Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

I’m 36, I dabbled a bit with dope as a kid but decided it wasn’t really my thing. If my kids ask me about it I’ll give them the benefit of my limited experience as well as point to examples I have of people who it may have negatively affected. If they want I can do the same with booze although with a lot more conviction. I will attempt to make the case for moderation. Ultimately they’ll have to make their own choices for themselves.

I was a bit of a drama merchant in my youth on the booze* and it just seems strange that whilst that is all fine and legal when I was 15 and smoking a joint down by the railway tracks (probably more dangerous than anything else I’ve done in my life) this was something that society was not okay about. It just seems bizarre.

Just an FYI I didn’t really get to this position on legalisation until I was in my late 20’s and the documentary I mentioned earlier played a big part in changing my opinion.

*when I first saw this thread I did wonder what the figures would look like if we took an arrse straw pole of all the fights people had ever been involved in and determined what % of these would have involved drink. And yet we’re worried about the affects marijuana might have on people.
If you travel to Singapore or Jakarta (and there are probably many other far Eastern countries with similar penalties but those are 2 I've personally seen them) you will see notices displayed everywhere in immigration telling you that drugs are not allowed and if you are caught with them the punishment is death. Middle East countries are not very happy with druggies either but the punishments are not displayed so ostentatiously. It could well be argued that the punishments in the UK are very soft in comparison.
 
If you travel to Singapore or Jakarta (and there are probably many other far Eastern countries with similar penalties but those are 2 I've personally seen them) you will see notices displayed everywhere in immigration telling you that drugs are not allowed and if you are caught with them the punishment is death. Middle East countries are not very happy with druggies either but the punishments are not displayed so ostentatiously. It could well be argued that the punishments in the UK are very soft in comparison.
Bloody hell mate. I know you shouldn’t muck about on railways but 15 year old me really didn’t deserve to be put to death ;-)
 

Serpico

Old-Salt
I would prefer that we treat it as a health issue. Dealt with by specialist Doctors who can prescribe. Prohibition has failed so we need to try something else.
If the young can see it as a health issue "for sick people" and therefore "not cool" we might get somewhere. Alchohol use is falling among the young as is tobacco use. Maybe we can get a reduction in drug use as well although I accept that some of the reduction is down to moving from one high to another.

As to the wife fully recovered thanks. She is her normal cantankerous self.
Came in last night having reversed her car into my parked car,clearly very upset but blaming me for parking in "her spot".
I expected broken tail lights dents e.t.c. when I went out to see this morning.
My car undamaged she hit the hook, her car small split in bumper, which I pushed out. A little bit of black sealer and you won't see it.

She really needs to chill out man, anybody got a bit of hash going spare?
Hahaha, very good sir, if possible I would have given you a like, a funny and an informative for that post. Glad to hear your wife is doing well and keeping you on your toes!

Aye, that's kind of what I meant by a social approach, instead of sending folk to the courts, send them to the NHS, try and fix the root problem. Regarding your comment about how the young see things, apparently in Holland the young mostly see weed smoking as a bit pathetic - they are of course wrong, but it's great to see another social positive from legalisation.
 
[QUOTE="exbluejob, post: 9445193, member: It could well be argued that the punishments in the UK are very soft in comparison.
[/QUOTE]

The same way DUIs are a lot more lenient in the U.S. compared to the UK
 
If he was a professional then he would know better than to make such claims. I have been calling him out on this sort of crap.
As it is I think he's just a dealer hoping to peddle his shit on here by saying how marvellous his variation of snake oil is by falsely raising people's hopes so they willing to pay, big style.
I’m not a dealer and I’m not peddling shit. I’m the co-founder of a company licenced in Australia to produce small batch medicinal grade cannabis products for clinical trials. Our products are made in a research pharmaceutical laboratory at a top Australian university.

I’m also involved with a grey economy manufacturer who produces cannabis products in the same laboratory and to the same GMP. I don’t sell his products; I’m working with him to build a business that is poised to exploit the opportunity as soon as deregulation happens. Far from selling snake oil, our aim is to be able to make affordable cannabis products.

The comments I made about results were of course anecdotal. Some of them are being grouped into pre-trial studies to support funding bids for research. Some could well be unrelated. But I’ve seen enough to be convinced.

My own view is that the medical, pharmaceutical and regulatory bodies are largely looking at this from the wrong angle. Cannabis medicines were once regulated as what would now be called complimentary medicines. They were banned and thus not researched for decades because of their connection with pot. I can see no logical reason why medical cannabis needs to be a regulated as a prescription medicine. Just let people who want it buy it.

If I’m wrong, why do we allow CBD? It’s a cannabis extract.
 
I've got incurable, remitting/relapsing cancer.

At present I'm not researching or seeking cannabis medicines. My understanding is that, at this moment in time, there is no proof that cannabis is a cure or even a treatment for any cancer.

Your tumour story is anecdotal and as told, piss-poor evidence. Even if true, and tumour shrinkage entirely down to cannabis, this doesn't mean that cannabis would work in any other situation.

I take up to 30 pills a day. Chemo for me, is working, so far. Adding any other drug to my regimen is not a thing I intend to try until it's been thoroughly researched, tested and prescribed by my specialists.

I'm not sure but I think your claims might be illegal, if made i the UK. They might be so anywhere.
I haven’t made any claims. I’ve related anecdotal evidence, evidence that should be being collated into research proposals. But it mostly isn’t because the laws governing medicinal marijuana are so restrictive that they make research nearly impossible.

There are numerous research projects in universities and institutes that are stalled because the researchers can’t access the cannabis products that they need. Why? Because regulators want to licence and inspect every stage of the process from farm to trial in a way that they don’t do for any other clinical trials.

We can’t access anywhere near enough legal cannabis to meet research demand because it can’t be grown without a licenced research program to supply. So it’s chicken and egg; no cannabis, no research and no research no cannabis. The majority of research that is being done is by big businesses who have attracted a lot of investment. This completely stifles innovation.

I’m well aware of the laws relating to making therapeutic claims in Australia and the UK; they’re near enough the same since both Australia and the EU are partners in a mutual recognition agreement. I’m also well aware of how the Office of Drug Control works; their interest is to prevent cannabis from entering the recreational market, which is entirely at odds with the needs of the research community
 
I haven’t made any claims. I’ve related anecdotal evidence, evidence that should be being collated into research proposals. But it mostly isn’t because the laws governing medicinal marijuana are so restrictive that they make research nearly impossible.

There are numerous research projects in universities and institutes that are stalled because the researchers can’t access the cannabis products that they need. Why? Because regulators want to licence and inspect every stage of the process from farm to trial in a way that they don’t do for any other clinical trials.

We can’t access anywhere near enough legal cannabis to meet research demand because it can’t be grown without a licenced research program to supply. So it’s chicken and egg; no cannabis, no research and no research no cannabis. The majority of research that is being done is by big businesses who have attracted a lot of investment. This completely stifles innovation.

I’m well aware of the laws relating to making therapeutic claims in Australia and the UK; they’re near enough the same since both Australia and the EU are partners in a mutual recognition agreement. I’m also well aware of how the Office of Drug Control works; their interest is to prevent cannabis from entering the recreational market, which is entirely at odds with the needs of the research community
You claimed you witnessed shrinkage of a tumour that was due to high strength cannabis oil.
 
The comments I made about results were of course anecdotal. Some of them are being grouped into pre-trial studies to support funding bids for research. Some could well be unrelated.
Yes of course they were anecdotal:
We have approaching 5000 customers. We’ve got doctors and consultants who recommend our products but can’t prescribe them. We’ve seen people defeat cancer, people off opiates, we’ve got veterans with PTSD who have beaten it, we’ve got people with MS walking again. Cannabis as a medicine is unbelievable....
Low strength cannabis oils can be massively beneficial in managing the anxiety. I know of many young people who were in desperate straits from smoking door in their youth. Their lives have been changed by cannabis oils. I’ve seen them go from being paranoid shells to being functional adults.
Away from clinical trial, I have witnessed high strength oils shrink a tumour. A close family member with Stage 4 prostate cancer. In no way would I claim it has cured him, but the tumour is no longer pressing on the nerve that controls his bowels. He’s also in a lot less pain and far more lucid without the opiates.
I know of hundreds of people whose last days have been made more comfortable and more lucid thanks to cannabis oils.
I talk to people every day who are desperate to access medicinal cannabis products because they have health issues that massively impact their lives for whom conventional medicine isn’t working. The vast majority find properly made cannabis makes a big difference to their lives.
But I’ve seen enough to be convinced.
You don't think that might be because you've got a stake in it?
I’m the co-founder of a company licenced in Australia to produce small batch medicinal grade cannabis products for clinical trials. Our products are made in a research pharmaceutical laboratory at a top Australian university.
I’m also involved with a grey economy manufacturer who produces cannabis products in the same laboratory and to the same GMP.
My own view is that the medical, pharmaceutical and regulatory bodies are largely looking at this from the wrong angle. Cannabis medicines were once regulated as what would now be called complimentary medicines. They were banned and thus not researched for decades because of their connection with pot. I can see no logical reason why medical cannabis needs to be a regulated as a prescription medicine. Just let people who want it buy it.
Because NICE and the Ozzie equivalent say that there is insufficient evidence that it actually does what people think it does (because of all the hype). People would be ripped off and their hopes destroyed because of hype like this
We’ve seen people defeat cancer, people off opiates, we’ve got veterans with PTSD who have beaten it, we’ve got people with MS walking again. Cannabis as a medicine is unbelievable....
 
Continuing Bobs screeching halt and engaging reverse gear:

I haven’t made any claims. I’ve related anecdotal evidence, evidence that should be being collated into research proposals. But it mostly isn’t because the laws governing medicinal marijuana are so restrictive that they make research nearly impossible.
Like almost all new drugs then.

There are numerous research projects in universities and institutes that are stalled because the researchers can’t access the cannabis products that they need. Why? Because regulators want to licence and inspect every stage of the process from farm to trial in a way that they don’t do for any other clinical trials.
I would suggest that it would be very normal in drug development to be very transparent on the evidence trail of how it was produced/cultured/processed etc. Most drugs are 'grown' in labs, not on a farm so you would expect something different.

We can’t access anywhere near enough legal cannabis to meet research demand because it can’t be grown without a licenced research program to supply. So it’s chicken and egg; no cannabis, no research and no research no cannabis.
You have a very strange idea on that. First you set up your case for research, then obtain funding, then get government approval and finally obtain the necessary raw materials. You talk as if cannabis plants take a 100 years to produce a crop.

The majority of research that is being done is by big businesses who have attracted a lot of investment..
That's at odds with what you said before, about the lack of cannabis being the blocker.

I’m well aware of the laws relating to making therapeutic claims in Australia and the UK; they’re near enough the same since both Australia and the EU are partners in a mutual recognition agreement.
Then enough with the snake oil talk about how amazingly fantastic at curing everything cannabis is.

I’m also well aware of how the Office of Drug Control works; their interest is to prevent cannabis from entering the recreational market, which is entirely at odds with the needs of the research community
Why are the two at odds? The research community needs it to do licensed research under controlled conditions. The only way it could get into recreational market is if the research institute does not have sufficiently robust procedures and mechanisms in order to prevent that. That's what the ODGs job is.
 

Nick Dipples

War Hero
I’m not a dealer and I’m not peddling shit. I’m the co-founder of a company licenced in Australia to produce small batch medicinal grade cannabis products for clinical trials. Our products are made in a research pharmaceutical laboratory at a top Australian university.

I’m also involved with a grey economy manufacturer who produces cannabis products in the same laboratory and to the same GMP. I don’t sell his products; I’m working with him to build a business that is poised to exploit the opportunity as soon as deregulation happens. Far from selling snake oil, our aim is to be able to make affordable cannabis products.

The comments I made about results were of course anecdotal. Some of them are being grouped into pre-trial studies to support funding bids for research. Some could well be unrelated. But I’ve seen enough to be convinced.

My own view is that the medical, pharmaceutical and regulatory bodies are largely looking at this from the wrong angle. Cannabis medicines were once regulated as what would now be called complimentary medicines. They were banned and thus not researched for decades because of their connection with pot. I can see no logical reason why medical cannabis needs to be a regulated as a prescription medicine. Just let people who want it buy it.

If I’m wrong, why do we allow CBD? It’s a cannabis extract.
I'm going to start off with a "LOL" at your "small-batch" description as if it's whisky or something. And then another one at your "grey economy" buddies. And then several more at your repeated use of GMP as if it isn't just how medicines are made, and at your use of clinical trials to claim legitimacy, as if countless pointless studies aren't conducted all the time.

If you're making medical claims then you can expect to be regulated by the health authorities, it may be inconvenient for your sales but surely hardly a surprise.

Are your studies on ANZCTR? What are they looking at? If you're feeling confident then share the protocols, I'd be happy to have a look.
 
Continuing Bobs screeching halt and engaging reverse gear:

Like almost all new drugs then.

I would suggest that it would be very normal in drug development to be very transparent on the evidence trail of how it was produced/cultured/processed etc. Most drugs are 'grown' in labs, not on a farm so you would expect something different.

You have a very strange idea on that. First you set up your case for research, then obtain funding, then get government approval and finally obtain the necessary raw materials. You talk as if cannabis plants take a 100 years to produce a crop.

That's at odds with what you said before, about the lack of cannabis being the blocker.

Then enough with the snake oil talk about how amazingly fantastic at curing everything cannabis is.

Why are the two at odds? The research community needs it to do licensed research under controlled conditions. The only way it could get into recreational market is if the research institute does not have sufficiently robust procedures and mechanisms in order to prevent that. That's what the ODGs job is.
You’re utterly misunderstanding my point.

To grow cannabis for research in Australia you need a licence. To get that licence, you need to prove that you have a licenced research project or pharmaceutical manufacturer to supply. You also have to jump through a whole heap of very expensive security and compliance regulations which have nothing to do with the research and everything to do with controlling recreational drugs. Whilst the authorities do **** all about controlling growing skunk.

To get a research licence, you have to have a licensed supplier. But there are none who can supply you abecause they don’t have a licence and can’t get one.

So the only people doing research into cannabis in Australia are those with big money to vertically integrate. Except we’ve broken the mould We are the first licensed supplier of cannabis to small research projects in Australia which we funded through the proceeds of “illegal” selling cannabis oils. Illegal in “” because a judge has ruled that “illegal” suppliers of cannabis oil are doing good that far outweighs the criminal intent (read the Ubuntu ruling; our lawyers have).

It’s a weed. It grew widely in Australia until eradication in the 1950s. Until then, it was widely used in what would now be called complimentary medicines. We allow people to make therapeutic claims about turmeric, paw paw, cows milk, magnesium salts and any number of other stuff on the back of historic evidence or small sample clinical trials. The only reason we don’t do so for cannabis is because when you burn it you get high.

Fortunately there are people out there who aren’t doctrinaire ******* and who are prepared to innovate and, if necessary, challenge authority. I’m seriously proud of the people I work with and to be one of them.

I’m doubt I’ll engage with you any more. I’ve had several conversations today with people whose quality of life has been massively improved by using cannabis oils and / or topical creams.

I’ve not tried to sell anything on here and never would. I’ve simply described my experiences and shared my knowledge. You’ve accused me of trying to sell snake oil on here. I haven’t.

I hope you never suffer from a condition that would benefit from cannabis oil. But if you do, please don’t PM me. The answer will be the same as I gave to an Australian senator who wanted it for his wife who has cancer but who sits in the anti lobby. **** off.
 
I hope you never suffer from a condition that would benefit from cannabis oil. But if you do, please don’t PM me. The answer will be the same as I gave to an Australian senator who wanted it for his wife who has cancer but who sits in the anti lobby. **** off.
Suits me fine as the last thing I'd want is some untested drug, with potential unknown harmful side effects. I'd rather ask a witch doctor for some Ju Ju, it would be the equivalent.
 
I'm going to start off with a "LOL" at your "small-batch" description as if it's whisky or something. And then another one at your "grey economy" buddies. And then several more at your repeated use of GMP as if it isn't just how medicines are made, and at your use of clinical trials to claim legitimacy, as if countless pointless studies aren't conducted all the time.

If you're making medical claims then you can expect to be regulated by the health authorities, it may be inconvenient for your sales but surely hardly a surprise.

Are your studies on ANZCTR? What are they looking at? If you're feeling confident then share the protocols, I'd be happy to have a look.
Let start with how you extract cannabinoids to make a “medicine”. You start with a plant called hemp. Sure, it can be hybridised to make industrial hemp which contains near zero cannabinoids or it can be hybridised to skunk which has high THC levels. In between the bees do their thing and you get what was called hemp 50 years ago.

To extract cannabinoids there are three common solvents; alcohol, butane and carbon dioxide.

Alcohol extraction uses 85%+ alcohol as a solvent. It’s a simple process; chop up the plant and leave it under alcohol and off float the oil. In an ideal world, you’d just wash the buds, but, thanks to prohibition that isn’t viable. So the result is a bitter liquid that contains other plant extracts. Also, the requirement of very strong alcohol encourages unscrupulous providers to use isopropyl alcohols which have to be burned off. More of that later.

The second extraction method use butane. It’s a back street method that in know little about. Pharmaceutical grade butane is seriously hard to source and expensive.

The third method uses a super-critical carbon dioxide machine. Small ones thst produce lab sized batches run at £50k and need specialist operatives. Industrial scale machines are in the millions.

Back to tinctures. Go back 60 years and every chemist shop in the land made tinctures of hemp as it was then known. They weren’t prescription medicines; they were over the counter. I have the records for my grandfather’s chemist shop in Birmingham which legally made 2-3 litres a week. There are no records as to what it contained; that depended on the plant that went in.

CO2 extracts can be much more prescriptive. Put cannabis in one end and a paste comes out. That paste can be assayed to see exactly what it contains and then dissolved in a carrier. Usually pharmaceutical grade MCT oil. So few businesses can make CO2 extracts unless they are heavily invested and therefore compromised.

So now the issue. There are 131 different cannabinoids isolated in the plant. There has been significant research into three.

Next, THC, which is the psychoactive cannabinoid which causes a high is in its acid form in the plant.; THC-A or THC-COOH more fully. To become psychoactive it has to be decarboxylated by burning at 192C which is why chewing cannabis leaf doesn’t make you high but smoking it does.

But when you come back to it, cannabis extracts are just plant extracts. No different from any of the other “essential” oils that we allow.
 
Suits me fine as the last thing I'd want is some untested drug, with potential unknown harmful side effects. I'd rather ask a witch doctor for some Ju Ju, it would be the equivalent.
It’s not a drug. It’s a plant extract. You’re choice. Just don’t block other people. You’re on the wrong side of the argument, but then your avatar makes it clear that you identify by what you used to do rather than what your are building now.

If, like a locally well known Australian politician who has spoken against medicinal marijuana, you come to me and ask for products, the answer will be **** off.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents is that no two people are alike, I was a teenager in the '90's (fcuk I really feel old writing that!!) and pretty much everyone I grew up with in my age group were smoking pot, in those days it was mainly resin.

Only one of those has committed suicide and another moved on to Heroin and overdosed. A few got into barbiturates and became zombies, two had psychotic episodes and I have no idea if they are dead or alive. The rest...well read on.

In my opinion, far too many of them turned out to be nothing in life, too stoned to study and then too stoned to keep a regular job, the very small minority of the people I knew back then actually have decent jobs. You may say any job is decent and I agree, I dont want to sound like a snob as any work needs people but a few top up their income growing and selling pot and I dont know many who are dole scum, I think all of them work.

But all of them had potential to be anything in life and in my opinion, it is no coincidence that pretty much all the pot smokers who became regular users barely make more than minimum wage in unskilled or lower skilled trades whilst those that didnt went on to get the management roles today.

I realized early that pot did not agree with me, I stopped smoking it after leaving school with f-all but mental illness, I made a decision one day to not be held back by my anxiety and depression, did pot cause it, did a bad acid, was it my dads untimely death and circumstances, havnt got a clue, but pot didnt help, I never touched acid again and I cannot do fcuk all about the other.

I look out for my mates and love every minute I spend with them, sure some are happy scraping by, having the 2 weeks in Torremolinos, bumming lifts because they cant afford a car and never passed their tests but I am not sorry when I say that I do not think marijuana is harmless.

One 'ex friend' kicked a blokes teeth into his lungs and the other killed a bloke he punched both fcuked on barbiturates, not marijuana fault, perhaps, but they started smoking pot, would they have been into barbs if they werent into pot, I dont know.

SO WHAT: TLDR

From my experience marijuana does cause a form of mental illness, perhaps it isnt yet diagnosed, but the Magic Roundabout Dylan, the stereotype stoned Jamaican and the majority of people I know smoke pot in amounts all seem a little bit 'slow'...no drive, not desire to do more than earn enough to live and get stoned, no desire to do anything.

I dont think its a coincidence, pot is not a good thing.
 
You claimed you witnessed shrinkage of a tumour that was due to high strength cannabis oil.
I’ve not made a therapeutic claim. I’ve simply related what I have been told. I’ve not witnessed anything beyond someone who reports that his tumour has shrunk and his pain has been significantly relieved since taking cannabis oils. Given that his doctors told him that wasn’t going to happen and are amazed that it has, I’d say it evidence to start research.

I’ve PMd you.
 

Nick Dipples

War Hero
But when you come back to it, cannabis extracts are just plant extracts. No different from any of the other “essential” oils that we allow.
I couldn't care less how you make your stuff. Essential oils aren't medicines! What's wrong with you.

This is an order of magnitude less complicated than the gene therapies I work on btw. You simply don't understand the development of medical treatments.
 
I’ve not made a therapeutic claim. I’ve simply related what I have been told.
Not quite what you said:
I have witnessed high strength oils shrink a tumour. A close family member with Stage 4 prostate cancer.
The very clear implication in all of your statements of similar ilk (like it cures PTSD, cancer, MS etc.) are that it is a cure. You'll need a second reverse gear the speed you're going backwards.

Oh you wrote that cannabis was sold over shop counters in the old country. So was Arsenic, Cyanide, Strychnine, Opium, Coca, Mescal, Morphine and Heroin. Surely they should all still be openly for sale as well?

N.B It doesn't matter who you rubbed shoulders with like a locally well known Australian politician or an Australian senator who wanted it for his wife who has cancer but who sits in the anti lobby. I would still rather be treated with Ju Ju by a medicine man, I'm not so galah as to take untested drugs.
 
Not quite what you said:
The very clear implication in all of your statements of similar ilk (like it cures PTSD, cancer, MS etc.) are that it is a cure. You'll need a second reverse gear the speed you're going backwards.

Oh you wrote that cannabis was sold over shop counters in the old country. So was Arsenic, Cyanide, Strychnine, Opium, Coca, Mescal, Morphine and Heroin. Surely they should all still be openly for sale as well?

N.B It doesn't matter who you rubbed shoulders with like a locally well known Australian politician or an Australian senator who wanted it for his wife who has cancer but who sits in the anti lobby. I would still rather be treated with Ju Ju by a medicine man, I'm not so galah as to take untested drugs.
No I did not say it is a cure. That’s your interpretation. I’ve seen enough to know that your reactionary view is plain wrong and to act. I don’t care whether it makes me money.

Feel free to come along to one of the PTSD groups we support and tell them that cannabis oils don’t help.

Or maybe talk to the Lymes sufferers who are being legally prescribed cannabis oils because the research has been done. Only they can’t get them in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and so have to pay $700 a month. For a supply that lasts two weeks. When the snake oil salesmen can provide the same for $120.

Basically **** off. Don’t impose your reactionary trust in authority on other people.
 
Last edited:

Top