Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Jude wrote:

gnuvag wrote:Worth a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media

Incidentally, just reread your comments Jude about how it isn't possible to kill yourself with alcohol the first time you try it unless you walk in front of a bus - on the contrary surely it's very easy to OD on alcohol the first time?

In this day and age I doubt there is anyone stupid enough to OD on alcohol enough to die on their first attempt - the body passes out often well before that stage is reached!

Cannabis - depending on whether it is resin or flake - strength varies a great deal, and in resin there are a huge number of additives that pushers add to make up the oz. Pure resin in a large enough dose can put the body into a stupour, which then can cause dehydration (side effect like the muncies) and death by asphixiation. the girl i nursed with te fits was in and out of conciousness and stopped breathing once.. That to me is enough evidence! Also I note you didn't mention "E" - I wonder why not? That also dehydrates the body, causes the body temperature to increase and death occurs (although not being a forensic Pathologist) I can't remember what the terminology for the cause of death is with "E"... Heart failure I expect...

And before you ask - yes I have had cannabis - I had it quite a lot 8 years ago to help with pain relief - I have had nice times with it but also very scary times - where I spent 4 hours getting up out of bed, to go downstairs to check the patio door was locked to go back upstairs to bed, only to think I had imagined it and repeated it henceforth... I have banned the drug from the house and property completely as I no longer see it as a "safe" drug.

To add to the why we shouldn't smoke cannabis - the munchies you get afterwards distends teh stomach as the brain cannot receive the message that your stomach is full - perhaps that is why it is so dangerous - vomitting whilst unconscious.... not to mention mood swings and weight gain!!

No 1 son at his first teenage party, arrived at 8pm and by ten had put away three/quarters of a bottle of Bacardi, I was out WITH car and WITHOUT mobile so hub had to get a taxi to collect him. He was passed out in a pile of stomach contents behind a locked bathroom door. Hubby got him home and when I arrived home, son slept on one sofa (in recovery position) while I slept on the other to make sure he was ok.

gnuvag wrote:Worth a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media

Incidentally, just reread your comments Jude about how it isn't possible to kill yourself with alcohol the first time you try it unless you walk in front of a bus - on the contrary surely it's very easy to OD on alcohol the first time?

I note you appear to dismiss the AIM article as you consider it probable that it is politically biased.

You have selected Wikipedia as your main reference on both cannabis and AIM. As ANYBODY can submit an article to Wikipedia I venture to suggest that your sources are potentially as vulnerable to accusations of bias since it would appear equally possible that someone with an "agenda" (to legalise cannabis) may have submitted the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page

However....possible doubts about the source notwithstanding.....the wikipedia article acknowledges possible psychotic damage can be done by cannabis even if it is inconclusive or rejecting of the cancer claims.

......"A review of the evidence by Louise Arsenault, et al in 2004 reports that on an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk of later schizophrenia. This same research also states that "There is little dispute that cannabis intoxication can lead to acute transient psychotic episodes in some individuals". The study synthesizes the results of several studies into a statistical model".....

Going back a good few posts now(!) my initial assertion was don't underestimate the dangers of marijuana and all I was seeking to demonstrate with some sort of documentary evidence was that dangers exist. Your source, as quoted above, does that admirably even if you reject my source so I can rest my case on that aspect.

I am inclined to agree with Graham that there is a case for legalising and decriminalising all drugs since, under proper medical supervision, the quality of the drug would be more assured and the scumbag dealers (and perhaps some of the gun crime associated with them) would be out of the equation as their illicit market would have disappeared.

My one (big) reservation would be to question whether or not easier access to presently illegal and criminal drugs which are harmful would increase the numbers of vulnerable people risking their lives by taking those drugs.

I'm not sure of the answer to that one if I'm honest.

Jude wrote:

Mid A 15 wrote:Sorry accidentally posted twice

Be honest - you just wanted to boost youir points to get your buttons before me!!!

Sorry Jude,

I'll try not to do it again

Mid A 15 wrote: I am inclined to agree with Graham that there is a case for legalising and decriminalising all drugs since, under proper medical supervision, the quality of the drug would be more assured and the scumbag dealers (and perhaps some of the gun crime associated with them) would be out of the equation as their illicit market would have disappeared.

My one (big) reservation would be to question whether or not easier access to presently illegal and criminal drugs which are harmful would increase the numbers of vulnerable people risking their lives by taking those drugs.

I'm not sure of the answer to that one if I'm honest.

Are you sure that the government wouldn't slap such high taxes on legalised drugs that there would be a danger of a black market, such as currently exists for booze and fags, being created almost overnight?

Richard Ruck wrote:

Mid A 15 wrote: I am inclined to agree with Graham that there is a case for legalising and decriminalising all drugs since, under proper medical supervision, the quality of the drug would be more assured and the scumbag dealers (and perhaps some of the gun crime associated with them) would be out of the equation as their illicit market would have disappeared.

My one (big) reservation would be to question whether or not easier access to presently illegal and criminal drugs which are harmful would increase the numbers of vulnerable people risking their lives by taking those drugs.

I'm not sure of the answer to that one if I'm honest.

Are you sure that the government wouldn't slap such high taxes on legalised drugs that there would be a danger of a black market, such as currently exists for booze and fags, being created almost overnight?

That is a valid point!

One would hope though that if part of the rationale for legalising drugs was to reduce the crime associated with drugs, then common sense would apply to taxation on them.

No guarantees with most governments though!

there is nothing rational about the current government so we can ignore any ideas of rationality behind things!

MS sufferes and others with long term pain ARE allowed tablets made from cannibis - from what I read in my BNF it is not that strong, but the side effects are very long - too many to write here, but going back to the girl who had the fits - no she is not an asthmatic, she is not allergic to anything, the others who were smoking it were more stoned and out of their heads than I have ever had the sadness to see - eyes like saucers! And all the kitchen cupboards got raided.

Hallucinogenic drugs are all addictive and all have side effects - this goes for smoking as well.

Are you aware that there is a gene in each of us that is switched on or off? It is called the ********* (blog it I can't remember at this moment) but it is the gene that actually makes you a smoker / drinker /drug user or not. Those who have it switched off can almost always trace back throught he family that no particular line smoked etc.... Those of us who have the gene switched on can trace back a line of smokers etc... my blood father, his blood father and mother, and their parents all smoked. My blood mother, her blood parents also smoked - so genetically speaking I didn't stand a chance! My kids have a father whose gene is off and a mother whose gene is on - so it goes either way - there is no dominace to either on or off as it is only one letter of a whole gene that makes it on or off - unlike dominant brown eyes over recessive blue eyes.

I have always thought that about the gene thing, but hubby's parents were both smokers and he and his brother are not, though did have the odd ciggy at Uni, as did I.

I also put away enough alcohol to sink the QEII but can now take it or leave it. (after the desert of Hertford and teetotal parents)

Now I can have a bottle of red wine open a week and not drink it.

On this gene thing:

I've been told brown eyes are supposed to be dominant......

yet I have blue eyes, my wife has brown eyes and my daughters have blue or green eyes.

My mother has brown eyes, my father has blue eyes as do I and my sister although my brother has brown eyes

I am still unable to drink alcohol without dire effects - so sadly any bottles of wine that are opened either get thrown out or drunk my my daughter who has developed a taste for wine - she thinks she must have matured as the "alchopops" are still in the fridge since we went sailing, but she has got through several bottles of wine since......

worrying?????? nah!

the gene for brown eyes is dominant, however, as each gene is made up of letters, if your linneage contains many blue eyed parents or relatives the letters can still be changed but still leave brown dominant until you have someone who has total blue eyes in their genes, then you can produce either blue or brown eyed offspring..

Either that or check the colour of the milkmans eyes!

Can we leave the human genetics until Saz has done her degree in it as I am now ploughing to the depths of my biology and her a level genetics stuff, (not to mention the extra curriculem things I read fo this forum!)

Now, at last, this subject gets interesting.






Did you know that diarrhoea is hereditary ?????????





It runs......................................





........... in the jeans ! (Boom boom !)

J.R. wrote:Now, at last, this subject gets interesting.
Did you know that diarrhoea is hereditary ?????????
It runs......................................
........... in the jeans ! (Boom boom !)

Oh dear JR does it again.....

Interestingly Tony Blair was up this way today on a secret squirrel opening of a new hospital - partly costed by the private sector - it had originally been dated for Gordon Brown to open it.... reporters and film crews were not allowed! (I get Midlands today so it could have been up further north than me - I was ironing at the time!!!)

Will private funding in hospitals make the NHS any better (please note I am trying to pull this topic back to the title!!) If we have private and public money in hospitals then surley the answer to IVF for overweight ladies cannot be much of a topic for us to discuss as it will start depending on the postcode of where you live - as with so many other drugs... My local area (Cotswold & Vale ) is £8m in deficeit this year..... I hope this doesn't mean I will not be allowed certain drugs that keep me alive!!

I've been told brown eyes are supposed to be dominant......

yet I have blue eyes, my wife has brown eyes and my daughters have blue or green eyes.

My mother has brown eyes, my father has blue eyes as do I and my sister although my brother has brown eyes

It's a little more complicated than a straight dominant/ recessive situation, as the interactions of a number of genes control eye colour. That is why it doesn't always seem to obey the standard rules. It makes for an obvious example when teaching inheritance though, which is why it has been hijacked as such.

It is certainly the same with addictions. A number of factors may influence a person's susceptibility to certain substances or to general behaviors. A single gene might produce an enzyme that behaves differently from "normal" people's version when blood alcohol levels are high, for example, and this might lead to an addiction response. It is likely, though, that a combination of genes will be necessary to promote addiction on a purely physioloigcal level.

There is also, as always, a nature vs nurture aspect to addiction. Genes control our behaviour through physiochemical cues but our upbringing and environment will also influence how we percieve and interact with our world. Addictive personalities may equally be a result of these external cues, the latter of which would explain EA's observations of differences in addictive response in an individual over time. Certainly one aspect of cigarette addiction that is perhaps stronger than the body's "need" for nicotine is the habit of smoking and of holding somthing between the fingers and lips. This is one part of the reason why most quitters put on weight; eating acts as a placebo for the process of smoking. When I quit, I developed a temporary 'addiction' to chewing gum, which was my chosen placebo.

graham wrote:

I've been told brown eyes are supposed to be dominant......

yet I have blue eyes, my wife has brown eyes and my daughters have blue or green eyes.

My mother has brown eyes, my father has blue eyes as do I and my sister although my brother has brown eyes

It's a little more complicated than a straight dominant/ recessive situation, as the interactions of a number of genes control eye colour. That is why it doesn't always seem to obey the standard rules. It makes for an obvious example when teaching inheritance though, which is why it has been hijacked as such.

When I was teaching in Ghana I had a Ghanaian colleague with bright blue eyes. It was very disconcerting. There had been Europeans in the area since before Columbus sailed the Atlantic, so some families had a lot of European genes, as well as European surnames.

Jude wrote:I am still unable to drink alcohol without dire effects - so sadly any bottles of wine that are opened either get thrown out or drunk my my daughter who has developed a taste for wine - she thinks she must have matured as the "alchopops" are still in the fridge since we went sailing, but she has got through several bottles of wine since......

worrying?????? nah!

I cannot drink Scotch - I like it but after a heavy session 40 years ago (Dec 9th) just one tot makes me totally blotto.

OTOH when my younger son first had alcohol he could not get apparently drunk in the first 6 months. From the amounts and mixes his friends say he put away he should have been 6 feet under. Now he is "normal".

There was mention of drugs having side effects; thank goodness for side effects. The asthma drugs I take every day stop the joints and back pain and, when, on Monday, I put a rotovator through a wasps nest, the 20 plus stings (we have no idea of the full count) on face and legs t close to the crotch had no effect!