Baxter Drug Hearing on July 10

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Esablade said:
Interesting research re: the famed 'refer madness' here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

It would appear to have little basis in fact according to this...
Click to expand...
The 'evidence' is mainly statistical and anecdotal and I have a theory, based on the experiences of three friends who have been sectioned.
Cannabis use itself is unlikely to cause what we now refer to as bi-polar. However, some people have a predetermined propensity to mental illness (in that it's often part of the family history). It tends to manifest itself in teenage years, which is usually when people start 'experimenting'.
It can possibly trigger it in those with a propensity for it. It certainly seems to make it worse. I also think that the type of abuse you hear about from the families of those who suffer, ie caning it from awaking to sleeping, is actually a symptom of the illness. It's an early sign.
I also think that in a lot of cases, the sufferers don't just smoke weed but have done other stuff but are less prepared to admit it to their parents/authority figures.
I also suspect that some parents find it easier to blame weed than consider other factors, such as their own parenting (one of the three people I know had been advised by psychiatrists that his illness may be partially down to his old man being a full weight).
As I say, just a theory.
 

Newbury Blade said:
Many, perhaps most, people (including politicians and tabloid journalists) break the law by taking illegal drugs but the politicians and journalists then create a climate of total hysteria around the subject. A proportionate response would be to take the lad to one side and tell him not to do it again. It's silly, but only because it's illegal, not because any actual harm is done to himself or anyone else. No ban, sacking etc is necessary.

My point about alcohol is that if he drank 10 pints of lager instead of one tablet no one would bat an eyelid so long as he doesn't do it every night, and yet it is potentially much more harmful to him and society. Look at the part alcohol played in the Ched case. Result: two (at least) ruined lives.

I like a drink and I enjoy the fact that at least two of our songs celebrate beer but you can't deny that alcohol causes great harm, and the only harm caused by drugs is because they are illegal and so can't be properly controlled, so of course millions goes to drug barons and more and more crime is generated because of people stealing to pay for drugs. It's complete madness.
Click to expand...

thing is though... he was done for it before was he not... so clearly the "slap on the wrist" has not worked

he will know that taking any drugs could cost him his job, he accepted that when he became a professional player.

you will also note that Alcohol was not the only thing present during the Ched case, as class A drugs were found in her system.

Also if he drank 10 pints I dare say he would be in breach of the clubs code of conduct too. and risk losing his job in that way
 
georgebernardshaw said:
Well that's two :confused:
Click to expand...

It's the 'Trickle down' effect in action.
Osborne gets Cameron's blowback, May gets Osborne's...Boris gets May's etc etc...by the time it reaches us all that's left is a load of hot air!
 
Guesty said:
I don't think many sponsors are going to be kicking up too much of a fuss if a player is found guilty of taking a recreational drug, to be honest.
Click to expand...

How bloody hypocritical of them !!

Selective moral code is a marvellous thing eh ?? :rolleyes:
UTB & FTP
 
Newbury Blade said:
Because the drug laws are stupid, irrational and hypocritical, and if he had gone out binge drinking and got pissed on booze, which is far more damaging to the country and to individuals than drugs, everyone would have said what a top bloke and had a good laugh about it. It would be different maybe if what he did was meant to be performance enhancing, but far from it.
Click to expand...

A substantial percentage of all crime is drugs related ...... I think that makes it a serious issue !!

Plus the fact, as pointed out in the CE affair, he is a role model .....

UTB & FTP
 
Esablade said:
Interesting research re: the famed 'refer madness' here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

It would appear to have little basis in fact according to this...
Click to expand...

Outdated study, that shouldn't be used in the debate. Most within the drug field and mental health field accept the link between high potency skunk et al and increased risk, prevalence of psychotic episodes. For almost all the time the study you quoted was looking at, so called 'herbal' cannabis was the norm, with THC levels of 2-4%, since the early 2000s skunk growing has pushed THC levels up year on year, with some currently available skunk measuring THC levels of 20-25%, almost all cannabis used in this country would be skunk. For more up-to-date research (which I was part of professionally ) have a look here.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/rec...ssociated-with-24-of-new-psychosis-cases.aspx

BushBlade said:
The 'evidence' is mainly statistical and anecdotal and I have a theory, based on the experiences of three friends who have been sectioned.
Cannabis use itself is unlikely to cause what we now refer to as bi-polar. However, some people have a predetermined propensity to mental illness (in that it's often part of the family history). It tends to manifest itself in teenage years, which is usually when people start 'experimenting'.
It can possibly trigger it in those with a propensity for it. It certainly seems to make it worse. I also think that the type of abuse you hear about from the families of those who suffer, ie caning it from awaking to sleeping, is actually a symptom of the illness. It's an early sign.
I also think that in a lot of cases, the sufferers don't just smoke weed but have done other stuff but are less prepared to admit it to their parents/authority figures.
I also suspect that some parents find it easier to blame weed than consider other factors, such as their own parenting (one of the three people I know had been advised by psychiatrists that his illness may be partially down to his old man being a full weight).
As I say, just a theory.
Click to expand...

There was a school of thought (mainly it has to be said promoted by the pro-cannabis campaign groups) that the drug actually helped with the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder. Most mental health professionals disagree on that and would suggest skunk and similar worsen symptoms. It's not unusual (in fact very common) for mental health patients to self-medicate using cannabis and they will swear it helps.

https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/marijuana-makes-it-worse-severe-mental-illnesses/

In my experience (quite substantial) confining this to teenage users is an outdated idea. Users go across all ages, with all usage patterns. Triggers for mental health can be many, varied and is generally an area of medicine we lack detailed knowledge in. Familial tendency do apply, as does nurture and early years trauma. However, the above report from King's highlights new psychosis linked directly to high use of high strength skunk and similar. I could go into great detail about the cannabinoids within the plant (THC is just one of 80 odd) and the effect, but suffice to say clearly, moderate to heavy use of high level THC cannabis dramatically increases the prospects of psychoses.
 
SouthEssexBlade said:
Outdated study, that shouldn't be used in the debate. Most within the drug field and mental health field accept the link between high potency skunk et al and increased risk, prevalence of psychotic episodes. For almost all the time the study you quoted was looking at, so called 'herbal' cannabis was the norm, with THC levels of 2-4%, since the early 2000s skunk growing has pushed THC levels up year on year, with some currently available skunk measuring THC levels of 20-25%, almost all cannabis used in this country would be skunk. For more up-to-date research (which I was part of professionally ) have a look here.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/rec...ssociated-with-24-of-new-psychosis-cases.aspx



There was a school of thought (mainly it has to be said promoted by the pro-cannabis campaign groups) that the drug actually helped with the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder. Most mental health professionals disagree on that and would suggest skunk and similar worsen symptoms. It's not unusual (in fact very common) for mental health patients to self-medicate using cannabis and they will swear it helps.

https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/marijuana-makes-it-worse-severe-mental-illnesses/

In my experience (quite substantial) confining this to teenage users is an outdated idea. Users go across all ages, with all usage patterns. Triggers for mental health can be many, varied and is generally an area of medicine we lack detailed knowledge in. Familial tendency do apply, as does nurture and early years trauma. However, the above report from King's highlights new psychosis linked directly to high use of high strength skunk and similar. I could go into great detail about the cannabinoids within the plant (THC is just one of 80 odd) and the effect, but suffice to say clearly, moderate to heavy use of high level THC cannabis dramatically increases the prospects of psychoses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that SEB. Whether it's been because of cowardice or not feeling the need to partake, I've avoided so-called illegal drugs (at least as long as I can recall). What I have witnessed is the commonality that connects those who use supposed 'soft' drugs. There are several questions that surround these products and the positives or negatives that can be attributed to the efficacy of these drugs. My experience through working with musicians is that drug taking on a regular basis can have more negatives attached to it than positives. Of course there are always examples of individuals coping in differing ways, sometimes with a responsible attitude towards themselves as well as others, then there are those who sometimes embrace a declining approach to the needs of others, where their needs adopt a singular importance that can exclude the world at large, and generally speaking this has been my experience.

The myth that drugs can help creativity isn't something I recognise. Who's to say that the level of creativity wouldn't have been just as good, if not better, without drugs? But that's a circular approach/discussion that I'll never be party to. Good post anyway, and nothing at all to do with being conservative or politically correct.
 
SouthEssexBlade said:
Outdated study, that shouldn't be used in the debate.
Click to expand...

It seems a lot more comprehensive than the Kings College one?

I'd suggest living in South London/outside factors were a more likely risk of psychosis than skunk...the figure also assumes that skunk definitely directly causes psychosis which the study doesn't prove...
 
Esablade said:
It seems a lot more comprehensive than the Kings College one?

I'd suggest living in South London/outside factors were a more likely risk of psychosis than skunk...the figure also assumes that skunk definitely directly causes psychosis which the study doesn't prove...
Click to expand...

Are you for real? Living in South London increases the risk of psychosis?!

I think SouthEssexBlade 's point is more that THC levels in skunk cannabis exacerbate underlying issues rather than create those issues but I'm not sure you've picked up that subtlety.
 

There are some very tragic stories on the link to the social worker's site.
In my previous post I said I thought cannabis made people with bi-polar illnesses worse and, from my own observations, that includes hashish.

'Herbal' cannabis is weed. Since the eighties most weed has been sensimilla which is when you grow females only to prevent them being pollenated, which leads to bigger buds and a higher THC content. 'Herbal' cannabis has always had a higher THC to CBD and CBN compared to hash and skunk has been around since the early 90s.

And I wouldn't do any kind of mental health study on people south of the river, they're all a bit mental anyway ;-)
 
Esablade said:
It seems a lot more comprehensive than the Kings College one?

I'd suggest living in South London/outside factors were a more likely risk of psychosis than skunk...the figure also assumes that skunk definitely directly causes psychosis which the study doesn't prove...
Click to expand...

It's a study involving more people. However, it would involve those smoking the low level THC cannabis (the non-hybrid form) which has been shown to have almost no effect on the mental health of users and I would have disputed it's claims if it said smoking this increased psychosis. It was freely available in the 90s and before, indeed just about the only form of the drug around. Now it is difficult to get hold of, the market is saturated with the mass grown, hydroponic, lighting forced crops of skunk and other high THC versions. Indeed, the only place I've seen plenty of low level growing and available was in the Caribbean (grown by a Rastafarian friend for his own religious consumption).
 
Balham Blade said:
Are you for real? Living in South London increases the risk of psychosis?!

I think SouthEssexBlade 's point is more that THC levels in skunk cannabis exacerbate underlying issues rather than create those issues but I'm not sure you've picked up that subtlety.
Click to expand...

...humour bypass there then, I'd lay off the weed...the point about the 'south London' comment is that the Kings college survey starts with the assumption that increased levels of THC exacerbate underlying issues without taking into account other external factors.

The previous study, which showed no or little increase was done with many people over a much longer period...of course Southessexblade will say we're now dealing with 'super skunk'...however other researches from Kings College seem to state levels found in police samples are the same as ten years ago...the amount of 'super skunk' in circulation may well be the same as ten or more years ago?


http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/archive/2007/sep/headlines_20070917.html
 
Esablade said:
...humour bypass there then, I'd lay off the weed...the point about the 'south London' comment is that the Kings college survey starts with the assumption that increased levels of THC exacerbate underlying issues without taking into account other external factors.

The previous study, which showed no or little increase was done with many people over a much longer period...of course Southessexblade will say we're now dealing with 'super skunk'...however other researches from Kings College seem to state levels found in police samples are the same as ten years ago...the amount of 'super skunk' in circulation may well be the same as ten or more years ago?


http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/archive/2007/sep/headlines_20070917.html
Click to expand...

No humour bypass, just calling you out on a twattish statement. If you think that was amusing you need to have a word with yourself.

That said, your views on this are about as well informed as your views on economics.
 
SU have to wait middle of next week for outcome.
 
Ecstasy should be a Class B (or even lower) drug. It isn't a drug that lends itself to regular abuse, if you try to take it regularly it simply ceases to work properly. It just doesn't belong alongside the likes of heroin and crack (in terms of addiction potential, physical or even social harm). The biggest problem with Ecstasy is that is illegal, and untested (in the UK), and often contains PMA (which is very fucking dangerous - and is what they test for in many countries, but this country is backwards and bans the testing of substances).

Considering you can still feel pretty shitty 3 or 4 days later I'd question his judgement in dropping one during the season (if he did*), but to be completely honest, if I found out a player had been taking it in his "own time" (i.e. the start of the off season) I wouldn't have an issue at all.

* - not sure about the "spiking" thing, it has a very potent odour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dkc
Flawed said:
Ecstasy should be a Class B (or even lower) drug. It isn't a drug that lends itself to regular abuse, if you try to take it regularly it simply ceases to work properly. It just doesn't belong alongside the likes of heroin and crack (in terms of addiction potential, physical or even social harm). The biggest problem with Ecstasy is that is illegal, and untested (in the UK), and often contains PMA (which is very fucking dangerous - and is what they test for in many countries, but this country is backwards and bans the testing of substances).

Considering you can still feel pretty shitty 3 or 4 days later I'd question his judgement in dropping one during the season (if he did*), but to be completely honest, if I found out a player had been taking it in his "own time" (i.e. the start of the off season) I wouldn't have an issue at all.

* - not sure about the "spiking" thing, it has a very potent odour.
Click to expand...

Bert would be quite happy for him to fill himself with drugs on a daily basis if he so desired, providing he was employed as far away from Bramall Lane as possible.
And anyone who supports the notion that it's OK for United players to take illegal drugs is a turd of the highest order.
 
Bert said:
And anyone who supports the notion that it's OK for United players to take illegal drugs is a turd of the highest order.
Click to expand...

*some* drugs (and I'm talking the difference between use and abuse - the two things are very different). You presumably think it is okay for football players to drink? If you look at it rationally and keep your preconceptions in check alcohol is just a drug (and on the scale of addiction and harm, by far one of the worst drugs).

Now, I take the point that legality is a major factor (and it is the main reason I don't take illegal drugs. I'm simply not willing to put my career on the line for the sake of a few hours), but lets be right on this one point; far more football careers have gone up on smoke (pun unintended) from (what would be considered to be acceptable in many circles) problem drinking than drug taking!
 

I wonder how many on here down playing the taking of ecstasy would feel if they found their son or daughter had taken it for a laugh on a night out. Slap on the wrist you naughty child? Footballers taking any illegal drug are automatically massive bell ends. The end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom