|
|
|
|
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 11:00:47 AM | Pot was outlawed in the US under the marijuana stamp act of 1937 (later thrown out by Tim Leary's case) The law was passed in the midst of the depression during a time when the use of marijuana was considered the province of hispanics and black jazz players. questions of fear were raised, as in the case of victor licata (check the spelling on the last name) down in florida. victor, who was seriously mentally ill, killed his entire family one night after drinking wood alcohol based booze. the police and mental health experts had begged the family to commit victor whom they considered dangerous, but the family would not do so. after his conviction harry anslinger, the dope czar of his day, decided that even though he did not want to outlaw a week growing on the tracks (and a profitable agricultural product to boot) he would use scare tactics such as addiction and madness (reefer madness was actually a movie designed to scare people, it was supposed to be serious) with that background info, and the cost of prisons etc and the medical uses (not worth a darn for glaucoma really but its the best for chemo side effects) what do you think should we legalize and tax the daylights out of pot or leave it illegal? (ps i dont smoke it so i have no personal stake in this) | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 11:32:23 AM | | You're forgetting part of the reason it's illegal, William Randolph Hearst. He had a new process for making paper from wood pulp, and hemp paper threatened his business. Yes it should be legal and taxed, and yes I'm personally biased on the subject, but I also think other drugs I have no stake in should be legalized and taxed too. Making them illegal doesn't stop use, it just creates a crime filled black market and makes otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 11:50:30 AM | In the big picture it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Pot smokers will keep smoking.
It is the duty of every man to defy unjust laws. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 11:59:46 AM |
I also think other drugs I have no stake in should be legalized and taxed too. Making them illegal doesn't stop use, it just creates a crime filled black market and makes otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. I am in full agreement with you, AwP!
I will go even further: I think any consensual"crime" -- between one or two or more consenting adults -- should be legal.
If someone wants to fire up a doobie in the privacy of his or her own home, more power to 'em.
Incidentally, I don't smoke weed anymore -- haven't in about 20 years. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 12:02:59 PM |
In the big picture it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Pot smokers will keep smoking.
It is the duty of every man to defy unjust laws.
Exactly. Life will continue regardless of what a guy in a suit says in some fancy white building! No human in a position of authority knows what's best for you, me or anyone else. Only the individual can make rational choices about how to handle substances. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 12:05:11 PM |
It is the duty of every man to defy unjust laws.
An excellent sentiment and well said!
I'm in full agreement and only wish more people felt as you do.  | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 12:09:59 PM |
I will go even further: I think any consensual"crime" -- between one or two or more consenting adults -- should be legal. Agreed. I may not be interested in using a prostitute, but that doesn't mean I want my taxes to pay for imprisoning those who are. Hmm, drugs, prostitution... wasn't there a third category of consensual crime? I can't think of it at the moment. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 1:58:06 PM | Why isn't pot legal? Follow the money. The tobacco industry doesn't want it. The alcohol industry SURELY doesn't want it any more than big pharma. Who would they sell all those mood altering drugs to if people could mellow out for free with something they could grow for free in their backyard? Reefer madness is still in effect until people wise up and grow up.
Here's an interesting read for you - Cannabis history in America - "The Emperor Has No Clothes" http://www.jackherer.com/ | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 2:18:42 PM | | Canibus is a poison. The THC varies from plant to plant therefore, making it an unreliable medicine, (pain releiver). Some of the side effects include cardiac arrest, as well a mild psychois in some users. Therefore it is my belief that it should remained controled. I would agrue that it should not be a schedule one narcoitic. Schedule 2 might be better designation. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 2:44:19 PM | Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco 435,000 Alcohol 85,000 Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000 An Illicit Drug Use, Direct & Indirect 17,000 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflam. Drugs (Aspirin) 7,600
Marijuana ... 0
Source: drugwarfacts | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 2:57:48 PM | ^ While I won't dispute the dangers (or lack) of pot use, I'm certain that the number of deaths attributable to its use is not zero. Almost everyone that I know who smokes MJ also smokes tobacco. Tobacco and MJ also share many of the same harmful chemicals. So many (if not all) of the effective deaths caused by MJ would be covered up by, or are indistinguishable from those caused by tobacco.
That being said, I don't see any good reason why one should be legal while the other is not. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 3:02:08 PM | I took my writtings from another thread: ____________________________________________________________ The "War on Drugs" is a complete failure. Anyone in anytown can get drugs. The drug market is massive and completely unregulated. This is bad for everyone. ________________________________________________________
The easy answer is taxation. If weed were legalized, large amounts of tax revenue could be collected from the sale of marijuana. I know there are two posible arguments to this; "Do you think the black market will just disappear, and everyone will pay taxes on the weed they smoke?", and "Won't it cost more to collect the taxes then the taxes will bring in?"
I think the black market for weed would virtualy vanish if it were legalized. And it would not be because the black market coudn't compete on price, they simply could not compete on convience. The majorty of people would rather buy their marijuana from a store with regular hours, then try to track down a dealer and maybe save a few dollars. There would still be a few home growers, but they would be more akin to today's home brewers. They would only be growing personal weed and supplying a few friends. The large growers would disapear since they would no longer have access to a customer base.
Collecting the tax would be relatively easy, once the distribution networks are set up. Since weed is non-perishable, it could easily be sold next to alcohol or tobacco. The taxes could then be collected by the same people who collect the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. __________________________________________________
Right now all of the money from the sale of marijuana goes to people who are breaking the law. Some of it goes to small time dealers supporting their habit and small growers paying their mortgage. But a lot of that money goes to criminal organizations. Some of these groups are Mexican cartels, Asian mafia, street gangs and biker gangs. For these groups Marijuana is their number one source of income, it's bigger than all other drugs combined and bigger than prostitution. These criminal organizations use the money to fundviolent turf wars and open up distribution networks for harder drugs. If marijuana were to become leagalized, all of these criminal organizations would suffer irrepairable damage.
_________________________________________________________
Fighting the "War on Drugs" is not a cheap endeavor. Right now the DEA spends 2.2 billion dollars a year. Then you can add on what local and state law enforcement spends, and all the money it costs to incarcerate people whos only offence was smoking a bit of pot.
This money could be much better spent on proper harm redction programs like rehabilitation and honest education on the dangers of drugs.
__________________________________________________________
Then there's the fact that so many decent people's lives have been destroyed, not because they smoked pot, but because they were caught smoking pot.
We have all heard stories of 18 year old kids getting 25 year sentences for transporting a pound of weed. But what about the kid who loses a college scholarship because he was caught smoking a joint, or the trucker who loses his license after failing a urine test because he smoked a bit on his day off. These people did nothing to harm others, but they suffered greatly simply because a law was writen without basis years ago.
_______________________________________________________
"What about the children? Won't somebody think of the children?"
I have heard the arguement many times before that;if we legalize weed we will send the wrong message to children and they will all think it is acceptable to smoke pot and do all drugs.
Now I think this is entirely false. Right now we are sending a very dishonest drug education program to our kids. We tell them that marijuana is one of the worst substances on the planet, but once a kid tries pot once, they know it was all a lie. If these kids see the drug programs as lying about weed, they won't trust it when it comes to dangerous drugs.
Since marijuana is unregulated, for most kids finding weed is easier then getting tobacco or alcohol. If we legalized, purchasing marijuana would require ID, just like beer and smokes.
_______________________________________________________
Ever since I was a little kid, I thought the "War on Drugs" was just plain silly.
If the war is on drugs, who is fighting for the other side? Is it the DEA, the internation police community, or is it society as a whole?
And if drugs were somehow defeated, who would sign the surrender? | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 3:24:43 PM |
And if drugs were somehow defeated, who would sign the surrender?
EXACTLY! Now you know why they declared a war on "terror." It gives them an excuse to put everyone under martial law in a never ending war against a concept. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 3:35:32 PM |
The large growers would disapear since they would no longer have access to a customer base. Actually, the large growers would just apply for some sort of permit or license, and become legitimate farmers/businessmen who pay taxes and contribute to society, their customer base would be the ones who package and distribute it, just like tobacco. Actually tobacco companies are the most likely ones to do it. There's an urban legend (haven't found it on snopes to confirm or deny) that Marlboro already has a factory built somewhere ready to go so that they can be the first on the market when it becomes legal. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 3:49:50 PM | | I've seen that rumor floating around too. It's probably true because they see the writing on the wall. Legalizing pot is inevitable. It'll take time but it will happen. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:05:50 PM | Really no deaths due to cannibas. So your saying that someone operating a vechile under the influence of that narcotic has never killed anyone. It is funny you use a source from an organization that is actively promoting the legalization of narcotics. Would you want your aircraft mechanic under the influence of cannibas? How about the trucker working 11 hours with a 40 ton tractor trailer? These examples are where it would become a public safety issue.
The abolition of the black market, well it depends on the tax. There will always, be someone trying to get around the system. I know that there is currently a black market for cigerettes. In addtion to that there is still a active moonshine market.
As far as requiring identification, we see how well that works in both underage smoking and drinking.
Current DEA budget FY ending 2007 2,345.9 Million Source http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm
A victory in the war in drugs is would be a 1% usage within the USA. This is reconizing that narcotics abuse and use will never completely be erraticated
Is there still a black market for cannibas in CA where medical usage is legal?
Again it needs to be evaluated on where it is placed on the DEA drug schedule, not legalized, at least to the OTC varity. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:15:40 PM |
Really no deaths due to cannibas. So your saying that someone operating a vechile under the influence of that narcotic has never killed anyone. It is funny you use a source from an organization that is actively promoting the legalization of narcotics. Would you want your aircraft mechanic under the influence of cannibas? How about the trucker working 11 hours with a 40 ton tractor trailer? These examples are where it would become a public safety issue.
You're really admitting your ignorance (not to mention the spelling needs a lot of work). Pot is NOT a narcotic. No matter how many times you were forced to watch reefer madness, it isn't true.
The accident you refer to is death by stupidity. Would you outlaw the use of wine at the dinner table because drunk drivers kill people? That's an absurd statement.
The abolition of the black market, well it depends on the tax. There will always, be someone trying to get around the system. I know that there is currently a black market for cigerettes. In addtion to that there is still a active moonshine market.
That's the very reason prohibitions don't work. We've learned nothing from history.
As far as requiring identification, we see how well that works in both underage smoking and drinking.
What exactly does that mean?
A victory in the war in drugs is would be a 1% usage within the USA. This is reconizing that narcotics abuse and use will never completely be erraticated
No. A victory in the war on drugs would be honesty about their use and honesty about their effects but the public isn't insterested in honesty. They still want to be spoonfed bulls**t from a government only interested in it's own self interests and not yours. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:17:05 PM | Really no deaths due to cannibas. So your saying that someone operating a vechile under the influence of that narcotic has never killed anyone. It is funny you use a source from an organization that is actively promoting the legalization of narcotics. Would you want your aircraft mechanic under the influence of cannibas? How about the trucker working 11 hours with a 40 ton tractor trailer? These examples are where it would become a public safety issue.
If I huff a bunch of glue, then crash a car, should glue be illegal?
Marijuana itself has never killed anyone. The stupid things people do while on marijuana however, have. Since legislating stupidity is folly, why ban something tangentially related to said stupidity?
edit:
Canibus is a poison. The THC varies from plant to plant therefore, making it an unreliable medicine, (pain releiver). Some of the side effects include cardiac arrest, as well a mild psychois in some users. Therefore it is my belief that it should remained controled. I would agrue that it should not be a schedule one narcoitic. Schedule 2 might be better designation.
Wow. Mate, you'd be well advised to pick up some new reading material - ideally, from somewhere other than your local cop shop. Your information is so completely wrong that it doesn't justify a response other than: learn more.
This stuff could be skimmed right out of Reefer Madness. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:35:02 PM |
Would you want your aircraft mechanic under the influence of cannibas? How about the trucker working 11 hours with a 40 ton tractor trailer? These examples are where it would become a public safety issue. No, but I don't want them drunk on the job either, what's the difference? | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:43:52 PM | I actually got the Cannibas THC information out of a book on posionous plants. Tobacco was included, along with other plants. I was doing research unrelated to drugs.
As far as reefer madness, never seen it.
Cannibas has caused cardiac arrest, it is actually more harmful then 5 tobacco cigerettes. My source is an article in the Wall Street Journal. I will try and find the exact day that appeared. In anecdotal evidence, in a testmonial on the radio program Love Line, the reason the Everlast (of House of Pain fame) had a heart attack, was because of his habitual cannibas use.
Marijuana is called dope because it impairs judgement. Its control is necessary to mitigate risk to public safety. The same reason the the consumption of alcohol is controled 0.08 is the legal BAC in some states.
I am saying about identification requirements that underage individuals will still be able to gain access "banned" substances. There is plenty of underage smoking an drinking in the states even with the identification requirements for its purchase.
I would agree that schedule 1 on the DEA list is an incorrect designation. Schedule 2 or 3 would be better, that would put its usage under the supervision of a physican. I would suggest that those suggest that I should do more research should do the same, looking to the con side as well as the pro side of this issue. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:50:49 PM |
Would you want your aircraft mechanic under the influence of cannibas? How about the trucker working 11 hours with a 40 ton tractor trailer? These examples are where it would become a public safety issue.
No, but I don't want them drunk on the job either, what's the difference?[quote/]
The difference is the amout that impairs a person. However, this was more in response to another poster that stated how unfair it was that a trucker to loose his/her license due to failing a UA. If we are going to discuss drug policy we need to think about the unintended consequences. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 4:57:22 PM |
am saying about identification requirements that underage individuals will still be able to gain access "banned" substances. There is plenty of underage smoking an drinking in the states even with the identification requirements for its purchase.
Which is why the "identification requirement" won't either...by your own words - "There is plenty of underage smoking an drinking in the states even with the identification requirements for its purchase"
When you look to the wall street journal for medical certitude, you're looking in the wrong place.
As far as reefer madness, never seen it.
You may not have ever seen it but you're coming from the same place the "reefer madness" people want you to come from - fear. Fear gets passed down from one generation to another and every subsequent generation repeats the same old mantras their parently were brainwashed with. It's the same mentality. You can NOT legislate morality. You never could, can't now and never will be able to do that yet some keep trying.
Cannibas has caused cardiac arrest
Prove it. That's utter nonsense. If that were true, there would be tens of millions of people in this country alone that would be dropping dead from cardiac arrest. What utter rubbish. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 5:00:47 PM |
Pot is NOT a narcotic. No matter how many times you were forced to watch reefer madness, it isn't true.
Narcotic 11 a: a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b: a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not 2: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls
I would include Tobacco under the same defintion.
Source material: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcotic | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 5:11:58 PM | The follow is an excerpt from http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx
What are its effects? Pleasant
A ‘high’ - a sense of relaxation, happiness, sleepiness, colours appear more intense, music sounds better.
Unpleasant
Around 1 in 10 cannabis users have unpleasant experiences, including confusion, hallucinations, anxiety and paranoia. The same person may have either pleasant or unpleasant effects depending on their mood and circumstances. These feelings are usually only temporary – although as the drug can stay in the system for some weeks, the effect can be more long-lasting than users realise. Long-term use can have a depressant effect, reducing motivation.
Education and learning
There have also been suggestions that cannabis may interfere with a person's capacity to:
concentrate organise information use information This effect seems to last several weeks after use, which can cause particular problems for students.
However, a large study in New Zealand followed up 1265 children for 25 years. It found that cannabis use in adolescence was linked to poor school performance, but that there was no direct connection between the two. It looked as though it was simply because cannabis use encouraged a way of life that didn't help with schoolwork.
Work
It seems to have a similar effect on people at work. There is no evidence that cannabis causes specific health hazards. But users are more likely to leave work without permission, spend work time on personal matters or simply daydream. Cannabis users themselves report that drug use has interfered with their work and social life.
Of course, some areas of work are more demanding than others. A review of the research on the effect of cannabis on pilots revealed that those who had used cannabis made far more mistakes, both major and minor, than when they had not smoked cannabis. As you can imagine, the pilots were tested in flight simulators, not actually flying... The worst effects were in the first four hours, although they persisted for at least 24 hours, even when the pilot had no sense at all of being 'high'. It concluded "Most of us, with this evidence, would not want to fly with a pilot who had smoked cannabis within the last day or so".
What about driving?
In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims. So - perhaps most of us would also not want to be driven by somebody who had smoked cannabis in the last day or so.
Mental health problems There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?
Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.
Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.
Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.
Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.
Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well.
Physical health problems The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that is is often smoked with.
Is there such a thing as ‘cannabis psychosis’? Recent research in Denmark suggests that yes, there is. It is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year.
However, they also found that:
Three quarters had a different psychotic disorder diagnosed within the next year. Nearly half still had a psychotic disorder 3 years later.
So, it also seems probable that nearly half of those diagnosed as having cannabis psychosis are actually showing the first signs of a more long-lasting psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia. It may be this group of people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis, and so should probably avoid it in the future.
Is cannabis addictive? It has some of the features of addictive drugs such as:
tolerance – having to take more and more to get the same effect withdrawal symptoms. These have been shown in heavy users and include: - craving
- decreased appetite
- sleep difficulty
- weight loss
- aggression and/or anger
- irritability
- restlessness
- strange dreams.
These symptoms of withdrawal produce about the same amount of discomfort as withdrawing from tobacco.
For regular, long-term users:
3 out of 4 experience cravings; half become irritable; 7 out of 10 switch to tobacco in an attempt to stay off cannabis.
The irritability, anxiety and problems with sleeping usually appear 10 hours after the last joint, and peak at around one week after the last use of the drug.
Compulsive use
The user feels they have to have it and spends much of their life seeking, buying and using it. They cannot stop even when other important parts of their life (family, school, work) suffer.
You are most likely to become dependent on cannabis if you use it every day.
What about skunk and other stronger varieties? The amount of the main psycho-active ingredient, THC, that you get in herbal cannabis varies hugely from as low as 1% up to 15%. The newer strains, including skunk, can have up to 20%. The newer varieties are, on the whole, two or three times stronger than those that were available 30 years ago. It works more quickly, and can produce hallucinations with profound relaxation and elation – along with nervousness, anxiety attacks, projectile vomiting and a strong desire to eat. They may be used by some as a substitute for Ecstasy or LSD.
Legally, these strains remain classified Class B drugs. While there is little research so far, it is likely that these stronger strains carry a higher risk of causing mental illness. A major study currently underway, has already reported problems with concentration and short-term memory in users of stronger types of cannabis.
I will give you the cardiac information shortly. | |
|
| Should Pot be legal? Posted: 7/3/2009 5:22:26 PM | The following is an excerpt fromhttp://www.idmu.co.uk/canncardio.htm
<div class="quote">Cardiovascular Effects of Cannabis One of the most consistent effects of cannabis intoxication is an increased heart rate. For this reason alone it would not be normally recommended for patients with cardiovascular problems. However, THC also acts as a smooth-muscle relaxant, relaxing the walls of the arteries, which can result in lower blood pressure and increased blood flow to the tissues[ii][iii]. The effect taken together is analogous to a car changing down a gear.
Cannabis intoxication has been found to reduce the level of exercise which can be tolerated before the onset of angina[iv].to a greater extent than a high-nicotine tobacco cigarette[v]. Cardiovascular symptoms have been attributed to cannabis use, either alone (stroke)[vi], or in combination with alcohol and cocaine[vii].
The presence and action of CB1 cannabinoid receptors in arterial tissue was described by Bilginger et al[viii], who reported: "the data demonstrate that cannabinoid signalling is involved with the regulation of the microvascular environment" Cannabinoids such as CBD and the synthetic HU-211[ix] have been shown to reduce ischaemic cell damage following cardiac arrest or stroke. CBD also counteracts the increase in heart-rate associated with THC[x] - THC and CBN both appear to increase heart rate, while CBD tends to decrease heart rate. There is conflicting evidence as to whether changes in cardiovascular function are related to myocardial contractility[xi][xii]. Animal studies are conflicting, the effect in dogs appears opposite to that in humans[xiii][xiv]. Part of the increase in heart rate can be counteracted by use of beta-blocker drugs[xv], but not by opiate antagonists such as Naloxone[xvi]. From a clinical study of long-term marijuana smokers, Tashkin et al[xvii] concluded "in long-term heavy users of cannabis, marihuana has no significant effect on myocardial contractility independent of its effect on heart rate." .....
Summary - Cardiovascular effects of Cannabis: Cannabis increases heart rate in na•ve users although tolerance develops to this effect.
Cannabinoids can also reduce blood pressure via arteriollar dilatation in a variety of tissues, although the effect on blood flow varies at a local level, with some organs or brain regions experiencing vasoconstriction, others vasodilation.
In the withdrawal phase following cessation of chronic use, cerebral blood flow may be significantly reduced.
Cannabis use has been implicated as a causative factor in a small number of patients suffering strokes or transient ischaemic attacks, and may represent a risk factor to susceptible individuals.
However cannabinoids, in particular CB1-receptor agonists, have been shown to protect against nerve cell death following stroke, and dexanabinol at an advanced stage of the licensing process as a drug to be administered to victims of stroke or closed-head injuries to minimise the long-term brain damage caused by such events, and to improve survival and recovery prospects.
Sorry but because of where Cannibas is on the DEA schedule US research sources are almost non-existent. Is this proof enough or shall I find more source material? | |
|
|
|