Addiction to cannabis on the rise in the UK

THE OBSERVER , LONDON

Increasing numbers of people in the UK are becoming dependent on cannabis, The Observer has learnt.

UK Department of Health figures show that drug centers are reporting growing numbers coming to them with problems related to the drug. Nine percent of all those attending clinics cited cannabis as the main reason they were attending, rather than any of the other drugs they were using, twice as many as a decade ago.

With a separate study by the World Health Organization showing that one in five 15-year-olds in the UK smokes cannabis -- more than twice the world average -- there is concern that many are becoming addicted to the drug earlier in life.

Although government experts insist cannabis is non-addictive, there is growing evidence suggesting that regular users of high-strength varieties may develop a chronic dependence.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/06/14/2003175031

It's amazing humans survived for 200,000 years!

I wonder: how good is the sativa in the UK ? ... who grows it ? ...

I was 'reared' on 'Lumbo', Thai stick, Sensimella, Kona gold, Maui Wowie, and Humboldt ...

In CA: even the homegrown was extremely potent ...

I miss it sometimes ....

*sigh* .....

I live in Humboldt! YAY. It was great! I miss smoking, but just decided it was time to quit. Piece of cake. Easy. No addiction whatsoever. And that's after 30 years of smoking. And by the way, at 48, and while still smoking, I came in 3rd place in a bike race. So, it appears that pot isn't a problem.

Now tobacco is highly addictive, and kills half a million per year.

What this nonsense is all about, is nothing more than the witch trials, or the massacre of native people, or any other mean and hypocritical thing that the mean people tend to do. Like the casual impeachment of Clinton.

There. I'm done now. I can get back to my day.

Yay for Humboldt!

I'm an HSU graduate!

Best county EVER!

david

I live in Humboldt! YAY. It was great! I miss smoking, but just decided it was time to quit. Piece of cake. Easy. No addiction whatsoever. And that's after 30 years of smoking. And by the way, at 48, and while still smoking, I came in 3rd place in a bike race. So, it appears that pot isn't a problem.

Now tobacco is highly addictive, and kills half a million per year.

What this nonsense is all about, is nothing more than the witch trials, or the massacre of native people, or any other mean and hypocritical thing that the mean people tend to do. Like the casual impeachment of Clinton.

There. I'm done now. I can get back to my day.

Yay for Humboldt!

Marijuana addiction.

On a more serious note, what's with the claims that today's cannabis is an order of magnitude more potent than that available in the 60s? Any old-timers care to support/debunk?

Even if such a claim were true, all that would mean is that people would have to smoke less to get a decent high, thus making it cheaper to get stoned.

In essence, it can be seen as a pro-marijuana claim if taken seriously :)

but pot is about as addictive as coffee, regular Sunday worship, or shopping.

Example: I can smoke 1/4 in five days or so. I can do it repeatedly, week after week (and have done). I then can stop on a dime for weeks on end.

Wish it was that easy with cigarettes.

Though I will admit that the psychological urge to light up again after deciding to stop for a while is quite strong. However, that seems to subside in about a week and then it's no problem whatsoever.

Psychological addiction is always present - alcohol, drugs, past relationships, you name it.

With no physical addiction, dealing with the occasional urge becomes much more manageable. Unlike, as the previous poster said, cigarettes. Now, that's a real disaster.

That's why I'm always surprised/annoyed at claims that cannabis or other non-physically addictive drugs cause "addiction" - if you're not physically incapacitated after stopping, you're not addicted, you just miss the good times.

I've worked in addiction counseling off-and-on for the greater part of 15 years. I've known my share of "pot heads" who would wake up in the morning and take a hit from the bong before driving to their first college class of the day. You may ask - How can they do THAT? It's termed "state dependent learning." Yep, like many alcohol addicted folks can pull off ... well before their first DUI.

Yes, younger users and abusers of marijuana often get into trouble with the law, but are not by any far stretch of the imagination, physiologically addicted. The biggest fax paux the young folks who fall into the criminal justice system are the goofballs (Gore Jr?!?) driving 20mph in 40mph zones and/or driving in urban areas at night with one's headlights OFF.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want my daughter to smoke marijuana. However, despite it's increased potency, there is no valid scientific evidence of THC being physically addictive. And yes, I should know because my Masters is in the field of physiological psychology. <curtsy and blush>

People we like to term as "pot heads" who *must* smoke it every day, sometimes all day (Psychologically Addicted), at worst (which is BAD but not a detriment to society as a whole) they have NO motivation (Amotivational Syndrome). If using pot alters interferes with enjoying a productive life (daily use will do just that) then the Psychologically Addicted should seek counseling, IMO through a 12 step program.

No, intelligent and ambitious young Americans would be very unwise to use marijuana for recreational use. They don't call intoxication "stoned" for no reason, i.e., you sit around and don't accomplish one damn productive task save for trecking to the kitchen for some soda and munchies. However, if any close friend or immediate member of my family was suffering with chronic pain or enduring chemotherapy, I'd not hesitate to help them move to Canada where they can legally be prescribed Marijuana for medicinal purposes.

IMO *Northing's* (no legal medication) is better at staving-off nausea during Chemotherapy treatments than medicinal marijuana. It helps these patients keep their food down and maintain their weight. A Godsend and added benefit promoting treatment efficiency.

Nope, I'm no pothead. Type A folks like myself hate using pot. However, if I'm on my way "out of this life" IMO it's an insightful and pain minimizing way to fade out. :-)

On edit: A few typos ... corrected so you can read better. NO I'm not high! lol

I'm not so sure you're correct on that point; most of my best piano works were written while I was stoned out of my gourd. Not to mention my concert scores, like for band or choir.

If I compose whilst high on pot, I often find myself taking the music in creative directions I wouldn't have considered otherwise. Maybe it's just me.

I find coffee, DU and crossword puzzles more addictive.

But I agree it's more of the nature of being addicted to shopping or regular Sunday worship than a physical chemical addiction.

As for the article I think theres a question of 'chicken or egg' they are ignoring. Are pot smokers more likely to become psychotic? or are pre-psychotic people more likely to smoke pot?

As an "old-timer" (and only an occasional toker), I'd say that there's a lot of doped (something added) pot around, but that much of the pot is more potent. In the "old days" (mostly 70's) we'd do some hash for the better (more laid back) kick. I don't see/hear about hash these days.

Oh ... and I'd say that "addiction" to alcohol is at a far, far greater rate than "addiction" to pot.

There's some truly excellent stuff out there--worthy of a centerfold in High Times. There's always been big taste available--like what the Grateful Dead had with them when they came through Houston in the late '60's. (Owsley Stanley was their road manager on that trip, I seem to remember.)

But there's still lots of the same-old same-old. It's not true that standard Mexican pot is now "magnitudes" better than previously. It now costs $100 an oz rather than $5 but that's just inflation.

Or so I've heard.

I remember the weed in the early to mid-70s as generally being fairly mild, more of a sedative than anything. Even the so-called columbian of the time was just a stronger version of the same. A whole ounce sold for $10 and you smoked an entire joint.

The change really came maybe 1975-1980. First Thai stick, then other varieties. Price went way up, and joints were abandoned for bong hits. This was maybe a consequence of stricter law enforcement ("war against drugs"). It's less risky to grow and ship smaller quantities of more potent weed. Sort of like the way Prohibition pushed the US away from beer/wine towards more easily smuggled hard liquor.

So it may be true that today's weed is much stronger than it was in the '60s, but I'd contend the real change in potency came 25 years ago, making this old news.

As I haven't smoked since the mid 1980's, I can't comment on what is around today.

Pollan's thesis with regard to cannabis is that the WOD has had a major positive effect on cannibis breeding. I'd concur from my own experience. I remember $20 ounces of domestic product from way back in the day that were nowhere near the quality that began to appear during the 80's. In those days the best ganja was the breeding stock for many of today's best strains that grew in places like southeast Asia and the Middle East, especially the sativa strains.

So yes, I'd certainly say that today's tight, sticky buds are an order of magnitude better than what was generally available in this country 30-40 years ago.

It comes from one "study" the DEA did awhile ago. They tested some fresh bud against some hash that had been sitting around a police warehouse from the sixties. They then claimed that there's new "super" marijuana around making teenagers run over little girls on bicycles and minorities go crazy and rape the white women.

Actual legitimate scientific tests have shown the average amount of THC in marijuana has remained unchanged.

I have not heard of any solid clinical evidence that one can become addicted to cannabis in the same way that one can to nicotine or opium. However, I have known a few heavy users in my day. Whether they are addicted or not is probably a matter of terminology - they may be psychologically addicted, or they might just like it a lot. At any rate, the headline sounds quite alarmist.

This sounds like unattributed scare mongering, without much (or any) real evidence base. The sources are not given, nor is there any indication that they were peer reviewed. The only attribution is to another newspaper.

"Although government experts insist cannabis is non-addictive, there is growing evidence suggesting that regular users of high-strength varieties may develop a chronic dependence.

There is also increasing clinical evidence linking cannabis use to mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, psychosis, anxiety and depression. US research shows that 80 percent of new cases of psychosis in some hospitals have been triggered by cannabis use.

Someone who starts using cannabis aged 15 is at more than four times the risk of developing schizophrenia over the next 11 years than someone starting smoking the drug at 18. And 18-year-olds who have used cannabis at least 50 times have a seven-fold increased risk of developing psychosis in the next 15 years."

I think blame-laying on one thing or the other in such a complex system as the human body is pure conjecture. It all depends on one's perspective and therfore the claims made are meaningless.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

Hey from your local nerd: The term that's used to define the active ingredient in marijuana (THC) termed "Psychotics" does not imply imminent onset of say, <shriek!> *psychosis*. It merely translates that these substances *alter the perception reality.* You will note that reality slows to a snail's pace beyond the effects of alcohol (depressant) which counter to it's name stimulates the lower brain structure to cause a sense of euphoria.

Sure, if you dropped a whole lot of window-pane acid and sh-rooms (also termed Psychotics), you'd probably have a break with reality and see trails and objects moving about your room. HOWEVER, THC is a mild psychotic ... ya get "stoned" not fully "down the rabbit hole" or "trip out,: like those who "drop acid."

On edit: I disagree with the article on the cumulative effect of years of marijuana abuse *causing* chronic diseases marked by psychosis. Some people who are drawn to using maraijuana, are also more prone to use much stronger psychotics who have been validly linked to short to moderate length breaks with reality and hospitalization, i.e., acid, mushrooms, PCP etc. That means that other factors are in play (the other drugs used by the research sample, genetic predisposition) resulting in unreliable if not outrightly bogus findings. :P

The previous poster used "psychotic" to mean "someone suffering from psychosis", which fits with the dictionary definition. Are you sure you're not thinking of the word 'psychedelic'?

Geeze, you're right! Only had one cup of coffee and knew in the back of my mind I was missing some lesson at SDSU ... didn't feel fully comfortable.

But yes, this class of drugs (THC,PCP,ACID,Peyote,Mushrooms) are aptly termed "psychedelics." Thanks, although I'm a little embarrassed, it's best to pass along accurate infomation. Yep, next time I'll consult my old text <blush> and have a second cup of coffee before I post. Best wishes :-) EP

After replacing the words, I think you just said you agree with my comment exactly, which is that in complex systems like human beings, attributing cause to an effect, particularly in those diagnosed as "psychotic" is a crapshoot at best and more likely it's a propagandistic fabrication for political purposes.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

I'll tell you what contributes to mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, psychosis, anxiety and depression; fucking alcohol.

The article also states that US research shows that 80 percent of new cases of psychosis in some hospitals have been triggered by cannabis use. What the fuck does that mean?! Some hospitals. Which hospitals? How many?

fucking bullshit.

with their anti-pot rantings. Alcohol is killing and addicting more people every day but they find it perfectly acceptable. Pot on the other hand is used by liberals and blacks, all people they hate. There's no comparison as far as which is more harmful but this isn't about getting harmful drugs off the streets. It's about getting the people they hate.

its NOT addictive, and i speak from personal experience. anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.
its easier to give up weed than to give up addiction to internet pornography.
you can go months without the blessed herb, and then binge on it for a week or so.
as the saying goes- "god made weed, man made alcohol. who you gonna trust?"

:)

Bloody problem.
Just think of all the tax money lost from cigarettes and alcohol.
Horrifying.
Build more jails.

considering it isn;t addictive.

Perhaps the tobacco companies are givng dealers additives?

...cannibis isn't addictive.

Triana, IMO you've got that right! ... it's NOT *physically* addictive.

Unfortunately some people can get *psychologically* addicted to everything from Pop Tarts to Jelly Beans. The important question is, "Does this activity interfere with individual living a full and productive life?" However, most times marijuana's use has a far less impact on society as a whole. Much less than the devastating fall-out of alcohol abuse and alcoholism.

I know that the following is highly unproductive - bordering on a bad attitude. However, If BushCo scores another four years, I'm taking all my vacations in Canada with my Bob Dylan CDs. O Canada! <snicker>

Fine line, but it isn't the same thing. Most people I know who use pot in a way that might be described as an emotional dependence usually have a pscyh disorder. And alot of the time the pot works better than meds. We're going to have to move forward with medicinal marijuana studies to get into this so people can do what's best for them without feeling like they have an out-of-control addiction.

to get a TRUE picture of what this statistic means you would also havt to see the stats for court ordered drug treatment.

The UK has been softening its stance towards cannabis over recent years, so I would be highly surprised not to see a significant rise in the number of drug offenders ordered to undergo treatment rather than prison time for example.

So, just how much of this rise in the number of cannabis smokers seeking treatment is attibutable to the rise in court ordered treatment as opposed to incarceration?

Until you know THAT statistic, this one is meaningless.

...she says the effects of cannabis are generally positive for bi-polar (AKA manic depressive) people but for psychotic it isn't such a good idea.

A lot of times when she sees someone who is manic it is because they have quit smoking and aren't using their prescripts (because while they were smoking they didn't need them).

So in other words it is good for mood stabilization. So, it is her (and my) opinion that it should studied (and made legal) for that very purpose.

Cannabis is the premier drug of choice for inducing hunger or forgetfulness. In the case of people who are undergoing chemo, there is NOTHING better for stimulating appetite. For people who are in constant pain, there is NOTHING better to make you forget for a while you ARE in pain. They stretch out pain pills about 50%, in my observation. My closest friend has Bi-polar disease, and smoking pot helps moderate the mood swings, in my opinion.
Why does the human body have a cannabinoid receptor system if we're not meant to use the stuff?
How many people have ever died using it? I sure don't know of anyone, do you?
Why call it a drug if it doesn't kill?
Results are different if a person smokes it or eats it
Wrap your mind around THIS: Chocolate marijuana bon-bons. Mmmmmmmmm!
Why would we need the DEA if marijuana was legalized?
Why would we need WARS if marijuana was legalized?
Oh, yeah! I forgot(LOL) the 3rd major characteristic of marijuana usage: The tendency to say, "What if...?".
:hi:

Bruce

were you buy. Tobacco just by it's self is not as addictive as the stuff the manufactures sell you now. My ancestors tobacco did not contain additives found in todays that make it SOOO addictive.
I only worry that if you make cannabis legal, the tobacco companies will start adding things to it.
Why do I think big tobacco firms would get in the act, who better to exploit cannabis, they have all the machinery already, they're all tooled up.
Before you legalize it, make sure there are stead fast rules to how it is manufactured.
I also would like to see some long term health studies about the effects on lung tissue, ect..
No I do not smoke, I am very allergic but as long as you keep it out
my air space and don't let it interfere with my life, I don't care.

I mean seriously... It says so right here:

Although government experts insist cannabis is non-addictive

Not your father's marijuana -- More-potent pot might be pushing teens into treatment
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0406060520jun06,1,3540086.story?coll=chi-newslocalnearwest-hed

"The high-potency marijuana now widely available in cities and some small towns is causing an increasing number of teenagers--and some preteens--to land in drug treatment centers or emergency rooms, recent government statistics suggest."

Thanks for my laugh of the day.

But seriously folks, if you WERE addicted to cannibals, it wouldn't last long.

That is, maybe I'm getting my sense of humour back after the worst week in some time.

Drug addiction is overrated. Life is the big killer. Does anyone ever survive life, I ask you?

Gosh G, that's a grand point. My best guess is if the pot is of high quality, the young folk are more apt to get too stoned and come to the attention of the local sheriff's department. To me, that's the biggest risk - they can't handle it. Physically dependent? I no authority by a long shot, but also haven't found any scientific evidence. This article submits absolutely no references ... government scare tactics?

smoking pot could bring it out. So it is possible that many who had a psychotic break were sparked by marijauna. It is not at all clear that it works in reverse though, in other words, that smoking pot increases the risk. It may only trigger the latent potential.