow carefully inched my neighbour off his seat to interview me, allowing time for me to make some pivotal points.  These were particularly in response to Branson’s call for regulation [legalisation] of cannabis as a solution to the world’s drug problems. I pointed out  that tobacco is regulated yet kills  more people than any other drug in the world;   that alcohol, benzos and methadone are all regulated but follow tobacco in killing more people each than illicit drugs.

I also pointed out that the first paper linking cannabis and psychosis was published 170 years ago –  in 1845  – so this is not new. All my points were transmitted unedited.

A number of ‘silent’ audience members in Narcotics Anonymous introduced themselves and thanked me as we were leaving the studio.  It reminded  me of  US drug czar Michael Botticelli’s recent comment: “I do wish the recovery community was much more involved in anti-legalisation efforts”.

However the trouble with Cannabis Live – posing as science when it was exhibitionist entertainment, as one distinguished former Professor of pharmacology commented to me afterwards  – is that it provided a launchpad for the differences between “beneficent” hash and “nightmarish” skunk to be exploited by the legalisation lobbyists. Their hidden agenda.

It was worrying that the programme ignored the harms from hash (as opposed to skunk) : yet these include the risk of psychosis, behavioural changes, lack of motivation, lowering of IQ, lung cancer, mouth cancer, motor crashes, lowering of fertility (a mixed blessing) – and the fact that pregnant women using hash can give birth to addicted babies with a range of mental-health problems and medical problems, including leukaemia.

At a press conference the next day, billionaire legalisation campaigner Branson was still calling for regulation (legalisation of cannabis) as a solution despite all the downsides he’d witnessed at Cannabis Live. Of course he did not mention that tobacco is regulated and it kills more people than any other drug in the world, for the simple reason that it is the most widely used drug in the world.

In his cloud cuckoo land, the 80 per cent of cannabis users who use skunk would downgrade to the milder version if they were both legal. I don’t think so. It’s against human nature.

Finally, it was left to David Nutt to round up the programme – with his extraordinary recommendation that skunk should remain low in the index of drug harms, in cannabis’s current place, while hash should plummet to the lowest ranking. Maybe he was too close to the skunk factory set up beside his artificial brain in the studio.

Had anyone in the audience changed their mind about being pro- or anti-legalisation, asked Snow at the end of the programme? Not one hand went up. I leave you to decide whether this infotainment fulfilled Channel 4’s mission to “keep public service values to the fore”.

Source:   www.the Conservative Woman.co.uk    7^th March 2015

Can you put two and two together? Have a try. The authorities, and most of the media, cannot.

Did you know that the Copenhagen killer, Omar El-Hussein, had twice been arrested (and twice let off) for cannabis possession? Probably not.

It was reported in Denmark but not prominently mentioned amid the usual swirling speculation about ‘links’ between El-Hussein and ‘Islamic State’, for which there is no evidence at all.

El-Hussein, a promising school student, mysteriously became so violent and ill- tempered that his own gang of petty criminals, The Brothers, actually expelled him. Something similar happened in the lives of Lee Rigby’s killers, who underwent violent personality changes in their teens after becoming cannabis users.

The recent Paris killers were also known users of cannabis. So were the chaotic drifters who killed soldiers in Canada last year. So is the chief suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings of April 2013.

I might add that though these are all Muslims, who for rather obvious reasons are to be found among the marginalised in Europe and North America, it is not confined to them.

Jared Loughner, who killed six people and severely injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011, was also a confirmed heavy cannabis user. When I searched newspaper archives for instances of violent crimes in this country in which culprits were said to be cannabis users, I found many.

One notable example was the pointless killing of Sheffield church organist Alan Greaves, randomly beaten to death by two laughing youths on Christmas Eve 2012. Both were cannabis smokers.

By itself, the link is interesting. I wonder how many other violent criminals would turn out to be heavy cannabis users, if only anyone ever asked. But put it together with The Mail on Sunday’s exclusive story last week, showing a strong link between cannabis use and episodes of mental illness.

And then combine it with the confessions of two prominent British Left-wing figures, the former Tory MP and BBC favourite Matthew Parris, and Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow, who both tried ‘skunk’ cannabis (by far the most commonly available type in the Western world) for a TV documentary.

Mr Parris wrote: ‘The effect was stunning – and not (for me) in a good way. Short-term memory went walkabout. I would forget what I was talking about even while talking. I became shaky. Time went haywire.’

But immediate effects are one thing. What about long-term use? Mr Parris recounted that he had ‘too many friends’ for whom cannabis had seemed destructive. He quoted one as saying: ‘I think it changed me permanently as a person.’

He said his mainly socially liberal friends, including health workers, generally agreed that ‘heavy use of cannabis, particularly skunk, can be associated with big changes in behaviour’.

Jon Snow said simply: ‘By the time I was completely stoned, I felt utterly bereft. I felt as if my soul had been wrenched from my body.

‘There was no one in my world. I was frightened, paranoid, and felt physically and mentally wrapped in a dense blanket of fog. I’ve worked in war zones, but I’ve never been as overwhelmingly frightened as I was when I was in the MRI scanner after taking skunk. I would never do it again.’

This is not some mild ‘soft’ thing. It is a potent, frightening mindbender. If it does this to men in late middle age who are educated, prosperous, successful and self-disciplined, what do you think it is doing to all those 13-year-olds who – thanks to its virtual decriminalisation – can buy it at a school near you, while the police do nothing?

And yet it is still fashionable in our elite to believe that cannabis should be even easier to get than it already is.

It is hard to think of a social evil so urgently in need of action to curb it. Why is nothing done? Need you ask?

 Source: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02

The last time Derrick Bergman came to Amsterdam to buy cannabis, he did so behind a locked door with a long, thick curtain obscuring his activity from the canal-lined residential street outside, in the quiet Lastage neighborhood. The secretary of the Netherlands’s Union for the Abolition of Cannabis Prohibition, Bergman comes here to weekly gatherings of a two-month-old—and seriously clandestine—“cannabis social club” called the Tree of Life, because it’s the only place in town he can find one of his favorite strains: Super Silver Haze.

Since 1976, authorities across the Netherlands have chosen to openly ignore that cannabis use is illegal here, and they prosecute no one in possession of less than five grams of marijuana for personal use. The policy, called gedoogbeleid, is known as the “Dutch model,” and it’s why hundreds of “coffee shops” sprung up across Amsterdam and the Netherlands, luring marijuana connoisseurs from across the globe to one of the few places they could roll and smoke a joint without fear. But that’s no longer the case.

Cannabis with more than 15 percent of the THC that makes it intoxicating is now under consideration to be reclassified as one of the “hard drugs” that come with stiff penalties. The government has also forced coffee shops where marijuana is sold to choose between alcohol and pot, prompting many to choose the former. Amsterdam once played host to nearly 300 coffee shops, of more than 1,000 scattered across the country. There are now fewer than 200 in the city and only 617 nationwide. While it’s always been illegal to grow marijuana in the Netherlands, authorities passively allow coffee shops to sell weed, often pretending not to know where the shops’ cannabis comes from.

But no longer. New laws target even the smallest of marijuana growers in Holland. In the past, people could grow up to five plants without fear of retribution. In 2011, the government issued new police guidelines and declared anyone who grew with electric lights, prepared soil, “selected” seeds or ventilation would be considered “professional.” It’s a significant change, as professional growers risk major penalties, including eviction and blacklisting from the government-provided housing in which more than half of the country’s citizens reside.

The result: Coffee shops are increasingly buying buds from criminal organizations willing to absorb the risk of prosecution by growing large amounts of cannabis in shipping containers buried underground, with little regard for quality or mold abatement. “It’s amazing how bad the quality has become,” says Bergman. “And the price is up. It’s what we’ve all predicted.”

That’s why Bergman travelled from his native Eindhoven to Amsterdam on a recent Monday, both to convene with other activists and to pick up five grams (the legal limit) of Super Silver Haze. Because the club is not-for-profit, its members can focus their efforts on finding and buying the best product and providing it to their members at much better prices than the coffee shops.  

Modelled after a proliferation of similar establishments in Spain, the social clubs offer a new way to subvert the harsher laws. As in Holland, cannabis is illegal in Spain, but the government doesn’t prosecute anyone for personal consumption and there’s no implicit limit on the number of plants a person can grow, meaning the government doesn’t care if you grow one plant or 15. In fact, signs point to the government not caring at all. Barcelona is developing a reputation as “the new Amsterdam,” meaning the old Amsterdam is losing out on a significant source of revenue: drug tourists.

Inside an Amsterdam coffee shop called The Rookies, 22-year-old John Bell rolls a spliff of tobacco and a strain called Dutch Kashmir, which Bell can’t find in his native Liverpool. Bell has been to Amsterdam 11 times in the past three years, not because it’s hard to find weed in the U.K., but because the quality here is better. He wouldn’t visit the city at all if not for these coffee shops and Amsterdam’s quasi-legal cannabis, adding: “It’s too expensive to drink here, for a proper night out.”

Such drug tourists represent a major element of the city’s economy. The union of coffee shops in Maastricht commissioned research in 2008 that found foreign visitors to the city’s coffee shops spent money in other businesses there as well: €140 million (approximately $170 million) annually. It’s a significant number and one of the reasons government officials in Amsterdam have fought to keep the coffee shops from going out of business.

About a third of all visitors to Amsterdam step into one of its coffee shops at some point; nationally, the number is one in five. Banning such visitors would hit tourism revenues hard, chasing off travellers who tend to be well-behaved. “If you’re really a deadbeat hippie punk, a no-money kind of guy, how are you going to afford a ticket to Amsterdam?” Bergman says.

Cities such as Maastricht, on the other hand, have banned foreigners from coffee shops since 2005. The result, insists Bergman and other critics, is a proliferation of street dealers. People still come from neighboring countries to score marijuana, but now they stock up and head back home in a day, instead of spending any time in local hotels and restaurants.

How did Holland get here? Some trace the backlash to 9/11. The world’s global panic about terrorism in the wake of the attacks on New York City and Washington led to a surge in the power of conservative political parties in places as far away as the Netherlands. Ever since Holland’s People’s Party for Liberty and Democracy began to consolidate influence here, its leaders have pushed for zero tolerance drug laws. “Our last prime minister [Jan Peter Balkenende] believed in his heart that weed comes from Satan,” says Mila Jansen, a legendary figure in Amsterdam, who once invented a way to make hash in a washing machine.

Other factors influencing the government crackdown are pressure from outside nations, especially France, which has pushed the International Narcotics Control board to sanction Holland for violating international treaties on drug laws with its permissive pot policy. Ironic, argues Bergman, because the rate of marijuana use is twice as high in France as it is in the Netherlands, and Holland has one of the lowest number of drug-related deaths in Europe.   

“Hard drugs are still illegal in Holland, but we also see that there are still many people who want to try drugs on occasion,” said the city’s mayor, Eberhard van der Laan, in a statement provided to Newsweek. “This is a reality we cannot ignore. And this is one of the key principles to our country’s drug policies: Drug use is first and foremost an issue of public health. By not focusing on the criminal aspects of drug use, as is the case in many other countries, we can be more effective when it comes to informing the public, testing drugs and prevention.”

Unfortunately, van der Laan’s federal counterparts don’t agree. They also don’t see that prohibition amounts to little more than, as they say here, “mopping with the tap on.”

Now, activists like Bergman are trying to convince Holland to consider the American model—the legalization and regulation of all components of marijuana cultivation and sale. Citing Oregon’s law, which allows residents to grow as many as four plants, Bergman says: “I’m sort of jealous.”

That’s because America seems to be learning from Holland’s mistakes. Holland’s passive-aggressive policy doesn’t stop illicit activity or drug tourism or make anyone safer, say activists: It actually has the reverse effect. Quasi-legalization leaves too many entry points for criminals to line their own pockets from the drug trade. State by state, the U.S. is legalizing pot with initiatives that clearly spell out who is allowed to manufacture, distribute and consume it. That’s the key to a successful policy, and it’s one Dutch activists are now working to implement in their own country, before things swing too far the other way.

This article appears in the latest Newsweek Special Edition, “Weed Nation: Is America Ready For a Legalized Future?” by Executive Editor Jeff Ashworth of Topix Media Lab.

 Source: http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-and-old-amsterdam- 22^nd Feb.2015

This is outrageous, but consistent with what is happening in other medi-pot states. Increased access and reduced perception of harm results in more abuse. So called ‘Medical marijuana’ was always about opening the floodgates to legal availability of the substance and this news item shows what is happening in many areas of the US.

Investigation Reveals Medical Marijuana Is Getting Into School Kids’ Hands

In a CBS2 News exclusive, Investigative Reporter David Goldstein uncovers medical marijuana being sold to school-aged kids in broad daylight, within walking distance of local schools. He reported the city was quick to act when he brought his disturbing findings to officials. Goldstein recorded many instances of adults buying the marijuana and quickly turning around and re-selling it to the underage kids. The students were shown, many times, smoking the pot minutes after leaving their schools. The student’s faces were covered because most appeared to be under 18 — the legal age for receiving doctor’s approval to buy medical marijuana without a parents’ consent. So exactly how did these kids get their hands on it?

Our hidden cameras caught the students paying someone else to get it for them — like this one man who didn’t want his face shown on TV. On most afternoons, residents of the area say kids like these gather on Barton Avenue, near Western in Hollywood. On a map, it’s easy to see the area is walking distance to several schools. With their sneakers, skateboards and backpacks, it looks like any afterschool meeting place. Until you see what’s taking place on the corner — Natural Remedies Caregivers, a marijuana dispensary. Goldstein reports, “we saw plenty of activity.”

In one instance, a group of young women is shown handing a man on a skateboard some money. He gets on the skateboard, then walks into the store. A few minutes later, he comes out carrying a white bag. He passes out what looks like pill jars to the girls on the street The jars are similar to one Goldstein found in the bushes near the dispensary. They’re used as containers for the pot. It says right on the label, “Not for children — Keep out of reach.”

But that didn’t seem to stop the seller or the buyers. The girls are shown opening up the jars and smelling their newly-purchased medical marijuana. Goldstein and his producer also observed a customer leaving the dispensary two times in one afternoon to hand off the contents inside his white bags.

The man is shown delivering the jars to two kids on the street — then he just crumples up the bag and throws it over his head. One teen is still holding his school notebook under his arm when he is shown tossing a jar to his friend who takes a whiff to check it out. On another occasion, Goldstein saw two teens buying and selling what appears to be medical marijuana — exchanged openly in broad daylight. On another day, our cameras caught a group of teens collect their money. Their connection comes up to grab it. He goes into the dispensary and comes out with the tell-tale white bag. He distributes the contents to his teenaged customers.

Goldstein then confronts the man. “You just went into the dispensary and bought pot for these guys, didn’t you?” he asks. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” the man replies.Goldstein tries again. “We just saw you go in there and you bought pot for these guys.” This time the man hit our camera and also made an obscene gesture.

The teens also had nothing to say. “How old are you?” he asked several.

Goldstein then asked to speak to a manager at the dispensary. He was told the manager “wasn’t around” and that a security guard hired by the store to police the area said he didn’t see anything going on. “You are the security guard, you don’t see these people coming in here and then selling to kids right around the corner?,” Goldstein asks, “and you don’t see anything, right?” The guard closed the door.

Residents said they see it and complained to police and nothing was done. “Well, it’s very frustrating,” said resident Dazzier Jimenez, “because you know, we have kids around the area, so they see that. It’s a bad example for our youth.”

Goldstein asked City Attorney Mike Feuer why this dispensary was allowed to remain open. His office oversees LA’s Prop D marijuana law. He said the dispensary complies with all the written requirements, as far as being a safe distance from schools and parks. After we told him what was going on, authorities acted.

“I can report that because you provided us with that location,” Feuer said, “the police conducted an investigation at the site and last evening they arrested an individual, an adult for allegedly selling medical marijuana to a minor just outside the facility.”

The manager of the dispensary also emailed Goldstein. “We are doing everything in our power to stop the illegal patient solicitations outside of the building and to also stop second-hand transactions from happening,” the manager wrote. Residents wonder why it took so long. “Why are there now arrests when there haven’t been any in the past?,” said Jimenez. “Quite frankly,” says LAPD Commander Andrew Smith,  “it was not a big problem location. It was not known to us as a problem location.”

Police and prosecutors told Goldstein that after seeing CBS2’s undercover video, they are now cracking down.

Source: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/25/only-on-2-investigation-reveals-medical-marijuana-is-getting-into-school-kids-hands/February 25, 2015 10:45 PM

Putnam County Circuit Court Judge Joeseph K. Reeder and Putnam County Adult Drug Court Probation Officer LaKeisha Barron-Brown applaud the accomplishment/graduation of Stacy Casto Wednesday at the Putnam County Judicial Building in Winfield. Casto was quoted by Judge Reeder as she was being introduced saying, “Judge, I’m gonna graduate and I want my picture in the paper with you.”

Putnam County Drug Court Graduates Lindsey Eddy and Stacy Casto sit relieved and all smiles at their accomplishemnt Wednesday at the Putnam County Judicail Building in Winfield. Bob Wojcieszak/Daily

With a picture of his mug shot on the screen before him, Putnam County Drug Court Graduate Craig Owens goes through the circumstances in his life that forced him to take a long look at where he was going and what made him seek out Putnam County Circuit Judge Joeseph K. Reeder to sign up for drug court and change. Having been arrested twenty one times in his past, Owens used the Putnam County Drug Court to change his life. Behind him is Judge Reeder. Bob Wojcieszak/Daily Mail

Having been involved with drugs since the age of twelve, twenty-year-old Putnam County Drug Court Graduate Lindsey Eddy looks at a composity picture of who she was when she was arrested and what she looks like clean and sober during Putnam County Drug Court Graduation ceremonies Wednesday at the Putnam County Judicial Building.

A drug addict of more than 30 years, Stacy Casto was facing felony drug charges when she was given a second chance in Putnam County’s new adult drug court program.

Putnam Circuit Court Judge Joseph K. Reeder met with the first class of offenders more than a year ago to explain how intensive drug court would be; constant drug testing, home visits, counselling and curfews.

“(Casto) was the first person who spoke up, and when she did, she said ‘Judge, I’m going to graduate and when I do I want my picture in the paper with you,’” Reeder said.

Casto, of Hometown, was among the first five graduates of Putnam County’s adult drug court program. Casto, Lori Hodges, Craig Owens, Lindsey Eddy and Jacob Pauley were honored during a graduation ceremony Wednesday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

Family and friends packed a courtroom as Reeder spoke about each graduate’s transformation. Many admitted they believed they would have been dead today if it weren’t for drug court.

Lindsey Eddy, 21, of Hurricane, starting using heroin when she was 12 years old. She had been through the juvenile court system and was most recently arrested for violating her probation order from felony drug charges she received when she was 18 years old.

As of Wednesday, Eddy had been drug-free for 221 days.

“Before, my life was hectic,” Eddy said. “I was always worried about my next high or what I was going to do for my next high. I never really imagined life without drugs. I tried rehabs and regular probation and I failed at that, and until I was entered into the drug court problem, this was the only thing that’s worked for me and it’s helped me out tremendously. I’m responsible now and I have a full time job, and I’ve been sober.”

Putnam adult drug court probation officer Lakeside Barron-Brown said Putnam’s program began in November 2013. She said candidates for the program have had drug-related charges or convictions, and must be willing to work toward a drug-free life.

“Once accepted into our program, they then come into a very intensive, therapeutic setting within our court system,” Barron-Brown said. “They are placed on home confinement, and the judge determines when they should be released.”

Offenders go through three phases, each lasting at least four months. During the first phase, they’re subjected to multiple drug tests and home visits a week. They attend group and individual counselling, put in community service hours and abide by a curfew.

During the second phase, drug court offenders receive help looking for and obtaining a job. In the third phase, Barron-Brown said offenders are given “a little more room” to become stabilized for society.

Barron-Brown said all five graduates had obtained jobs during the program and are still working those jobs to this day.

“We have five graduates here that when they first started, they were apprehensive about not knowing what to expect — the same as when you go into a college class and the professor says ‘Here’s a syllabus, you have a test’ and not knowing what the test is like until you’ve taken the test,” Barron-Brown said. “I think that’s what drug court has been for our clients. It’s a test of seeing how confident they can become and seeing how much self-esteem and self-worth they can gain. Obviously, all of them have shown they can be successful and they can be drug-free.”

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent D. Benjamin congratulated the five men and women for turning their lives around. He pointed out that West Virginia’s adult drug court system is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, and that 1,000 adults and juveniles have successfully completed drug court programs in West Virginia.

“What you’ve done is something a lot of people can’t do or haven’t done,” Benjamin told the graduates during the ceremony. “Thankfully we have a state in which you have an opportunity to do this.

“You’re in control of your lives now, and you weren’t before. And now you have the opportunity that not many people have; to turn around to the next drug court class and help them,” Benjamin said.

Reeder said offenders can get into the drug court by either entering a hybrid or conditional plea that allows for their charges to be lessened or dropped upon successful completion of the program, or by accepting drug court as a sentence in lieu of prison time. He said drug court is a good alternative to prison, but it takes a lot of work and responsibility for those who go through the program.

“I think it’s very important not just for the graduates involved, but it’s also important for Putnam County and our community because drugs have become such a problem in our society,” Reeder said. “It’s good that a program like this does give these folks a chance to rehabilitate and to get back on track.”

Casto said drug court “completely saved my life” because it gave her the ability to get help to fight her addiction ­— something she says prison time wouldn’t have done. Now that she’s sober, Casto said she would like to help juveniles who are battling addiction problems.

“I knew I had to have something in my life in order to change my life,” Casto said. “They offered counseling, they offered classes on drug prevention, they offered all these different things that I knew prison wouldn’t do for me. I’ve been a drug addict for 30 years, but during this time, I’ve started going to church, I’ve given my heart to the Lord and my whole entire life has changed.

Barron-Brown said the graduates will go through six more months of “supervised release” from the drug court program until they are completely finished with the program. She said there are 19 people in Putnam’s adult drug court program, including the graduates.

There are 24 adult drug court programs in West Virginia serving 40 counties, and 16 juvenile drug court programs serving 20 counties with 581 people actively participating in the programs, the Daily Mail reported earlier this month. As part of the Justice Reinvestment Act, which was passed last year, adult drug courts will be in all of West Virginia’s counties by July 1 of next year.

Contact writer Marcus Constantino at 304-348-1796 or marcus.c@dailymailwv.com. Follow him at www.twitter.com/amtino.

Source: http://www.charlestondailymail.com/article/20150226/DM01/150229485/1276#sthash.TzJh3TEA.dpuf 26^th Feb. 2015

Risk of developing psychosis up to five times greater for those who smoke ‘skunk’ cannabis every day

One in four new cases of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia could be the direct result of smoking extra-strong varieties of cannabis, a major new study concludes.

The finding suggests that about 60,000 people in Britain are currently living with conditions involving hallucinations and paranoid episodes brought on by abuse of high-potency cannabis, known as skunk, and more than 300,000 people who have smoked skunk will experience such problems in their lifetime.

The six-year study, the first of its kind in Britain, calculates that daily users of skunk are five times more likely to suffer psychosis than those who never touch it.

Psychiatrists said there is now an “urgent need” for a drive to educate the public about the risks involved with the substance. It is believed that even newer varieties, some of them more than twice as potent as those currently available on British streets, have already been developed in the Netherlands.

The findings reopen the debate about the classification of cannabis as an illegal drug, with some supporters of liberalisation now considering tougher restrictions on some varieties.

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, said the findings underlined arguments against decriminalisation. Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat former Home Office minister who has called for drug laws to be relaxed, said that there may be a case for giving skunk a new classification. The study, by researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London, is due to be published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry later this week.

They studied almost 800 working-age adults from one area of south London, half of whom had been recently treated for a psychotic episode for the first time. The incidence of schizophrenia in the area has doubled since the mid-Sixties, a trend widely thought to be linked to drug use. Cannabis use in the UK overall has fallen by about 40 per cent in the past decade but, for those using it, the typical potency has increased sharply in that time.

Levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC), the main psychoactive compound, are arbout 15 per cent in skunk, compared with about four per cent in traditional “hash” cannabis.

The study concluded that the strength of cannabis and the frequency of use play a crucial role in determining the mental health risks.

“Compared with those who never used cannabis, individuals who mostly used skunk-like cannabis were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder if they used it less than once per week, almost three times as likely if they used it at weekends, and more than five times as likely if they were daily users,” the paper notes. It found that skunk use was the “strongest predictor” of psychotic illness in those studied and that 24 per cent of new cases in the area could be attributed to skunk.

It also noted that those who started smoking cannabis before the age of 15 had higher risk of developing psychotic disorders than others. “Our findings show the importance of raising public awareness of the risk associated with use of high-potency cannabis, especially when such varieties of cannabis are becoming more available,” the paper concludes.

“The worldwide trend of liberalisation of the legal constraints on the use of cannabis further emphasises the urgent need to develop public education to inform young people about the risks of high-potency cannabis.” Dr Marta Di Forti, the lead author, said the significance of how regularly people smoked cannabis has often been overlooked in day-to-day treatment. “When a GP or psychiatrist asks if a patient uses cannabis it’s not helpful – it’s like asking whether someone drinks,” she said. “As with alcohol, the relevant questions are how often and what type of cannabis.”

Prof Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s, said: “It is now well known that use of cannabis increases the risk of psychosis. However, sceptics still claim that this is not an important cause of schizophrenia-like psychosis. “This paper suggests that we could prevent almost one quarter of cases of psychosis if no-one smoked high potency cannabis.” He added: “Education is the important thing – people need to know the risks of regular use of high potency cannabis.

Mr Grayling said: “Far too many of those who end up in our criminal justice system have got drug and mental health problems. “It’s clear to me that drug addiction is at the root of a large proportion of crimes in the UK and that it causes mental health problems which are all too apparent in our prisons. “That’s why mental health will be our next big reform focus – but it’s also why decriminalisation is not the right option.”

Mark Winstanley, the chief executive of Rethink Mental Illness, said: “Essentially, smoking cannabis is like playing a very real game of Russian roulette with your mental health. Reclassifying cannabis isn’t the answer.” A Home Office spokesman said: “Our approach remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities and help dependent individuals through treatment and recovery, while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping supply and tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade.”

Edward Boyd, deputy policy director of the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank founded by the Work and pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, said: “This study provides yet more evidence that liberalising drugs laws is not the way to go. “It will only lead to more people suffering from the misery of drug addiction, which, as this study shows, could well include psychosis. “Instead, politicians should focus on improving the UK’s poor level of treatment for addicts by investing in residential rehabilitation.”

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: “This is yet another study that should worry all those who deny any direct link between skunk, a potent cannabis derivative, and psychotic breakdown. “While the scientists and politicians debate, we face the daily heartbreak of young people whose minds and thoughts have been altered through continued use and whose families feel helpless.

“What we need is a strong, uncompromising message so that parents, teachers, the police and young people themselves know that a significant percentage who take skunk risk acute, and in some cases lasting, mental illness.”

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11414605 26^th Feb. 2015

Although marijuana users often say the drug enhances their creativity, new research has found just the opposite. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana decreases creativity.

Marijuana/cannabis is known for its ability to significantly alter the mental processes of its users. Anecdotal accounts sometimes cite this mental alteration as a beneficial effect of cannabis use and point toward an increase in creativity as evidence of such an effect. In a study published in October 2014 in the journal Psychopharmacology, a team of researchers from the Netherlands looked for signs of increased creativity in people who consume low doses and high doses of the main marijuana/cannabis ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). These researchers concluded that, depending on the amount of THC consumed, cannabis intake either does not alter users’ creativity levels or actively reduces creativity.

Cannabis and THC

All three forms of cannabis — marijuana, hashish and hashish oil — contain THC as their main, mind-altering chemical constituent. As a rule, marijuana has the lowest THC content of all cannabis products, while hashish oil has the highest THC content. Keeping this fact in mind, evidence compiled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse indicates that the THC potency of the typical batch of marijuana has risen sharply in America over the last several decades. In fact, much of the marijuana available today has a THC content once only associated with hashish, a concentrated cannabis product.

THC belongs to a group of substances called cannabinoids. Marijuana contains roughly 100 cannabinoids, all of which access the brain through sites on nerve cells called cannabinoid receptors. Inside the brain, THC activates a region known as the pleasure center, triggers an alteration of thought processes, distorts sensory perception, distorts time perception and reduces the human ability to make or access memories and focus attention. The chemical also substantially alters mood, although the specific manifestations of mood-related change vary from person to person. THC’s impact on the pleasure center largely accounts for the ability of marijuana/cannabis to trigger the persistent brain changes that mark the onset of cannabis dependence and cannabis addiction. Roughly 17 percent of all marijuana consumers in America meet the criteria doctors use to diagnose such an addiction.

Cannabis and Creativity

Some people believe that marijuana use increases the brain’s ability to make new connections between seemingly unrelated topics or trains of thought. Broadly speaking, the ability to make such connections is considered a critical feature of creativity. In addition, some people believe that marijuana use increases creativity by forcing the brain to adapt to the characteristic changes in sensory perception associated with the drug. There is some research that loosely supports the connection between marijuana/cannabis use and creativity; however, no reputable researchers prioritize the potential creativity-related benefits of the drug over the known harms that marijuana/cannabis can inflict on a person’s mental and physical well-being.

Is Cannabis Creativity a Myth?

In the study published in Psychopharmacology, researchers from Leiden University and two other Dutch institutions used a small-scale project to explore the impact that marijuana/cannabis use has on creativity. A total of 54 people took part in this project. Eighteen of the participants received a dose of low-THC cannabis, while another 18 received a dose of high-THC cannabis; the remaining participants acted as a comparison group and received an inactive placebo designed to mimic cannabis. The participants in all three groups reported using marijuana/cannabis regularly in their personal lives. After consuming cannabis or a cannabis placebo, each study participant took tests designed to assess key aspects of creative thinking. Neither the researchers nor the participants knew in advance which individuals received low-THC cannabis, high-THC cannabis or a placebo.

After reviewing the results of the creativity tests, the researchers concluded that the participants who received a dose of low-THC cannabis did not have significantly higher test scores than the comparison group that received a placebo. In addition, when they compared the high-THC group to the comparison group, they concluded that the high-THC group actually experienced a decline in their creativity levels. Specifically, the high-THC group registered a reduced ability to rapidly produce multiple ideas related to a single topic; psychologists commonly refer to this ability as divergent creativity.

The study’s authors note that both high-THC and low-THC cannabis consumption apparently have no effect on convergent creativity, a form of creativity that allows human beings to find the one correct answer to a puzzle or other mentally challenging situation. Overall, they believe their findings go a long way toward disproving the notion of cannabis-inspired creativity.

Source: http://www.lucidatreatment.com/ 3rd February 2015

A study on the perceived risk of regularly using cannabis and the characteristics associated with these perceptions found that non-white, low-income women over the age of 50 were most likely to perceive a risk in using the drug. Least likely were those 12 to 25 years old, with a high school diploma or more, and a total family income above $75,000. The study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health with colleagues at Johns Hopkins University is the first to describe changes across time in perceived risk of regular cannabis use in the U.S. population 12 years and older. Results are published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

Data from 614,579 individuals who took part in the 2002-2012 National Survey on Drug Use showed that past-year daily cannabis use has increased significantly between 2002 and 2012. The results also show that in 2002 participants were significantly more likely to associate risk with regular cannabis use compared to individuals interviewed in the years 2008 through 2012. In 2002, 51 percent of all survey participants believed there was a great risk associated with regular cannabis use versus 40 percent of participants in 2012. Findings were adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, total family income, past year cannabis use status, and survey year. Regular use of marijuana was defined as once or twice a week.

“The changing perception about marijuana risk may at least partially be explained by the increasing number of states that legalized medical marijuana during 2008 and after,” said Silvia Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health.

Females were nearly two times more likely to perceive risk in regular marijuana use compared with males, yet the perceived risk among women decreased from 59 percent in 2002 to 47 percent in 2012. The number of female users remained stable in 2012 compared to 2002, however the number of female regular users slightly increased in the same time period.

Non-daily cannabis use in the past year varied between 2002 and 2012, but did not change dramatically when comparing the years 2002 and 2012 directly (9.7 percent vs. 10.2 percent, respectively).

Users in the past year were less likely to perceive a risk from regular cannabis use. Daily users were 96 percent less likely than non-users, and non-daily users were 89 percent less likely than past year non-users to have this perception.

“The sex differences in perceived risk of regular cannabis use observed in our study are consistent with reports from others showing male-female differences in perceived risk of substance use in general,” said Silvia Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health. “In addition, interestingly, individuals with a high school education or greater were significantly less likely to perceive great risk of regular cannabis use than those with less than a high school education, findings partially corroborated by results from Gallup polls indicating that adults with a college education compared to those without are more likely to support legalization of cannabis.”

Regular cannabis use has been associated with financial difficulties, low energy levels, dissatisfaction with productivity levels, sleep and memory issues, and relationship and family problems. Most individuals receiving treatment for cannabis use disorder — defined as clinically significant impairment — report difficulty quitting, and experience a withdrawal syndrome after cessation.

“Perceived risk is an important factor in deciding whether or not individuals will engage in health-related behaviors, such as cigarette smoking or binge drinking, for example,,” said Dr. Martins. “Continually evolving regulations in the U.S. have the potential to impact perceived risk of cannabis use, which may influence individuals’ decisions to first try or use cannabis.”

A 2012 Mailman School study led by Dr. Magdalena Cerda showed that adults living in states with medical cannabis laws until 2004 had higher odds of cannabis use than residents of states without such laws. Prior to 2008, 11 states had legalized medical marijuana; today, an additional 12 states and Washington D.C. passed legislation regarding medical marijuana.

Source:   ScienceDaily, 25 February 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225094420.htm>