Julie, Brazier & Geli have all talked a lot of sense on this issue - i comend them.
Additional points about cannabis:
Rare vs Reapeted Consumers - because it resides in the fat cells, the detectable compounds are slow to build up as well as slow to leach. This means that a non-cannabis smoker (or very very rarely) who has smoked e.g. over a weekend before a random test, is extreemly unlikley to picked up.
Detectable traces occur through reapeated use eg a person who smokes 'some' cannabis on a weekly bassis. [ NB these traces are not active compounds - believeable experiements (what no refrence you scoundrel!) suggest that after 3/4 hours there is very little measurable physcological/physiological impact - and undetectable 24 hours after consumption (ie actual 'effects' not traces). ] -
Cannabis Long Term - very important for a serious consideration is getting past media and politically motivated partial information...however there is so much stuff out there that one must believe in what feels intuitively right AND is bourne out by informed experience.........IMO, cannabis can be considered on a par with alcohol, and, on balance, probaly presenting smaller and fewer risks (excepting cancers associated with ingestion via combustion and inhalation). There an be addiction and dependecey problems, some with severe socialy abnormal behavious - there are also degrees of nuerofunction alteration with very heavy, prolonged use ------ however this still remains on a par with alcohol and alcholosim, and again is arguabley overall less harmfull initself
> THC is not a particuarly toxic substance, whereas alcohol instigates major metabolic alteration and has a toxic effect (potentially) on every bodily organ.
Pyschological studies that have used population bassed studies, rather than target group case-studies, are quite clear in showing that
a) a very significant propration of the british population consumes cannabis occasionally or reguarlly with no significant consequences,
b)cannabis is no more causative of mental health problems than alcohol, when (subjectively) similar quanties are consumed by populations (also increases in numbers of cannabis consuming parts of populations is not directly associated with overall incedence of mental health problems in that population),
c)cannabis is far less addictive than alcohol, and even less when comapred with nicotine. The effects of dependencey/deprivation (physcological and metabolic) are generally far
less than with nicotine, and much less than the mental and bodily devastation that alcohol can cause.
The government was adivsied, bassed on these conclusions, to look again at downgradeing/decriminalising cannabis - several key government science advisors resigned last year over the fall out from this issue, precisely beacuse they felt that honest and objective facts had been willfully ignored, and respected colleagues treated awfully. That seems significant to me....
[It is also worth noting that the previous upgrading of cannabis from class C to B (again rejected at the time by science advisors) occurs around the same time as US style/imported drug tests become much more common in the british workplace (they have been common in some States for a long time) - as i understand it (and please correct me) the UK does not yet have specific policy and legislation on this issue, but has derived both the tests and the 'philosphey' from mega-industries bassed in the states....therfore cannabis can not be 'C class', since this does not mesh with the US approach....?]
It is not the only point i want to make, but TO PUT IT SIMPLY we need to ask:
-------- "are we happy to see skilled/trusted/safe colleages prevented from working, or even lossing thier jobs because they smoke cannabis in thier own time?" --------------------------------------
-- is that demonstrabley benificial?
- has that fullfilled an OHS objective?
- should we make special efforts to protect these colleagues?
- should we aspire to a system that is more cogniscant of 'real risk', rather than relying on current designations in the Misuse of Drugs Act, or attitudes imported from the US?
Julie is right to point out that some colleagues may be unjustifiabley (and badly) damaged by the current governments policy (or lack thereof), and by the testing mechanisms as currently stand.
Some may choose to see this disscusion as part of more nebulous (but potentialy real) liberty agendas - others may take this as part of (very) long running campaings to 'rehabilitate' cannbis in particular. And some may consider that, when honsetly aquainted with the available information, this is about the protection and welfare of colleagues who have consumed a very mild narcotic in thier personal/social lives, but otherwise have done nothing morally wrong and pose no risk...
Additional points about cannabis:
Rare vs Reapeted Consumers - because it resides in the fat cells, the detectable compounds are slow to build up as well as slow to leach. This means that a non-cannabis smoker (or very very rarely) who has smoked e.g. over a weekend before a random test, is extreemly unlikley to picked up.
Detectable traces occur through reapeated use eg a person who smokes 'some' cannabis on a weekly bassis. [ NB these traces are not active compounds - believeable experiements (what no refrence you scoundrel!) suggest that after 3/4 hours there is very little measurable physcological/physiological impact - and undetectable 24 hours after consumption (ie actual 'effects' not traces). ] -
Cannabis Long Term - very important for a serious consideration is getting past media and politically motivated partial information...however there is so much stuff out there that one must believe in what feels intuitively right AND is bourne out by informed experience.........IMO, cannabis can be considered on a par with alcohol, and, on balance, probaly presenting smaller and fewer risks (excepting cancers associated with ingestion via combustion and inhalation). There an be addiction and dependecey problems, some with severe socialy abnormal behavious - there are also degrees of nuerofunction alteration with very heavy, prolonged use ------ however this still remains on a par with alcohol and alcholosim, and again is arguabley overall less harmfull initself
> THC is not a particuarly toxic substance, whereas alcohol instigates major metabolic alteration and has a toxic effect (potentially) on every bodily organ.
Pyschological studies that have used population bassed studies, rather than target group case-studies, are quite clear in showing that
a) a very significant propration of the british population consumes cannabis occasionally or reguarlly with no significant consequences,
b)cannabis is no more causative of mental health problems than alcohol, when (subjectively) similar quanties are consumed by populations (also increases in numbers of cannabis consuming parts of populations is not directly associated with overall incedence of mental health problems in that population),
c)cannabis is far less addictive than alcohol, and even less when comapred with nicotine. The effects of dependencey/deprivation (physcological and metabolic) are generally far
less than with nicotine, and much less than the mental and bodily devastation that alcohol can cause.
The government was adivsied, bassed on these conclusions, to look again at downgradeing/decriminalising cannabis - several key government science advisors resigned last year over the fall out from this issue, precisely beacuse they felt that honest and objective facts had been willfully ignored, and respected colleagues treated awfully. That seems significant to me....
[It is also worth noting that the previous upgrading of cannabis from class C to B (again rejected at the time by science advisors) occurs around the same time as US style/imported drug tests become much more common in the british workplace (they have been common in some States for a long time) - as i understand it (and please correct me) the UK does not yet have specific policy and legislation on this issue, but has derived both the tests and the 'philosphey' from mega-industries bassed in the states....therfore cannabis can not be 'C class', since this does not mesh with the US approach....?]
It is not the only point i want to make, but TO PUT IT SIMPLY we need to ask:
-------- "are we happy to see skilled/trusted/safe colleages prevented from working, or even lossing thier jobs because they smoke cannabis in thier own time?" --------------------------------------
-- is that demonstrabley benificial?
- has that fullfilled an OHS objective?
- should we make special efforts to protect these colleagues?
- should we aspire to a system that is more cogniscant of 'real risk', rather than relying on current designations in the Misuse of Drugs Act, or attitudes imported from the US?
Julie is right to point out that some colleagues may be unjustifiabley (and badly) damaged by the current governments policy (or lack thereof), and by the testing mechanisms as currently stand.
Some may choose to see this disscusion as part of more nebulous (but potentialy real) liberty agendas - others may take this as part of (very) long running campaings to 'rehabilitate' cannbis in particular. And some may consider that, when honsetly aquainted with the available information, this is about the protection and welfare of colleagues who have consumed a very mild narcotic in thier personal/social lives, but otherwise have done nothing morally wrong and pose no risk...