|
June
2003
Dear
Frank
UKCIA
was interested to hear of the launch of Talk to Frank, we
very much welcome a move away from the "just say no"
approach to drugs.
However,
we have some serious reservations about the nature of the
information given out by Frank which we would like to ask
that you address. So sorry, this is a very long letter.
In
general, the advice and information you give is very good.
However, we have complaints regarding the cannabis section.
For
a long time we've been told of all sorts of nasty harm cannabis
can cause, much of which has been discredited. However, looking
at Frank, cannabis is a very nasty, dangerous substance indeed.
All the comments you make are negative and you make some alarming
claims Also, some of the information is simply wrong:
Frank
says: "Cannabis is not something that dealers mix
anything with, But some unsuspecting people have been known
to buy blocks of mud, stock cubes and garden herbs from people
pretending to be dealers".
Wrong.
So-called "soap bar" is well known for being badly
contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. It would have
been more honest had you warned of the dangers caused *directly
by the law* and the unregulated market here, but you fail
to do so. You do say of alcohol that "Because it's legal
and sold only in licensed premises, most alcohol is unadulterated
by anything very nasty". Which is true, so why not warn
of the dangers of the unlicenced, unregulated cannabis market?
Click here
You
also mention people sometimes get ripped off by dealers, it's
true, but why not also warn that on occassion some dealers
offer other substances to people wanting to buy cannabis that
are a little more than garden herbs?
Frank
says: "Much like a cigarette, the effects are immediate
and last about an hour"
When
smoked the effects are pretty fast acting, but not immediate.
For a total non-smoker having a first puff on a tobacco spliff,
the head-spinning hit which happens at once is caused by the
tobacco, not the cannabis. The cannabis high will come along
some time later, maybe as long as 10 - 20 mins later. How
long it lasts depends on how much is smoked. Bongs etc are
faster acting but still not immediate.
Frank
says: "Smoking a spliff makes most people happy,
relaxed and at peace with the world but the effects vary from
person to person. Some people have one puff and feel sick.
Others get the giggles until the muscles in their faces hurt.
The
last bit about face muscles is just stupid, it doesn't happen.
Frank
says: "Cannabis is quite an introspective drug. Once
stoned, users can find hidden depths in daytime television/
the most unlikely song lyrics".
Being
stoned is an introspective experience, true. It certainly
does allow people to listen deeply to music, experiencing
layers of complexity in the composition. Similar things can
happen with images. This is why artists use cannabis to great
effect in making music and works of art. Indeed, it's probably
the reason most people use cannabis. So why not point out
the creative aspects - you do point out the good side of ecstasy,
so why rubbish it with cannabis?
Frank
says "It affects co-ordination. So it can make people
a bit unsteady on their feet. Doing complicated things like
operating machinery is not a good idea".
Stoned
people don't stagger around like drunks which this seems to
imply, being very stoned can make movement difficult though
but again in some ways cannabis can improve concentration
and may even help with certain complex tasks, particularly
with artistic composition, also lot of IT "geeks"
use cannabis when doing tekie stuff. Again, you only mention
the negative, not the positive potential.
Strange
though that you don't warn people not to drive when stoned,
We know the Transprt research lab study showed cannabis was
less dangerous than alcohol in this respect, but it would
still be good advice.
Then
we get the "flip side" - as if the above wasn't
negative enough!
Frank
says: "Some people get so chilled they lose their
inhibitions altogether".
Sorry
Frank, that is utter rubbish. That is probably the one thing
cannabis does not do, indeed, it's quite the opposite. Some
people, when they get very stoned, become introverted and
can dwell on personal or other problems.
Perhaps
Frank is talking about intimate sexual encounters here, if
so, why not say it? Some - if not most - people would consider
that a positive attribute of cannabis however
Frank
says: "Even hardcore smokers can get anxious, panicky
and suspicious".
Which
is what can happen if you become too inward looking when stoned.
However, for most people this is not a serious problem, but
it's good advice not to use cananbis if this happens repeatedly.
Frank
says: "Cannabis screws with short-term memory".
When
stoned, yes. Not permanently though.
|
US Jamaican
Study 1974: "No impairment of physiological,
sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept
formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style,
and tests of memory"
LaGuardia
Commission Report, 1944 "Cannabis smoking does
not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration...
Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years
showed no mental or physical deterioration which may
be attributed to the
drug."
|
Frank
says: "Eating or drinking the drug delays the effects
and can make them stronger and longer lasting".
Making
the effects stronger and longer lasting is not a flip side!
Eating or drinking cannabis also avoids the dangers associated
with smoking. The only real problem with eating or drinking
cannabis is the uncertainty of the strength of the cannabis
you cook with. If cannabis were properly regulated and sold
in graded strengths this would not be a problem. Again, you
mention a danger caused by the law, without mentioning it's
the law causing the danger. Why?
In
the "Chances of getting hooked" section
Frank
says: "Users are more likely to get addicted to nicotine
if they roll their spliffs with tobacco".
So
why not advise users to smoke cannabis in pipes - or better
still water pipes or vapourisers? Actually, this is probably
the most serious aspect of cannabis use to address. Smoking
with tobacco creates a craving for another smoke. Because
two drugs are being used in combination, smoking either alone
won't really satisfy the craving so another spliff gets rolled.
Cannabis users who stop using tobacco find their consumption
of cannabis drops significantly and their use becomes far
less habitual.
So
why not give this simple and blindingly obvious bit of advice
- If you smoke cannabis, smoke it pure without tobacco ? See
UKCIA Toke pure - Click here
| In 1997, (R.
v Clay), Ontario Justice John McCart ruled, "Cannabis
is not an addictive substance; does not cause amotivational
syndrome; and health related costs of cannabis use are
negligible when compared to the costs attributable to
tobacco and alcohol consumption." His findings were
confirmed by B.C. Justice F.E. Howard in a similar case
in 1998. |
Frank
says: "If you have been using for a long time, worth
you might want to think about counselling. Your local drug
agency can offer help and advice".
Why
do we get the idea this hasn't really been properly written?
Just
because someone's been using cannabis for a long time doesn't
always mean they have a problem anyway, it might mean they
enjoy it.
And
then we get the risks:
Frank
says: "Most of the risks associated with cannabis
are linked to regular, heavy use".
Most
problems associated to anything are linked to regular, heavy
use, cannabis is no exception to that rule. Frank is careful
not to say there are few if any risks with moderate use, why
is this?
Frank
says: "Smoking cannabis may be more harmful than
smoking tobacco. Cannabis has a higher concentration of chemical
'nasties' that cause cancer".
we
note the use of the words "may be" as in truth this
is very open to debate and not proven. Not only that but users
of pure cannabis breath in much less smoke than tobacco smokers
because cannabis doesn't produce a craving and far smaller
amounts are actually smoked.
Using
a water pipe and smoking small amounts of stronger varieties
reduces the potential dangers further. Indeed there is research
which even suggests cannabis reduces the risk of cancer ("Marijuana
Use and Mortality" American Journal of public health,
April 1997).
So
why then make alarmist statements which are not proven?
Why
not give sensible advice on how to reduce what risk there
may be?
|
Researchers
at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine
announced the results of an 8 - year study into the
effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs.
In Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory
and Critical Care Medicine, Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported:
"No differences were noted between even quite heavy
marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
A Study of
Chronic Marijuana Use; Institute of Human Issues "Users
in our matched-pair sample smoked marijuana in addition
to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their matched non-using
pairs. Yet their small airways were, if anything, a
bit healthier than their matches. We must tentatively
conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effect
on such passages or that it actually offers some slight
protection against harmful effects of tobacco smoke"
|
Frank
says: "Smoking anything can give you heart problems,
bronchitis and cancer. Smoking it with tobacco can get you
hooked on tobacco".
Probably
true - don't smoke it with tobacco and breath in as little
smoke as possible - see above.
Frank
says: "Cannabis can make asthma worse".
It
can also make it better
Frank
says "Regular, heavy use makes it harder to learn and
concentrate. Being stoned all the time isn't going to win anyone
'Employee Of The Month'"
So
the message should be don't use it heavily for long periods!
Regular, heavy use of anything won't make you employee of
the month, that's not advice particular to cannabis and is
much truer for nearly any other drug.
Then
we get this:
Frank
says: "Frequent use of cannabis can cut a man's sperm
count and suppress ovulation in women".
What
message are you trying to put across there? we'd be very interested
to see the research which shows cannabis in any way reduces
the chances of having kids. This is such a stupid thing to
say that it may even encourage young people to think that
getting stoned would reduce the risk of getting pregnant and
hence - given what you claim above about "losing inhibitions"
above - could encourage kids not to use condoms.
Frank
says: "Some research has made a link between cannabis
and mental illnesses like schizophrenia. If you've got a history
of mental illness in the family you should think very carefully
about getting stoned".
Some
research, it's not proof by a long way. However, it would
have been less alarmist to simply say something like "if
you find cannabis has unpleasant effects - and some people
certainly do - don't use it". Also, again the simple
advice of "use with moderation" is totally missing,
although you do give that advice for alcohol.
Frank
says: "Smoking cannabis when pregnant can harm the
baby. There's an increased risk of birth defects, miscarriage
and sudden infant death syndrome. Babies also tend to be lower
in birth weight".
That's
general advice about smoking when pregnant, not especially
about smoking cannabis. Again, why not point out the alternatives
of non-smoking methods?
|
Prenatal
Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica:
An Ethnographic Study
Melanie C. Dreher, PhD; Kevin Nugent, PhD; and Rebekah
Hudgins, MA
Measurements
and main results. Exposed and nonexposed neonates were
compared at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton
Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items
to capture possible subtle effects. There were no significant
differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates
on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better
physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation
to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using
mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality
of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and
were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers.
Conclusions.
The absence of any differences between the exposed on
nonexposed groups in the early neonatal period suggest
that the better scores of exposed neonates at 1 month
are traceable to the cultural positioning and social
and economic characteristics of mothers using marijuana
that select for the use of marijuana but also promote
neonatal development. Pediatrics 1994;93:254-260; prenatal
marijuana exposure, neonatal outcomes, Jamaica, Brazelton
scale supplementary items.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm
|
There
then follows a massive legal section, way bigger than, say,
the legal section about crack. The fact that you need to explain
this in such great depths is no doubt because of the widespread
acceptance of cannabis, however anyone glancing at this will
be given the clear impression that cannabis is the main focus
for enforcement, which isn't true.
So
how well does Frank work offline?
Frank
doesn't address the old chestnut of whether cannabis leads
onto other drugs. A ukcia person e-mailed you with the question:
"Does
cannabis lead onto other drugs?"
The
reply was that Frank can't answer that one in e-mail, so he
phoned for a chat. The helper gave a straight answer that
it doesn't, but also seemed to imply some cultural connection
with "other drugs", although she dismissed the idea
of dealers offering other drugs, which enough of us know from
personal experience happens only too often. Again though,
this is a problem caused by the law, not by cannabis.
The
assistant promised to send some information about cannabis
by post. An envelope arrived with a note from the National
drugs helpline saying "sorry we have run out of the information
you requested and it may be out of print". There was
also a small credit card sized card which had in big letters
CANNABIS
HARMS HEALTH
For accurate information and advice on drugs, health and
the law call the ... National drugs helpline 0800 77 66
00 |
 |
and
on the back
|
|
CANNABIS
IS ILLEGAL AND WILL REMAIN ILLEGAL
Although the government is proposing to reduce the penalties
for the possession of cannabis, it will remain a criminal
offence leading to a possible fine or imprisonment
0800 77 66 00
National drugs helpine |
 |
A
vist to the NDH website re-directs to Frank, phoning the NDH
number also connects to Frank so we were back at the start.
A classic example of a revolving door.
Please,
if you're going to do this, then lets have proper, honest
and balanced information and not law enforcement dressed up
as concerned good advice.
Your
cannabis section, Frank, is no more than "spin"
UKCIA
|
