All posts by Richard

One lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel

140111-scapegoat

Consider this.

Rosenthal predicts: “A sizeable number of our young people will not mature as they should. Instead, we can look forward to a growing population of immature, under-qualified adults, many of whom will be unable to live without economic, social or clinical support.”

The inescapable fact is that marijuana will have drastic long-term effects on young users and, with pot-smoking reaching alarming proportions, on the future of society.

And now consider this.

“We are sitting on a timebomb with these,” said Leo Schep, of the National Poisons Centre.

“It’s not just the acute effects, it’s the long-term psychological effects.”

Even if the Government banned all legal highs tomorrow, users would have ongoing issues, he said.

“They are going to be a huge burden on the state, possibly for the rest of their lives.”

The first passage is from the January 1982 issue of the NZ Reader’s Digest.

The second passage is from Fairfax NZ News earlier this week.

Nearly a third of a century has elapsed. Yet the rhetoric and dire predictions of societal peril are virtually identical. The only apparent difference is the drug(s) in question. What do these similarities and difference signify?

1280px-William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat

Note that Rosenthal’s prediction has come to pass!

Today we do, indeed, have “a growing population of immature, under-qualified adults, many of whom [are] unable to live without economic, social or clinical support.” But it is surely wrong to blame the rise of the welfare state on the popularity of marijuana! After all, Stoners Are Well Educated and Make a Lot of Money.

No, marijuana was a scapegoat back in the day. A scapegoat for what? A scapegoat for all of society’s ills but especially for society’s drug problem(s), such as they are.

What’s really responsible for society’s so-called drug problem? The answer is simple. It’s a lack of self-responsibility and a lack of parental responsibility that is mainly responsible. But who’s to blame for that?!

Fast forward to today and we’re scapegoating synthetic cannabis instead.

1981864_469211073179087_295660260_n

One good thing about fake cannabis (“legal highs” or “legals”) … is that it’s taken the heat off real cannabis!

But there’s something we need to be clear about. Today’s propaganda campaign against synthetic cannabis is not simply a re-run of yesterday’s propaganda campaign against natural cannabis. The drugs are different in more than just name only.

The recently released Noller report finds that synthetic cannabis is significantly more harmful than natural cannabis. (For example, today’s synthetic stoners are broke and unemployed. They aren’t well educated and don’t make a lot of money like natural stoners do.) This unfortunate fact means that we can’t simply write off the current outcry against synthetic cannabis as simply MSM-driven sensationalism and mass hysteria.

Certainly, most of those who protested nationwide earlier this month, calling for a ban on synthetic cannabis, were ignorant peasants with lynch-mob mentalities. Speakers who addressed the witch burners at the Invercargill and Dunedin rallies and who happened to mention that legalising natural cannabis would help to solve the synthetic cannabis problem were met with boos, derision and pitchforks.

Most, but certainly not all. Many of the protesters are former synthacrack addicts themselves or parents of synthacrack addicts. I know some of these people. They’re well meaning and far from stupid. And they’re probably right that an outright ban on synthetic cannabis will fix our problems, at least in the short-term.

So, is a lack of self-responsibility and/or a lack of parental responsibility mainly responsible for the anti-synthetic brigade’s problems? Yes, I insist that it is. But there’s none so blind as many of my libertarian friends and fellow drug law reformers who will not see that government and opportunistic greed are also very much to blame. Because synthetic cannabis is far more dangerous than we were led to believe. The plain fact of the matter is that New Zealand society is not yet ready to accept untested, dangerous, legally available designer drugs. We need a transitional policy to get from where we are now to a safe society where all recreational drugs are legal and the Psychoactive Substances Act is not it, for a multiplicity of very good reasons.

Comparisons are odious. But the synthetic cannabinoid products now available in New Zealand are seemingly so bad that even former prohibitionists are now seeing sense in legalising the real deal. And that, at least, is a good outcome.

funny-lol-music-is-so-good-transdimensional-space-goat-humor-joke-meme-photo-picture

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&version=KJV

Welcome to Death

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell[a].

a. Matthew 10:28 Greek Gehenna

A couple of years ago, I posted a 13-part series wherein I gave you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds. And I posted an index to the instalments … elsewhere.

Everything you ever wanted to know about Hell (but were too afraid to ask)

I just discovered an awesome Christian death metal band called Antidemon with an awesome song about hell, so I figured now is as good a time as any to post the index … below.

Hell #1: Welcome to Hell
Hell #2: Hellish doctrines
Hell #3: The Immortality of the Soul (Part 1)
Hell #4: The Immortality of the Soul (Part 2)
Hell #5: Hell as Eternal Torment
Hell #6: Annihilation (Part 1)
Hell #7: Annihilation (Part 2)
Hell #8: Annihilation (Part 3)
Hell #9: Hell in the Teachings of Jesus (Part 1)
Hell #10: Hell in the Teachings of Jesus (Part 2)
Hell #11: Hell in the Teachings of Jesus (Part 3)
Hell #12: Hell in the Book of Revelation
Hell #13: Final Doom

Last call for synthacrack!

last_call_for_synthacrack

I sense an impending ban on the so-called “legal highs”. Get stockpiling, synthapeeps!
‘Cuz if you don’t stock up now, you’ll be kicking your wicked habits sooner rather than later!

The witch burning anti-synthetics brigade has gone into overdrive!
Someone pressed the moral panic button!

9911750

Seventeen-year-old Jesse Murray is the face of synthetic high addiction!
He’s an engaging, bright, polite young man, who is horribly addicted to synthetic cannabis!

82x2d

Legal high habit takes teen to rock bottom

Each morning, 17-year-old Jesse Murray wakes on his cardboard mattress in Christchurch’s hidden haunts and walks the streets, spitting into a white, bloodstained tissue before arriving at his destination.

His days are dictated by the opening and closing hours of the nearest legal high shop.

If he has the money, he will hand over anything between $25 and $80 a day – money he has begged for.

Despite it being illegal for him to purchase the drug because of his age, sometimes, out of sympathy, the storekeepers give it to him for free.

Watch this interview by Campbell Live reporter Jendy Harper and tell me that young Jesse Murray doesn’t have a great acting career ahead of him … if he can stay off the synthacrack!

But srsly. The unfortunate fact is that Jesse’s experience isn’t uncommon. (“Each time he tried to quit he began to vomit blood and convulse.”) Here’s a story left in the comments section on the 3 News website. It’s typical of many that I’ve read or heard.

Coming off synthetic cannabis is by far harder than coming off others drugs such as weed or P. Well in my experience any way. I had smoked weed for years. Done P too ! Quite often all together. Then once all that got to hard to find I started smoking synthetic. Worst mistake I every made. I got hooked fast. I was rolling joints to smoke at work. Walking down to Cosmic corner in my lunch break. I couldn’t stop. If I did I would get hot flushes, rage would fill me and I’d explode. One day I realised I couldn’t continue and locked myself in my bathroom for a week while coming off the stuff. It was literally the worst week of my life. I’ve never suffered such horrible symptoms before. I fear for those who still smoke the stuff.

This is a PR disaster for both the legal highs industry and those promoting the Psychoactive Substances Act as the pathway to sensible drug law reform. It was an error of judgement on the part of us drug law reformers not to speak out against the legal highs industry taking up the government’s offer to allow the ongoing sale of existing products for the duration of an extended interim period. We should have recognised that leaving 15 novel, untested synthetic cannabinoids on the market was an unacceptable risk.

The industry now looks to be shut down, if not by this government before the election, then by the next coalition government after the election. Winston Peters looks set to be “kingmaker” once again, and his NZ First Party has already jumped on the banwagon.

There is one remaining opportunity for the legal highs industry to reclaim the moral high ground and that opportunity is now. Voluntarily recall all your products! Before Peter Dunne cracks under the cognitive dissonance and bans all the substances.

7ulfy

Evidence for Evolutionism #2. The male libido.

don_brash_sex_machine

Don Brash is in the news again following today’s publication of his autobiography Incredible Luck. True to form, the NZ Herald focuses on the most salacious bits of the book.

In a warts-and-all chapter covering his personal life, Dr Brash tackles head-on his reputation for being a womaniser. But beyond arguing that men have an “extremely powerful biological urge to have sex”, he struggles to explain why he had extra-marital affairs which ultimately took a huge toll on his personal life and plunged him into a deep trough of depression.

Dr Brash writes that adultery was certainly not part of his Christian upbringing, but argues “that the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive”.

He realised, of course, that some men were gay. “I have never suspected, even for a single moment, that I might be gay.”

I take it as read(-blooded) that Brash is right. Men do, indeed, have an extremely powerful biological urge to have sex and the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive. The question is, what best explains this primal fact? Creationism or evolutionism?

Evolutionism is premised on survival and reproduction. More precisely, evolutionism is premised on survival to reproduce. The DNA of individual organisms that don’t reproduce doesn’t make it into the next or subsequent generations. It’s that simple. Virginity is both anomalous and an evolutionary death-knell. How many of your ancestors were virgins? I bet none.

What-Every-Man-Thinks-About-Apart-From-Sex

Evolutionism offers a compelling explanation of the male libido.

We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

So says Richard Dawkins in his classic The Selfish Gene. And the experience of being male surely bears out the claim. Over the years, my own libido has got me into heaps of trouble, including relationships with women. I even reproduced! But I survived. 🙂 (And I’m older and wiser now, of course.)

It’s not that there aren’t problems with the evolutionist account. Of course, there are, and there’s one big problem in particular, viz., the origin of sex itself. The first forms of life (according to the theory of evolution) were single-celled organisms or simple multi-celled organisms that reproduced by a process of asexual reproduction called budding. It’s a mystery when, why and how the first two such organisms got together and said, “Fuck budding, let’s be fuck buddies.” I expect my evolutionist readers will have some fanciful accounts to share in the comments section below.

So, what’s the best creationist explanation of the male libido? Well, one explanation springs immediately to mind. In Genesis 1, God created mankind in his own image

in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. … (NIV)

But, men being men … did God seriously expect that we were simply going to obey his command to “be fruitful and increase in number” without a great deal of whining and complaining and general disobedience? No! So he made sure that we’d be fruitful and increase in number by giving us sex drives—quite literally—on steroids!

(See also Evidence for Evolutionism #1. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.)

POLICY STATEMENT

LIB

The Libertarianz Party strives for a future New Zealand in which Nanny State no longer coddles and chastises us at every turn. We envision a New Zealand in which parents exercise authority over their children, and adults are free to do as they please, so long as they respect other people’s freedoms and take full responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. In such a libertarian utopia, there will simply be no need for legislation banning things which have a “moderate potential for harm”. Parents will see to it that their children stay out of harm’s way, adults will take responsibility for their own welfare, and the government will not waste your money on futile efforts to stem the tide of human nature. Ultimately, we would repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act. Meanwhile, the Libertarianz Party has a transitional drugs policy: to legalise all drugs safer than alcohol. This policy would result in the legalisation of a surprisingly large number of substances already scheduled in the Misuse of Drugs Act – and all of them safer to take on a night out than a few drinks.

– Dr. Richard Goode, Spokesman on Drugs for the Libertarianz Party, 2007

I’m now with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but still a libertarian. It is my personal view that we should legalise all drugs. Starting with cannabis. Let’s see how cannabis legalisation goes, and take it from there.

If it were up to me, I’d rank all drugs in order of safety, and legalise them in that order, over an extended period of time. That’s my policy. Obviously, most of the current crop of legal highs would be some way down the list.

By legalising drugs in order of safety over a period of time, we can monitor the effects of the policy, and call a halt at any time. If it turns out that we’ve take one step too far, we can always quit while we’re only one step behind.

Sounds like a plan?

logo_new

‘Tis an ill wind that blows no minds

winston_weathervane

As you do not know the path of the wind,
    or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
    the Maker of all things.

The Maker of all things? What about Winston Peters, the Kingmaker of the next New Zealand government, according to the latest One News-Colmar Brunton poll?!

And do we not know the path of the wind? Winston Peters knows the path of the political wind. He’s the ultimate weathervane politician! Where are the votes? Just look to see what the Winston First Party’s latest populist policy is!

So, what’s the mood of the public on the Psychoactive Substances Act? What’s the feeling out there in the heartland about “legal highs”? It’s very far from positive.

“We will ban Legal Highs,” NZ First

Legal highs are out of control and set to kill more New Zealanders unless stronger measures are taken say New Zealand First.

“New Zealanders are among the world’s biggest users of legal highs. This problem is really getting out of hand so we will certainly take action to fix it by banning the whole lot,” Le’aufaamulia Asenati Lole-Taylor, welfare and social policy spokesperson tells Pacific Guardians.

“Our caucus has decided that if New Zealanders vote us back to parliament, we will fight to have the bill repealed and ban all legal highs. And boost resources for the Police to carry out enforcements.”

She says the current law is not “working” and the situation made worse “because the Police minister keeps taking resources out of the Police so there is not enough funds or manpower to effectively respond to the epidemic of cases around the country.”

Is there really an epidemic of cases around the country, or is this just prohibitionist hype? I’d like to believe it’s the latter but, actually, there is an epidemic of serious adverse reactions to legal synthetic cannabinoids around the country. I recently Facebook friended an old acquaintance from Dunedin whom I hadn’t spoken to in 20 years. Here’s what he told me.

The legal highs are destroying so many people down here, I think it’s the best chance for [the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party].

The legal high people I know are too incapacitated to commit crime. Dunedin now has many beggars on the main street for the first time in my experience. They beg until they get their $20 & rush to the shop then home to slip into their comas/seizures.

Legal highs industry shills, a large sector of the drug law reform movement in this country, and even my own co-blogger (God bless him) are in serious denial about the extent of the problem caused by legalising these particular substances.

The situation we now face was, sadly, entirely predictable. Some more from NZ First’s indicates why …

But the government says banning the drugs is not as effective as its new approach which has led to fewer drugs, fewer retailers, and less harm to health.

In July last year New Zealand became the first country in the world to establish a regulated licensed market for new psychoactive drugs also known as legal highs. The government concluded that the “banning of all psychoactive products” model favoured by Australian governments, such as New South Wales, was not keeping pace with the emergence of new drugs.

Associate Minister of Health, Peter Dunne told ABC radio earlier this week “about 95 per cent of the products that were on the shelves prior to the legislation have been removed. We’ve gone from having over 4,000 unregulated retail outlets to now 156 retail outlets, and anecdotally, we’re getting reports from hospital emergency rooms and others about a decrease in the number of people presenting with significant issues.”

Consider this. Products which were allowed to stay on the shelves after the enactment of the Psychoactive Substances Act were restricted to products which had been on sale for three or more months prior to its enactment about which there had been no serious complaints. Only 5% of them (1 in 20) stayed. Well and good. But if the size of the consumer market for synthetic cannabinoid products remained roughly the same size after the passing of the PSA as it was before the passing of the PSA … then the number of people consuming those products allowed to stay on the shelves has increased by a factor of 20.

Please don’t get me wrong. Although I remain a die-hard libertarian, I’m actually in favour of the so-called regulatory model. That is, the regulatory model as applied to specific drugs, e.g., tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. I’m in favour of the regulatory model because, realistically, it’s the most libertarian legislative framework possible. Right now, the sale of alcohol in New Zealand is heavily regulated. But I can pop across the road to my local supermarket any time during regular shop hours and pick up a reasonably priced six-pack of beer or bottle of wine. I’m not hugely inconvenienced. I can live with advertising restrictions and point of sale limitations. (I haven’t even been asked for ID since I turned 40!)

What if I wanted the regulatory model to succeed? How would I implement the regulatory model if it were left up to me? What if I wanted to see a smooth transition from the prohibition model to the regulatory model, with a minimum of bleating from the sheeple? I would transition slowly, cautiously, one drug at a time. To begin with, I would regulate a single drug. A drug that has been the subject of thousands of scientific stuides and which we well know is very low-risk. And, moreover, is a drug that people actually want! Cannabis!

What I wouldn’t do is simultaneously approve fifteen different novel, untested synthetic cannabinoids, about which we know nothing, and which the vast majority of seasoned drug users rate as inferior to natural cannabis. What I wouldn’t do is rig the legislation’s interim implementation in such a way that use of these unknown research chemicals increases by a factor of 20 immediately after the legislation is passed. Unfortunately for the cause of drug law reform, this is what actually happened in New Zealand in July 2013.

2druy5z

The adverse reactions continue to be reported (and massively under-reported) to the National Poisons Centre. The government and the Ministry of Health don’t know what’s happening and they sure as fuck don’t know what they’re doing. The sad truth is that the propaganda being put out at an ever increasing rate by the hysterical prohibitionist mob is based on hard fact. It’s no wonder that there’s an ever-increasing flood of the proverbial in the MSM. To the industry shills and my misguided friends in the drug law reform movement who are trying to counter the ban brigade’s propaganda by shovelling it uphill, I say: good luck with that.

It’s getting worse, and it gets worse. There is real anger out there among the “lynch mob” recovering addicts and their “witch burning” mothers. Sadly, that anger is justified. Even more sadly, some of their understandable actions are not. A week ago, someone posted the following message on the page of a Facebook group dedicated to banning the synthetics, K2 and Other “LEGAL HIGHS” in New Zealand we all need to know the dangers.

i will burn down every sythetic legal high shop in invercargill for 2grand. message me if you are willing to hire me for this job . churr

Nek minnit, Molotov cocktail hits shop.

9905341

What if I wanted the regulatory model to fail? I’d enact the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and put the Ministry of Health in charge of its implementation. And, if I were the legal highs industry, I’d meekly follow Dunne’s advice, like a lamb to the slaughter, and reiterate it to the hapless end users: “If you must use drugs, use these ones.”

(Also, I’d probably stage a counter-protest at today’s nationwide protests, carrying a banner that treats the protesters as fools, or worse, and tells them what they already know: “Prohibition still doesn’t work”. The protesters are well aware, by now, that the problem with synthetic cannabis in this country is a direct result of cannabis prohibition. I’m heading off shortly to stage a co-protest at my local protest. My placard reads, simply: “Legalise Cannabis”.)

Organiser of today’s protest in Tokoroa, Julie King, says

Other countries are watching us. They’re seeing how it’s working in New Zealand. It’s not working.

I think Julie’s right. We’re not watching New Zealand lead the way to saner drug policy. We’re watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Latest gossip

clr_gossip

Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops. (ESV)

MARIJUANA and the devastation of personality

Eternal Vigilance has published two previous reports on marijuana. The first, in December 2013, described marijuana-caused impairment to the brain and the reproductive system. The second, in March 2014, emphasised the harm pot does to the lungs, the heart and the immune system. This third report examines the drug’s dramatically impairing effects on cells and how this can damage man’s most precious possessions: the mind, the personality, the spirit.

head_reefer

In 1978, Dr. Marietta Issidorides of Athens, Greece, one of Europe’s most respected biologists, conducted electron-microscope studies on the white blood cells of 40 long-term hashish smokers. “€˜We learnt,” she reported, €˜”that long-term use of cannabis (the plant from which marijuana and hashish come) deformed a significantly high proportion of the cells. Impaired white blood cells are unable to function properly and protect the individual from infections.”

Two years earlier, Dr. Akira Morishima of New York looked at the white blood cells of 25 apparently healthy young males who had smoked marijuana at least twice a week for four years. He found that one-third of their cells contained only 5 to 30 of the normal human complement of 46 chromosomes. These are the particles in every cell’s nucleus that pass on genetic instructions. “€˜In my twenty years of research on human cells,” he says, “€˜I have never found any drug that came close to the chromosome damage done by marijuana.”

A survey completed earlier this year showed a relationship between marijuana use and cancer. Dr. Josel Szepsenwol of the department of biological sciences at Florida International University injected 216 mice with very small amounts of THC or cannabinol (2 of the 61 cannabinoids, chemicals found only in the cannibis plant) dissolved in sesame-seed oil, once a week. Over 50 per cent developed cancer. Only 4 per cent of the control mice (injected with oil only) developed cancer, a normal percentage for this strain of mice.

These research findings are just a few examples of marijuana damage to basic life processes. Since 1975, some 300 studies of cannabis’s harmful effects on animal and human cells have appeared in scientific journals. These effects include: faulty division, slowed growth and abnormal-size nuclei in cells, disturbed production of protein, and also damage to sperm cells and ova, nerve and connective-tissue cells.

Pioneer marijuana researcher Dr. Gabriel Nahas sums up the central role of marijuana’s effects on human cells: “€˜The many findings of cell damage caused by cannabis explain all the other damaging effects of the drug—on the lungs, sex organs, brain, immune system. I call the cell damage done by regular pot smoking over the years a slow erosion of life.”

Psychological signs of pot impairment are often not slow to appear and, generally, the younger the user the more rapid the onset of damage.

Marijuana use is now so endemic in every stratum of American society that there is no longer such an identifiable entity as a pot-prone personality. Only one characteristic remains as a “prone” factor: youth. According to a recent U.S. survey, one out of six youngsters in the 12-to-17 age group was a current (within the past month) pot smoker. In the 18-to-25 age group, one out of three Americans was a current pot smoker.

In New Zealand, police and drug-clinic officials have found that marijuana use is widespread and increasing. Most New Zealand users are in the 17-25 age group and come from all walks of life.

The “pot personality.” After young people become heavy pot smokers, however, widely diverse users tend to gel into startling sameness, with a distinct pot-induced profile. “Not all kids have all the symptoms,” says Dr. Dean Parmelee, the director of adolescent in-patient services at Charles River Hospital in Massachusetts. “In fact, some bright youngsters with outgoing personalities seem to be able to maintain their school marks and activities a few years. But gradually all users – youngsters and adults – compromise their potential, their activities and their lifestyle. And heavy young users eventually develop most, or all, of the ‘pot personality’ symptoms.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Harold Voth has studied the psychopathology of marijuana in depth for the past eight years. He defines the pot personality: “The most obvious impairments caused by chronic marijuana use are in the area of Organic Brain Syndrome (OBS). These include impaired short-term memory, emotional flatness, and the amotivational – or dropout – syndrome. This can progress from dropping out of sports, to dropping out of school, to dropping out of the family.”

Denial. Voth lists other symptoms of pot-induced OBS: “€˜diminished willpower, concentration, attention span, ability to deal with abstract or complex problems, and tolerance for frustration; increased confusion in thinking, impaired judgement, hostility towards authority.”

“€˜Another pernicious symptom,” says Voth, €˜”is the element of denial – refusal to believe the hard medical evidence that marijuana is physically and psychologically harmful.” He also points out that it takes years of heavy drinking to reach the same point of psychological weakening that marijuana can induce in a matter of months, particular in the case of the very young user.

Unlike the heavy drinker who generally “€˜becomes himself again” when sober, the underlying personality structure of the chronic pot smoker seems to change. “€˜If someone smokes twice a week or more, sobering up – in any total sense – never occurs,” says psychiatrist John Meeks. “€˜Even when not ‘€˜high,’ he or she remains in a state of subacute intoxication – in most cases, without even recognising this ‘€˜holdover’ effect.”

While alcohol is water soluble and washes out of the body in a matter of hours, cannabinoids are fat soluble and accumulate in fatty sections of the cells and in fatty organs (the brain is one-third fat). Only very slowly do the cannabinoids seep back into the bloodstream so they can be metabolised and eliminated. Thus they act as time-release capsules, constantly emitting subtle intoxication.

Studies on Rhesus monkeys carried out by psychiatrist-neurologist Robert Heath give further insights into cellular causes of psychological symptoms. The monkeys were exposed to the smoke of two to three “€˜monkey-size” marijuana cigarettes (one-quarter the size of a human “€˜joint”) five days a week, for six months. In each monkey, several thousand brain cells from 42 different area of the brain were examined under the electron microscope. Though there were structural cell changes in all the brain sites, striking impairment was found in the sites specifically related to the typical pot symptoms of apathy and flatness. Dramatic cell impairment was also found in sites correlated with irritability and fear – prominent symptoms of pot-induced paranoia.

Senility. “€˜I don’t know of any other drug, including alcohol,” says Heath, “€˜that causes such a wide spectrum of brain changes as we saw in those cells. And today, tens of thousands of teenagers are inhaling proportionately far more pot smoke every day than we gave those monkeys.”

In July 1981, psychologist Stephen Williams found a number of “senility symptoms” in a study of 60 teenagers in a drug-treatment programme who were daily pot smokers but used no other drugs. At the beginning of the study, they were given a battery of psychological tests, which were then repeated after six pot-free weeks in the hospital.

Williams reported: “In many very elderly people, we see an unreasonable preoccupation with how one’s body feels, obsessive-compulsive tendencies and inflexibility. All these symptoms were strikingly evident in our study of teenage pot smokers, and decreased markedly once the drug was out of their systems.

“Depression,” says Williams, “is perhaps the most common psychological symptom among old people. It is usually associated with feelings of loss, such as loss of loved ones, of health, etc. The chief cause of depression among our teenage subjects was also loss: a tremendous loss of self-esteem. One good-looking, well-dressed 16-year-old put it this way: ‘I’m like an empty shell. There is nothing left that I like about myself. And pot did it.'”

Another finding is regressive immaturity. Says psychiatrist Mitchell Rosenthal, “Just when our youngsters need most to learn how to cope with the emotional storms and squalls of troubled teen years, they are instead copping out, blowing away their problems with pot.”

Rosenthal predicts: “A sizeable number of our young people will not mature as they should. Instead, we can look forward to a growing population of immature, under-qualified adults, many of whom will be unable to live without economic, social or clinical support.”

In August 1981, Dr. Mark Gould completed a study of 100 teenage and adult “marijuanaholics” – chronic users of pot, who are psychologically, physiologically and socially disabled. “Our study,” says Gold, “shows that in the case of youngsters who abstain completely for an average of six months, there is return of concentration, attention and memory to expected levels.

“This is not true for older marijuanaholics. In respect to short-term memory loss, in some cases, they do not appear to come back all the way. Furthermore, because older users are often long-term users, they have made subtle changes in their lives such as sliding into less-demanding jobs.”

Gold also found that, like alcoholics, marijuanaholics are always at high risk of relapse. “Even if off the drug for a year,” he says, “one or two joints can send them on a pot binge, and they relapse quickly into their former use patterns. And although it may have taken two years to reach their previously disabled state, it may take only two weeks of renewed pot smoking to revert to that same level.”

The inescapable fact is that marijuana will have drastic long-term effects on young users and, with pot-smoking reaching alarming proportions, on the future of society.