Doesn't this tell you though that this side of the argument is pretty irrelevant?
Sounds to me, from what you've said it has far less to do with the cannabis and more to do with the person.
Some people are hopeless wasters, some people are motivated and productive members of society - both sets of people may use cannabis - it may link them but it isn't relevant and doesn't correlate with anything any more than alcohol usage does.
I get where you are coming from but you don't get alcoholics saying they feel alcohol should be available on prescription for medical reasons. I have yet to meet an alcoholic who would go along with that. But the cannabis abusers use the medical issue. It annoys me. Mainly because I really do think that cannabis could be used medicinally for a lot of pain sufferers, i.e.. MS patients. Most alcoholics are either totally aware of the fact that they have a problem or are in total denial. Cannabis users are another kettle of fish altogether.
I get where you are coming from but you don't get alcoholics saying they feel alcohol should be available on prescription for medical reasons. I have yet to meet an alcoholic who would go along with that. But the cannabis abusers use the medical issue. It annoys me. Mainly because I really do think that cannabis could be used medicinally for a lot of pain sufferers, i.e.. MS patients. Most alcoholics are either totally aware of the fact that they have a problem or are in total denial. Cannabis users are another kettle of fish altogether.
Alcoholics are regularly prescribed diazepam, which is like alcohol in pill form - it certainly interacts with many of the same parts of the brain.
That aside though, cannabis isn't really abusable in any sort of meaningful or significant way, and as sickness can be very subjective who's to say that somebody with depression shouldn't be able to self medicate with cannabis?
Alcohol has no medical usage. It's actually harmful, a toxin, and worsens things like sleep and depression. By comparison though, cannabis is a powerful antidepressant and has a low side effect profile in terms of harm.
I don't think we should be snobby or particularly selective about cannabis or medical cannabis - personally I think it should be available for everybody, but in any medical setting it should be equally for those who it helps and improves their quality of life.
Nothing to do with being snobby. Cannabis does not improve the quality of life for everyone who uses it. I would definitely say that for some people it has a negative effect. I really do believe it can be abused. I have known plenty of people who have used it from a very young age and are definitely stunted in their maturity, they are basically stuck in some kind of time warp. I have also known plenty of people who have taken cannabis and not abused it (in my opinion) and I would say it has been a wonderful relaxant for them and helped them creatively.
I would prefer a society wherein anyone can go to a medical centre and legally get high if they wish. They could be monitored by doctors so that we know the real effects of drugs and also there would be less problems with overdosing and drug dealers cutting the drugs with bad things. I do not see why adults can not do this, I would not myself, but I know some people who would like to try LSD and as I do not think that anyone had died from using LSD (compared with the millions that die from alcohol related deaths each year) I can not see what the problem is.
Nothing to do with being snobby. Cannabis does not improve the quality of life for everyone who uses it. I would definitely say that for some people it has a negative effect. I really do believe it can be abused. I have known plenty of people who have used it from a very young age and are definitely stunted in their maturity, they are basically stuck in some kind of time warp. I have also known plenty of people who have taken cannabis and not abused it (in my opinion) and I would say it has been a wonderful relaxant for them and helped them creatively.
Woah there - yes, I would absolutely agree.. cannabis is like alcohol when used by people under the age of 18 - it is developmentally damaging, granted. No under 18 should consume pot any more than they should consume booze, and even many types of prescribed psychotropic medication. It's all very damaging long-term.
Taking anything under the age of 18 is very different to using it as an adult.
I'm referring to most people who started smoking it after the age of 18 though. There is no evidence that cannabis damages the mind of fully grown adults.
I think you missed my point slightly; I said cannabis should be available for those who's quality of life it improves. If it doesn't improve their quality of life and has negative effects, then fine, they probably shouldn't smoke it.
The thing is this can be very subjective. You have no way of knowing how depressed a person is, or how badly they're sleeping, or how much pain they're in unless they tell you.
I would prefer a society wherein anyone can go to a medical centre and legally get high if they wish. They could be monitored by doctors so that we know the real effects of drugs and also there would be less problems with overdosing and drug dealers cutting the drugs with bad things. I do not see why adults can not do this, I would not myself, but I know some people who would like to try LSD and as I do not think that anyone had died from using LSD (compared with the millions that die from alcohol related deaths each year) I can not see what the problem is.
I hear the "what about alcohol" arguement made over and over again and I'm astounded as to how nobody grasps the fact that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of years. There is no way it could be practically banned as the US experience in the 1920s showed. Illegal drugs on the other hand are a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s the number of illegal drug users in this country annually never reached more than a few hundred. Even today with drugs becoming much more mainstream, 64 percent of the adult population have never used an illegal drug in their life and only eight percent do so annually (Home Office statistics). If the laws against drug use make no difference then why has the use of cannabis and cocaine never reached the level of that of alcohol and tobacco?
I would prefer a society wherein anyone can go to a medical centre and legally get high if they wish. They could be monitored by doctors so that we know the real effects of drugs and also there would be less problems with overdosing and drug dealers cutting the drugs with bad things.
Do drugs really get cut with bad things? Is it not just that heroin and crack and meth are inherently dangerous and therefore shouldn't be used under any circumstances?
Oddly enough, Sweden and Japan don't have a lot of problems with overdosing and drug dealers cutting the drugs with bad things. That's because they have sternly enforced laws against drug possession that we don't.
I hear the "what about alcohol" arguement made over and over again and I'm astounded as to how nobody grasps the fact that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of years. There is no way it could be practically banned as the US experience in the 1920s showed. Illegal drugs on the other hand are a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s the number of illegal drug users in this country annually never reached more than a few hundred. Even today with drugs becoming much more mainstream, 64 percent of the adult population have never used an illegal drug in their life and only eight percent do so annually (Home Office statistics). If the laws against drug use make no difference then why has the use of cannabis and cocaine never reached the level of that of alcohol and tobacco?
Wrong.
Cannabis, opium and Coca (Cocaine leaf), as well as things like Peyote and mushrooms have been used for thousands of years - all to varying degrees.
Cannabis and opium especially have been readily used in Britain for hundreds of years. Coca is new for us, but has been consumed by native South Americans for a long long time as well.
Given that the film Reefer Madness was released in the 1920's or 30's, your claim of the number of drug users annually being no less than a few hundred in the 60's is utterly laughable.
The only completely new drugs are things like LSD and Ecstasy - synthetics which are far less widely used anyway.
I deleted that because I'd rather not turn this into another "should drugs be legal?" thread. I've done this debate before too many times and I can't really be bothered
I've JUST hit middle age and I've never smoked a joint in my life, so the middle age people out there who are saying that we've all done it, they're wrong.
I'm old and neither have I. I've never taken any illegal drugs.
Do drugs really get cut with bad things? Is it not just that heroin and crack and meth are inherently dangerous and therefore shouldn't be used under any circumstances?
Actually most of the harm is caused by the cutting agents and accidental overdoses caused by not knowing the purity.
When given pure medical grade diamorphine (heroin), or even Cocaine or Methamphetamine for medical purposes they are considered as safe as many other pharmaceuticals.
Wrong.
Cannabis, opium and Coca (Cocaine leaf), as well as things like Peyote and mushrooms have been used for thousands of years - all to varying degrees.
Cannabis and opium especially have been readily used in Britain for hundreds of years. Coca is new for us, but has been consumed by native South Americans for a long long time as well.
By the rich maybe. They were virtually unknown among ordinary people except in Chinatown until the late twentieth century.
And why does the creation of a public information film prove a problem is widespread? The government warns us about plenty of things which are a rare occurence.
The thing is this can be very subjective. You have no way of knowing how depressed a person is, or how badly they're sleeping, or how much pain they're in unless they tell you.
Spot on. Even if they are able to judge how depressed they feel that day compared to a normal day for them, they have only ever been the person they are now so they have no means of comparing their mood to that of the average person.
I've got a history of depression. If tomorrow I don't want to get out of bed is it because I'm depressed or because I'm lazy? I genuinely don't know the difference at times. It's often only afterward that I can look back and think "jeez - I was really in a black mood that time." In fact I often only make sense of my feelings and moods in retrospect and I think that's another by-product of long-term depression. You distrust your feelings so you disconnect from them sometimes.
Depression is such an all-encompassing condition that lasts over such a long period that it's very easy to lose sight of yourself so that you don't know what behaviour is caused by the depression and what is simply your nature. At it's worst the bit of you that is "you" gets smaller and smaller until you worry that it was only ever a pretence anyway. Your entire personality can get stripped from you.
It's not a trifling matter at all but I can understand people's frustrations with depressed people. It's difficult to watch someone struggle yet not do the correct things to help themselves. I've been on both sides of it.
I read someone on here the other day saying something like "....I wish I'd had depression instead, then I wouldn't have to work."
First of all, that's not really that true now. Maybe some people don't but if you go to an ATOS assessment and say you have depression then unless it makes you bed-bound and institutionalised then there's a very good chance you'll be passed fit for work. They are really hitting the sizeable depressed section of society pretty hard. Speaking as someone with depression, there are times when you need a kick up the arse and a bit of geeing up, but there are other times when you are completely incapable of functioning.
Secondly, it's not just feeling a bit down. Unless you've ever been there then you will never be able to grasp just how much of your life it affects. It's everything. Work, relationships, general activity, friends, social life, marriage, kids, social occasions......you can kiss goodbye to those if you get caught in the grip of serious black thoughts that invade your mind 24/7 and even seep into your dreams. Eventually if it's bad enough you'll lose your identity, personality and sanity and have some sort of breakdown. And the worst thing about depression is you blame yourself for being under it's grip. Well, maybe not the worst thing but certainly the most bleakly ironic. I've had that sort of breakdown so when I hear people say "I'd never allow myself to get that bad - I'm a strong person" I find it a bit naive. I was a strong person too but that isn't long in changing and you'll find yourself avoiding walking over motorway bridges and throwing away pills because you don't trust yourself with them, or lying in bed unable to face the world, or avoiding going out because every person you encounter seems like a threat. Never underestimate and downplay mental illness or what it can do to a person.
Anyway...I seem to have taken this topic in the opposite direction from where it started as I'm writing an essay because the conversation has for once turned to something I know a little about.
Middle-aged people and drugs. Some have tried them, some take them, and some haven't tried them. Occasionally people lie about what group they fall under because you can also break people down into those who are sincere and those who try to present themselves in a falsely positive light.
By the rich maybe. They were virtually unknown among ordinary people except in Chinatown until the late twentieth century.
And why does the creation of a public information film prove a problem is widespread? The government warns us about plenty of things which are a rare occurence.
I was using it as an example, but Cannabis had seeped into popular culture by the 1920's among the same 'comparable' groups of people that tend use it now. A small but sizable minority.
Back in the 18th century every bugger was on opium, not just the rich.
Actually most of the harm is caused by the cutting agents and accidental overdoses caused by not knowing the purity.
When given pure medical grade diamorphine (heroin), or even Cocaine or Methamphetamine for medical purposes they are considered as safe as many other pharmaceuticals.
There have been plenty of deaths as a result of overdose on prescripton drugs. There are actuallly more deaths form methadone annually than heroin.
Wrong.
Cannabis, opium and Coca (Cocaine leaf), as well as things like Peyote and mushrooms have been used for thousands of years - all to varying degrees.
Cannabis and opium especially have been readily used in Britain for hundreds of years. Coca is new for us, but has been consumed by native South Americans for a long long time as well.
Given that the film Reefer Madness was released in the 1920's or 30's, your claim of the number of drug users annually being no less than a few hundred in the 60's is utterly laughable.
The only completely new drugs are things like LSD and Ecstasy - synthetics which are far less widely used anyway.
I was going to say something akin to the above.
Whilst I am not advocating banning alcohol, we do need to do something about binge drinking. I have stopped going to my local town on the weekend as I can not bear to look at the many pools of congealing sick splattered around after late night drinking, not to mention the pervailing stink of urine in the air.
I think that the difference is that alcohol is the drug of the unwashed and other drugs were generally kept for religious reasons by witch doctor types and so were not so mainstream. Like mushrooms and peyote etc.
.
Most of the 'actual' harms from heroin are socio-economic in nature.
i don`t have any statistics and this is from my personal knowledge but i`d expect the delivery method to present very highly if not top of the harm, in particular pin use.
Spot on. Even if they are able to judge how depressed they feel that day compared to a normal day for them, they have only ever been the person they are now so they have no means of comparing their mood to that of the average person.
I've got a history of depression. If tomorrow I don't want to get out of bed is it because I'm depressed or because I'm lazy? I genuinely don't know the difference at times. It's often only afterward that I can look back and think "jeez - I was really in a black mood that time." In fact I often only make sense of my feelings and moods in retrospect and I think that's another by-product of long-term depression. You distrust your feelings so you disconnect from them sometimes.
Depression is such an all-encompassing condition that lasts over such a long period that it's very easy to lose sight of yourself so that you don't know what behaviour is caused by the depression and what is simply your nature. At it's worst the bit of you that is "you" gets smaller and smaller until you worry that it was only ever a pretence anyway. Your entire personality can get stripped from you.
It's not a trifling matter at all but I can understand people's frustrations with depressed people. It's difficult to watch someone struggle yet not do the correct things to help themselves. I've been on both sides of it.
I read someone on here the other day saying something like "....I wish I'd had depression instead, then I wouldn't have to work."
First of all, that's not really that true now. Maybe some people don't but if you go to an ATOS assessment and say you have depression then unless it makes you bed-bound and institutionalised then there's a very good chance you'll be passed fit for work. They are really hitting the sizeable depressed section of society pretty hard. Speaking as someone with depression, there are times when you need a kick up the arse and a bit of geeing up, but there are other times when you are completely incapable of functioning.
Secondly, it's not just feeling a bit down. Unless you've ever been there then you will never be able to grasp just how much of your life it affects. It's everything. Work, relationships, general activity, friends, social life, marriage, kids......you can kiss goodbye to those if you get caught in the grip of serious black thoughts that invade your mind 24/7 and even seep into your dreams. Eventually if it's bad enough you'll lose your identity, personality and sanity and have some sort of breakdown. And the worst thing about depression is you blame yourself for being under it's grip. Well, maybe not the worst thing but certainly the most bleakly ironic.
Anyway...I seem to have taken this topic in the opposite direction from where it started as I'm writing an essay because the conversation has for once turned to something I know a little about.
Middle-aged people and drugs. Some have tried them, some take them, and some haven't tried them. Occasionally people lie about what group they fall under because you can also break people down into those who are sincere and those who try to present themselves in a falsely positive light.
I find that with my depression it goes round and round and you do not feel in control and I find that after periods of "happiness" or feeling "upbeat" I feel worse and I get into more trouble when I feel better. I does not help when you are trying to keep yourself on an even keel and you get well meaning (?) friends and officials trying to get you to live life and they do, or do things that they do. As if their lives are a bed of roses. The difference is that I am realistic, they try and keep busy to keep the dark thoughts away whether they realise it or not. But eventually they catch up with you.
i don`t have any statistics and this is from my personal knowledge but i`d expect the delivery method to present very highly if not top of the harm, in particular pin use.
Sorry yes I didn't put that very well.. it was a bit of a 'Part 2' to post #39
The point I'm making is when you have pure heroin, and it's injected with clean needles, by somebody who knows what they're doing - just as it is in hospital - there is virtually no risk other than constipation and obviously, dependency.
Sorry yes I didn't put that very well.. it was a bit of a 'Part 2' to post #39
The point I'm making is when you have pure heroin, and it's injected with clean needles, by somebody who knows what they're doing - just as it is in hospital - there is virtually no risk other than constipation and obviously, dependency.
clean needles and hospital would reduce some things but you`re still going to get vein problems and infections from banging ANYTHING up several times a day.
clean needles and hospital would reduce some things but you`re still going to get vein problems and infections from banging ANYTHING up several times a day.
Is that really the case? Surely you could use something like a cannula to avoid the need to constantly hunt for an injection site?
I must admit I had been told most of the damage/collapse to the veins etc is caused by the contaminants, dirty needles and improper injection technique - but having never used it I don't speak from first hand experience.
Is that really the case? Surely you could use something like a cannula to avoid the need to constantly hunt for an injection site?
I must admit I had been told most of the damage/collapse to the veins etc is caused by the contaminants, dirty needles and improper injection technique - but having never used it I don't speak from first hand experience.
I have to have a pint on blood taken every 2 weeks and the nurse says that vein wall gets thinner, it gets harder to stem the blood flow.
Comments
I get where you are coming from but you don't get alcoholics saying they feel alcohol should be available on prescription for medical reasons. I have yet to meet an alcoholic who would go along with that. But the cannabis abusers use the medical issue. It annoys me. Mainly because I really do think that cannabis could be used medicinally for a lot of pain sufferers, i.e.. MS patients. Most alcoholics are either totally aware of the fact that they have a problem or are in total denial. Cannabis users are another kettle of fish altogether.
Alcoholics are regularly prescribed diazepam, which is like alcohol in pill form - it certainly interacts with many of the same parts of the brain.
That aside though, cannabis isn't really abusable in any sort of meaningful or significant way, and as sickness can be very subjective who's to say that somebody with depression shouldn't be able to self medicate with cannabis?
Alcohol has no medical usage. It's actually harmful, a toxin, and worsens things like sleep and depression. By comparison though, cannabis is a powerful antidepressant and has a low side effect profile in terms of harm.
I don't think we should be snobby or particularly selective about cannabis or medical cannabis - personally I think it should be available for everybody, but in any medical setting it should be equally for those who it helps and improves their quality of life.
Woah there - yes, I would absolutely agree.. cannabis is like alcohol when used by people under the age of 18 - it is developmentally damaging, granted. No under 18 should consume pot any more than they should consume booze, and even many types of prescribed psychotropic medication. It's all very damaging long-term.
Taking anything under the age of 18 is very different to using it as an adult.
I'm referring to most people who started smoking it after the age of 18 though. There is no evidence that cannabis damages the mind of fully grown adults.
I think you missed my point slightly; I said cannabis should be available for those who's quality of life it improves. If it doesn't improve their quality of life and has negative effects, then fine, they probably shouldn't smoke it.
The thing is this can be very subjective. You have no way of knowing how depressed a person is, or how badly they're sleeping, or how much pain they're in unless they tell you.
I hear the "what about alcohol" arguement made over and over again and I'm astounded as to how nobody grasps the fact that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of years. There is no way it could be practically banned as the US experience in the 1920s showed. Illegal drugs on the other hand are a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s the number of illegal drug users in this country annually never reached more than a few hundred. Even today with drugs becoming much more mainstream, 64 percent of the adult population have never used an illegal drug in their life and only eight percent do so annually (Home Office statistics). If the laws against drug use make no difference then why has the use of cannabis and cocaine never reached the level of that of alcohol and tobacco?
To late for us.
Wrong.
Cannabis, opium and Coca (Cocaine leaf), as well as things like Peyote and mushrooms have been used for thousands of years - all to varying degrees.
Cannabis and opium especially have been readily used in Britain for hundreds of years. Coca is new for us, but has been consumed by native South Americans for a long long time as well.
Given that the film Reefer Madness was released in the 1920's or 30's, your claim of the number of drug users annually being no less than a few hundred in the 60's is utterly laughable.
The only completely new drugs are things like LSD and Ecstasy - synthetics which are far less widely used anyway.
I deleted that because I'd rather not turn this into another "should drugs be legal?" thread. I've done this debate before too many times and I can't really be bothered
I'm old and neither have I. I've never taken any illegal drugs.
Actually most of the harm is caused by the cutting agents and accidental overdoses caused by not knowing the purity.
When given pure medical grade diamorphine (heroin), or even Cocaine or Methamphetamine for medical purposes they are considered as safe as many other pharmaceuticals.
By the rich maybe. They were virtually unknown among ordinary people except in Chinatown until the late twentieth century.
And why does the creation of a public information film prove a problem is widespread? The government warns us about plenty of things which are a rare occurence.
Spot on. Even if they are able to judge how depressed they feel that day compared to a normal day for them, they have only ever been the person they are now so they have no means of comparing their mood to that of the average person.
I've got a history of depression. If tomorrow I don't want to get out of bed is it because I'm depressed or because I'm lazy? I genuinely don't know the difference at times. It's often only afterward that I can look back and think "jeez - I was really in a black mood that time." In fact I often only make sense of my feelings and moods in retrospect and I think that's another by-product of long-term depression. You distrust your feelings so you disconnect from them sometimes.
Depression is such an all-encompassing condition that lasts over such a long period that it's very easy to lose sight of yourself so that you don't know what behaviour is caused by the depression and what is simply your nature. At it's worst the bit of you that is "you" gets smaller and smaller until you worry that it was only ever a pretence anyway. Your entire personality can get stripped from you.
It's not a trifling matter at all but I can understand people's frustrations with depressed people. It's difficult to watch someone struggle yet not do the correct things to help themselves. I've been on both sides of it.
I read someone on here the other day saying something like "....I wish I'd had depression instead, then I wouldn't have to work."
First of all, that's not really that true now. Maybe some people don't but if you go to an ATOS assessment and say you have depression then unless it makes you bed-bound and institutionalised then there's a very good chance you'll be passed fit for work. They are really hitting the sizeable depressed section of society pretty hard. Speaking as someone with depression, there are times when you need a kick up the arse and a bit of geeing up, but there are other times when you are completely incapable of functioning.
Secondly, it's not just feeling a bit down. Unless you've ever been there then you will never be able to grasp just how much of your life it affects. It's everything. Work, relationships, general activity, friends, social life, marriage, kids, social occasions......you can kiss goodbye to those if you get caught in the grip of serious black thoughts that invade your mind 24/7 and even seep into your dreams. Eventually if it's bad enough you'll lose your identity, personality and sanity and have some sort of breakdown. And the worst thing about depression is you blame yourself for being under it's grip. Well, maybe not the worst thing but certainly the most bleakly ironic. I've had that sort of breakdown so when I hear people say "I'd never allow myself to get that bad - I'm a strong person" I find it a bit naive. I was a strong person too but that isn't long in changing and you'll find yourself avoiding walking over motorway bridges and throwing away pills because you don't trust yourself with them, or lying in bed unable to face the world, or avoiding going out because every person you encounter seems like a threat. Never underestimate and downplay mental illness or what it can do to a person.
Anyway...I seem to have taken this topic in the opposite direction from where it started as I'm writing an essay because the conversation has for once turned to something I know a little about.
Middle-aged people and drugs. Some have tried them, some take them, and some haven't tried them. Occasionally people lie about what group they fall under because you can also break people down into those who are sincere and those who try to present themselves in a falsely positive light.
I was using it as an example, but Cannabis had seeped into popular culture by the 1920's among the same 'comparable' groups of people that tend use it now. A small but sizable minority.
Back in the 18th century every bugger was on opium, not just the rich.
There have been plenty of deaths as a result of overdose on prescripton drugs. There are actuallly more deaths form methadone annually than heroin.
I was going to say something akin to the above.
Whilst I am not advocating banning alcohol, we do need to do something about binge drinking. I have stopped going to my local town on the weekend as I can not bear to look at the many pools of congealing sick splattered around after late night drinking, not to mention the pervailing stink of urine in the air.
I think that the difference is that alcohol is the drug of the unwashed and other drugs were generally kept for religious reasons by witch doctor types and so were not so mainstream. Like mushrooms and peyote etc.
Yes, I know. I'm not sure what your point is.
When used properly and at the correct dosage they are all safe drugs.
The OD figures are still pretty poxy in the grand scheme of things. Most of the 'actual' harms from heroin are socio-economic in nature.
i don`t have any statistics and this is from my personal knowledge but i`d expect the delivery method to present very highly if not top of the harm, in particular pin use.
I find that with my depression it goes round and round and you do not feel in control and I find that after periods of "happiness" or feeling "upbeat" I feel worse and I get into more trouble when I feel better. I does not help when you are trying to keep yourself on an even keel and you get well meaning (?) friends and officials trying to get you to live life and they do, or do things that they do. As if their lives are a bed of roses. The difference is that I am realistic, they try and keep busy to keep the dark thoughts away whether they realise it or not. But eventually they catch up with you.
Sorry yes I didn't put that very well.. it was a bit of a 'Part 2' to post #39
The point I'm making is when you have pure heroin, and it's injected with clean needles, by somebody who knows what they're doing - just as it is in hospital - there is virtually no risk other than constipation and obviously, dependency.
clean needles and hospital would reduce some things but you`re still going to get vein problems and infections from banging ANYTHING up several times a day.
Is that really the case? Surely you could use something like a cannula to avoid the need to constantly hunt for an injection site?
I must admit I had been told most of the damage/collapse to the veins etc is caused by the contaminants, dirty needles and improper injection technique - but having never used it I don't speak from first hand experience.
I have to have a pint on blood taken every 2 weeks and the nurse says that vein wall gets thinner, it gets harder to stem the blood flow.