Reefer Madness?

[chefmike]

Something told me when I first tried the evil weed that I would one day be driven to reefer madness...oh well, I guess that it's too late now to worry about it....and where is that goddamn bong anyway...oh, thats right..one of my sixteen other personalities borrowed it.... :roll:



Marijuana May Increase Psychosis Risk

LONDON — Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

Doctors have long suspected a connection and say the latest findings underline the need to highlight marijuana's long-term risks. The research, paid for by the British Health Department, is being published Friday in medical journal The Lancet.

"The available evidence now suggests that cannabis is not as harmless as many people think," said Dr. Stanley Zammit, one of the study's authors and a lecturer in the department of psychological medicine at Cardiff University.

The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known.

There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said.

Marijuana is the most frequently used illegal substance in many countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. About 20 percent of young adults report using it at least once a week, according to government statistics.

Zammit and colleagues from the University of Bristol, Imperial College and Cambridge University examined 35 studies that tracked tens of thousands of people for periods ranging from one year to 27 years to examine the effect of marijuana on mental health.

They looked for psychotic illnesses as well as cognitive disorders including delusions and hallucinations, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, neuroses and suicidal tendencies.

They found that people who used marijuana had roughly a 40 percent higher chance of developing a psychotic disorder later in life. The overall risk remains very low.

For example, Zammit said the risk of developing schizophrenia for most people is less than 1 percent. The prevalence of schizophrenia is believed to be about five in 1,000 people. But because of the drug's wide popularity, the researchers estimate that about 800 new cases of psychosis could be prevented by reducing marijuana use.

The scientists found a more disturbing outlook for "heavy users" of pot, those who used it daily or weekly: Their risk for psychosis jumped to a range of 50 percent to 200 percent.

One doctor noted that people with a history of mental illness in their families could be at higher risk. For them, marijuana use "could unmask the underlying schizophrenia," said Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Wilson Compton, a senior scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Washington, called the study persuasive.

"The strongest case is that there are consistencies across all of the studies," and that the link was seen only with psychoses _ not anxiety, depression or other mental health problems, he said.

Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses, he added.

Scientists think it is biologically possible that marijuana could cause psychoses because it interrupts important neurotransmitters such as dopamine. That can interfere with the brain's communication systems.

Some experts say governments should now work to dispel the misconception that marijuana is a benign drug.

"We've reached the end of the road with these kinds of studies," said Dr. Robin Murray of King's College, who had no role in the Lancet study. "Experts are now agreed on the connection between cannabis and psychoses. What we need now is for 14-year-olds to know it."

In the U.K., the government will soon reconsider how marijuana should be classified in its hierarchy of drugs. In 2004, it was downgraded and penalties for possession were reduced. Many expect marijuana will be bumped up to a class "B" category, with offenses likely to lead to arrests or longer jail sentences.

Two of the authors of the study were invited experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several authors reported being paid to attend drug company-sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070726/marijuana-psychosis/

[Tomfurbs]

Tell me about it. This Labour Govenrment has been flip flopping around this subject for 10 years, and now Gordon Brown wants it reclassified. The Independent was running a campaign for its legalisation two years ago until the report about schizophrenia came out, and they totally backtracked!

Just legalise it already.

[Alison Faraday]

I believe there is indeed some truth to this, but I certainly wouldn't accept any findings that come out of the UK. We're so safety concious, conformist, and wrapped in cotton wool, that in real terms many studies are skewed based on opinion rather than fact.

When at university I lived with someone who smoked 24x7 and had done for about 15-years previously. He was SCARY. Well, deep down he was a nice yet very troubled and emotional soul. At one point he tried to strangle me with his bare hands around my throat. My mental state at the time just led me to look at him and say "Go on then, do it." I really was that low, and that was around about the time in my life where I was just going to kill myself. The TS-bug within me was what saved me, as I had to explore it before claiming end-game. Anyway...

I think what happens to these people is this.

Cannabis alters your perception somewhat and makes you more sensitive.

All of us, you me, and everyone, are shaped in life by our experiences. They are what makes us who we are. Now if you're taking drugs then what happens is that those experiences are skewed. In other words, they're recorded in our minds abnormally to what is normal. They're still experiences yes, but they're altered by the drug.

Now, merely stopping drugs doesn't change the experiences we have had. So therefore, there's one answer!!

These people aren't strictly mad, just that their memories and experiences in their lives are abnormal. And from the viewpoint of one of these perfect researchers, who has lived a life in cotton wool and has never farted on an aeroplane for amusement, excessive users of cannabis are not normal.

Psychiatry is the modern benchmark of who's ill and who isn't, when in reality, that benchmark is constantly changing. There's a fine line and the majority are just a little bit either side of that line, think of your Mum who goes a bit crazy from time to time.. You see my point. No one is actually sane in the grand reality of things.

That line is constantly changing. You could pluck Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln out from the ages and stick them in today's world and they wouldn't fit in. Equally so, if any of us appeared in the 1800's, we wouldn't fit in either. We would be different. We would possibly be seen as non conformist. We would be seen as mad.

So. We've established so far here that nobody is sane, and all that we're made up of is our experiences.

Are cannabis users mad? In their world the answer is no. In our world the answer is yes. It isn't a chemical inbalance or a psychotic illness, it is merely that their heightened experiences have shaped them this way.

Of course there are going to be those that are screaming lunartics, and that applies to any social group. That's just the way it is.

Would I recommend cannabis? No. I don't like the stuff personally. I like being in control and having my experiences shaped by naturally occuring experiences and social interactions. Mind you, I don't agree with anti-depressants either. Anti-depressants are the cannabis mind altering perception drugs for the normal conformist citizen who likes to tell themselves that they're not on drugs.

When we get upset, why we cry, when we feel left out, we have to deal with it and learn. Not to hide it up somewhere. That is society's problem today. Looking for someone else to blame, and for a quick solution. Life's pains are healthy.

Sometimes there is nobody to blame. Sometimes we have to just accept our feelings and to get on with life. That is just the way it is. This study, like many others, is just another to give somebody something to do.

[LG]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Those words also more or less describe my political credo. Or, in the words of JFK (who may or may not have fully meant them at the time), "liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves".

[peggygee]

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/reefer-madness4x5.jpg

There are a number of psychological effects associated with heavy marijuana
usage. Among the personality effects of long-term marijuana usage are
moodiness, anxiety, and self-neglect. Numerous authors cited memory
deficits in such functions as restricted reminding, semantic memory,
remote memory, and memory for feelings.

Additionally;

Reproductive system. Dope suppresses the production of male sex hormone,
shrinks the testes, and inhibits sperm production.

The "amotivational syndrome" (i.e., apathy). Sure enough, dopers tend to
be apathetic.

Lungs. Marijuana smoke contains about 50 percent more carcinogenic
hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke.

Heart. Dope smoking places extra stress on the heart, the panel said.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/reefer-madness3x4.jpg

[Tanuki]

I truly dont believe any of the negative associations with marijuana usage.. I wont deny the effects of smoke inhalation. Generally however when your smoking weed, your not sitting around inhaling smoke the way you do with cigarettes.. A few puffs aday is usually sufficient. Furthermore. The effects are different on different people.
For me, it is great.
This news is just propaganda.. Its BS.

[Kriss]

"Dope" suppresses the production of male sex hormone,
shrinks the testes, and inhibits sperm production.

Lungs. Marijuana smoke contains about 50 percent more carcinogenic
hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke.

Heart. Dope smoking places extra stress on the heart, the panel said.



I believe this to be untrue. particularly regarding the supression of male sex hormones. if this was so then every TS in the fucking world would be caning it non stop, REGARDLESS OF ANY UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS. am i wrong?

Without a doubt, smoking weed GIVES ME THE HORN!

I think we know that sex hormones are far more complicated than just more or less male or female 'hormone'. I can think of 7 hormones present in Ganja and that is a far simpler organism than a human being.

Care to show your sources for this info Peggy?

The idea that cigarrettes are LESS likely to cause cancer is crazy.

THE TRUTH.........

1.GANJA BOOSTS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM

2.Smoking ganja is LESS carconogenic than smoking tobacco OR DRINKING ALCOHOL

3. There is NO LETHAL dose. It is impossible to overdose from smoking or ingesting ganja. Not pone fatally due to ganja overdose recorded EVER!

4.The criminalisation of ganga in US was principally instigated and financed by , among others, RANDOLPH HEARST who personally bankrolled a propagandist named HARVEY AINSLINGER to propduce the famous 'reefer madness' movies and also some very rascist pamphlets linking use of ganja to immigrant workers raping white women, etc, etc.
In 1929 ganja was tipped as the next big cash crop in the US, not for its smoking , but for hemp fibre, a huge threat to the cotton industry and the 'wood-pulp' method of producing paper, the patent on which was owned by DU-PONT petrochemicals who was owned by , YES, RANDOLPH HEARST!

5. Bob marley had at least 50 kids. and the herb supressed his male sex hormone?

[TJT]

It may be that many heavy marijuana users are self medicating for their deteriorating mental conditions.

I'd be interested and seeing a study relating to this restricted to people who started using marijuana in post-adolescence. (Most psychosis emerges in late adolescence/early adulthood.) If it was causing psychosis in adulthood I'd lend it more credence.

I always take these "will cause psychosis" statements with a grain of salt. If the underlying condition is there,a bad relationship or death in the family will cause psychosis in people predisposed for them,practically any stress related event will.

There is a traditional belief in the Middle East that heavy regular use of hashish will eventually make you crazy. A lot of weed these days has the potency of the hashish of the past.

[peggygee]

"Dope" suppresses the production of male sex hormone,
shrinks the testes, and inhibits sperm production.

Lungs. Marijuana smoke contains about 50 percent more carcinogenic
hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke.

Heart. Dope smoking places extra stress on the heart, the panel said.



I believe this to be untrue. particularly regarding the supression of male sex hormones. if this was so then every TS in the fucking world would be caning it non stop, REGARDLESS OF ANY UNWANTED SIDE EFFECTS. am i wrong?

Without a doubt, smoking weed GIVES ME THE HORN! .........



In my opinion, marijuana usage in moderate amounts is less harmful
than tobacco, and will have far less health issues than comparable chronic
alcohol use.

To support my statements in the previous post, I utilized a variety of
sources, including my many years of substance use and abuse. I have
further supported this with numerous research studies and have included
my cites.

I have provided some empirical studies, however for the stoners and the
laypeople reading this I have cited Cecil Adams of
The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_225.html)

He's easy and fun to read, but he does reference a number of relevant
studies.

Enjoy. :wink:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/stoners.gif

What are the long term health effects of marijuana?

Dear Cecil:

It's time us smokers, tokers, and dopers heard the Straight Dope on ... you guessed it ... dope! As you know, apathy and lack of ambition are alleged to be the fate of all consumers of the evil weed. However, though I have been smoking for years, I have no lack of ambition, and in fact could be considered quite successful. I know many other marijuana smokers about whom one could say the same thing. What's the scoop? And what are the other long-term effects of marijuana usage, i.e., what are we doing to our lungs, brains, blood, and what have you? --N. R., Phoenix

Cecil replies:

(Column updated 1997)

Well, we've now established that marijuana won't prevent you from becoming president, provided you don't inhale. As for other effects, a major review, Marijuana and Health, was issued in 1982 by a panel of scientists working for the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research has done little to alter their conclusions. Here's what they said:

The "amotivational syndrome" (i.e., apathy). Sure enough, dopers tend to be apathetic. But it's never been proven that marijuana causes apathy. In fact, the panel found, it may well be the other way around--maybe apathy causes you to use marijuana. On a related subject, the panel noted that atrophy in the brains of 10 heavy marijuana users had been reported some years ago by a British researcher. Another scientist at Tulane said he found "dramatic" changes in the brains of monkeys subjected to carloads of cannabis. But both studies were sharply criticized for methodological deficiencies. Other scientists have found no brain damage. This led the NAS panel to conclude, predictably, that "much more work is needed." A 1995 review of marijuana's effect on the brain said pretty much the same thing and as far as I can tell the question remains unsettled today. As for "reefer madness," there is little evidence that marijuana per se causes psychosis, but it may trigger psychotic episodes in people who have mental problems to start with.


Lungs. Marijuana smoke contains about 50 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke. Tests with lab animals and whatnot indicate that marijuana-induced lung cancer is a real possibility. (They also indicate that smoking both marijuana and tobacco is worse than smoking just one or the other.) Still, as of 1982, there had never been a case of lung cancer attributable solely to dope smoking--possibly, according to the panel, "because marijuana has been widely smoked in this country for only about 20 years, and data have not been collected systematically in other countries with a much longer history" of heavy dope use. A somewhat alarmist 1992 report from Australia claimed that marijuana had been implicated in cases of mouth, jaw, tongue, and lung cancer. I'm skeptical of claims that marijuana was the sole cause of these cancers, however. Even if one assumes the worst, marijuana as a carcinogen pales in comparison to tobacco. Be that as it may, heavy dope users are prone to respiratory problems such as pharyngitis, sinusitis, bronchitis, and asthma.


Heart. Dope smoking places extra stress on the heart, the panel said. This is probably harmless to healthy people, but if you have high blood pressure or hardening of the arteries, or if you're prone to strokes, you should lay off.


Reproductive system. Dope suppresses the production of male sex hormone, shrinks the testes, and inhibits sperm production. Fortunately, the effects don't seem to be permanent. Animal studies indicate that marijuana also inhibits ovulation in females. Dope does not cause chromosome damage. As of 1982 there was no hard evidence that it caused birth defects or low birth weight and from what I can see there still isn't.

Finally, there's no question that smoking does make you, well, stoned--i.e., it's harder to concentrate, your coordination deteriorates, and so on. If you smoke during lunch hour your job performance will suffer. In addition, the panel says, your abilities remain impaired for four to eight hours after the feeling of being stoned passes--much longer than with alcohol. So don't smoke if you're going to drive or do any sort of complex task later in the day.

There are still a few people who think marijuana is a major health threat. But the more common view is that, while marijuana doesn't exactly qualify as health food, on the whole it causes fewer problems than its two main competitors on the recreational drug scene, alcohol and tobacco. Granted, that's like saying it causes fewer problems than nuclear war. But you do have to ask why marijuana is illegal and alcohol and tobacco aren't.

--CECIL ADAMS

Additional sources:

Persistent neurocognitive deficits after marijuana use
Neurology 2002;59:1295-1297
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/59/9/1295

Biomedical aspects of cannabis usage
United Nations Office Of Crime And Drugs
Details
Author: Gabriel NAHAS
Pages: 13 to 27
Creation Date: 1977/01/01
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/bulletin/bulletin_1977-01-01_2_page004.html

CHRONIC EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA ON MEMORY
http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_956.html


Marijuana influenced changes in GSR activation peaking during paired-associate learning.Cohen MJ, Rickles WH, Naliboff BD.
National Institute Of Health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1096172&dopt=AbstractPlus

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARIJUANA AND ALCOHOL USE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
FRANCISCO R. LARRIEU
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/495.asp

[peggygee]

It may be that many heavy marijuana users are self medicating for their deteriorating mental conditions.

I'd be interested and seeing a study relating to this restricted to people who started using marijuana in post-adolescence. (Most psychosis emerges in late adolescence/early adulthood.) If it was causing psychosis in adulthood I'd lend it more credence.

I always take these "will cause psychosis" statements with a grain of salt. If the underlying condition is there,a bad relationship or death in the family will cause psychosis in people predisposed for them,practically any stress related event will.

There is a traditional belief in the Middle East that heavy regular use of hashish will eventually make you crazy. A lot of weed these days has the potency of the hashish of the past.

I tend to agree that many people do utilize illicit drugs to self medicate
underlying mental health conditions such as: bi-polar disorder, chronic
depression, etc.

We often most wonder, which has come first, the chicken or the egg.

The psychosis or the addiction, or vice-versa.

[RiffRaff]

Just to let you all know what is happening here in the UK. The current government was moving toward the de-classification of cannabis to the extent that possession/use would no longer be an arrestable offence (our prisons are full). The problem was that just as this was gathering pace in westminster someone tipped them off about the latest generation of plants whose active ingredient (THC) was literally many thousands of time stronger than the dope they smoked in college. This so called 'super skunk' can fell an elephant with a single grain (trust me) and comes with chipper names like 'psychotic cheese' and its what the kids want. And suprise suprise the more powerfull the drug the more significant the detrimental effects, whoops. Now the government, understandably, got cold feet and decided to U turn, but how? In exactly the same way it has always done, to spin a report to back its current position, so there you have it. Two lessons (1) skunk = brain death (2) English Intel is a little off nowadays, yellow cake anyone?

[Rogers]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I'm probably going to get it in the neck here, but what the hell. The scientific and medical concensus on the use of cannabis (and skunk is even worse) is that it brings out, or exaggerates, flaws in an individual's character. Schizophrenics have the flaw in their brain from the day they are born, and the use of cannabis makes it far more likely for them to become ill. A person won't know if they are at risk until it's too late. In essence, it's like playing Russian roulette.

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance. Of course, at the end of the day, a person will always be able to obtain it. It is however for the state to pick up the damage when that person loses it and goes and kills or injures themselves or other people.

[LG]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance.

Hmm...I'm not getting that at all...

I'm actually saying the reverse: The government should only control a person's activities in order to prevent harm to others, as long as the person who is doing the activity is informed enough to make an educated decision (this, as you've pointed out is the complicated bit, and here we end up dealing with risks and chances). When you get in your car there's always a chance that something will happen and you'll get hurt (just as there's always a chance that marijuana might affect you differently to others) but you weigh the odds and take your chances. But when you get in your car drunk you put other people at risk. Therefore the latter should be illegal.

If you smoke tobacco in your home there's always a chance of ending up with cancer. Some people are more at risk than others and they may not even know they are at risk, but they weigh the odds and make their choice. But if you make others breathe your smoke then you put these other people at risk. Therefore you should not be allowed to smoke in public places or in a car with other people present unless you ask for permission, at least.

Alcohol affects different people in different ways. Some are more prone to alcoholism, others might become more aggressive. In some people coffee can produce heart palpitations. Even seemingly harmless things can be lethal to some people. Should we ban nuts because some people might not know they are allergic to them?

There are risks and uncertainties. You can't legislate for those. But you can make people aware of them and then they can make their choice. To me, it seems pretty simple.

Cannabis will not make you harm others. It can make you drowsy and you shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence. But in the privacy of your home or with like-minded friends? Why not?

That's how I'm reading it.

[Rod la Rod]

I believe there is indeed some truth to this, but I certainly wouldn't accept any findings that come out of the UK. We're so safety concious, conformist, and wrapped in cotton wool, that in real terms many studies are skewed based on opinion rather than fact.

When at university I lived with someone who smoked 24x7 and had done for about 15-years previously. He was SCARY. Well, deep down he was a nice yet very troubled and emotional soul. At one point he tried to strangle me with his bare hands around my throat. My mental state at the time just led me to look at him and say "Go on then, do it." I really was that low, and that was around about the time in my life where I was just going to kill myself. The TS-bug within me was what saved me, as I had to explore it before claiming end-game. Anyway...

I think what happens to these people is this.

Cannabis alters your perception somewhat and makes you more sensitive.

All of us, you me, and everyone, are shaped in life by our experiences. They are what makes us who we are. Now if you're taking drugs then what happens is that those experiences are skewed. In other words, they're recorded in our minds abnormally to what is normal. They're still experiences yes, but they're altered by the drug.

Now, merely stopping drugs doesn't change the experiences we have had. So therefore, there's one answer!!

These people aren't strictly mad, just that their memories and experiences in their lives are abnormal. And from the viewpoint of one of these perfect researchers, who has lived a life in cotton wool and has never farted on an aeroplane for amusement, excessive users of cannabis are not normal.

Psychiatry is the modern benchmark of who's ill and who isn't, when in reality, that benchmark is constantly changing. There's a fine line and the majority are just a little bit either side of that line, think of your Mum who goes a bit crazy from time to time.. You see my point. No one is actually sane in the grand reality of things.

That line is constantly changing. You could pluck Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln out from the ages and stick them in today's world and they wouldn't fit in. Equally so, if any of us appeared in the 1800's, we wouldn't fit in either. We would be different. We would possibly be seen as non conformist. We would be seen as mad.

So. We've established so far here that nobody is sane, and all that we're made up of is our experiences.

Are cannabis users mad? In their world the answer is no. In our world the answer is yes. It isn't a chemical inbalance or a psychotic illness, it is merely that their heightened experiences have shaped them this way.

Of course there are going to be those that are screaming lunartics, and that applies to any social group. That's just the way it is.

Would I recommend cannabis? No. I don't like the stuff personally. I like being in control and having my experiences shaped by naturally occuring experiences and social interactions. Mind you, I don't agree with anti-depressants either. Anti-depressants are the cannabis mind altering perception drugs for the normal conformist citizen who likes to tell themselves that they're not on drugs.

When we get upset, why we cry, when we feel left out, we have to deal with it and learn. Not to hide it up somewhere. That is society's problem today. Looking for someone else to blame, and for a quick solution. Life's pains are healthy.

Sometimes there is nobody to blame. Sometimes we have to just accept our feelings and to get on with life. That is just the way it is. This study, like many others, is just another to give somebody something to do.

Please let the government and Jesus stay out of my consciousness
and sexual preference.

I don't need the least common denominator limiting my life and criminalizing my preferences.

Sorry you had an unpleasant experience with a self medicating pothead at University. This has little to do with me or my life. I feel I am the most
qualified to make decisions with regard to my own health and well being.

I don't need a gang of underachieving, ignorant, superstitious morons telling me what I can put in my body, who I can have sex with.

[chefmike]

This is such a fucking joke, I have known so many cops who chuckle about stoners and couldn't care less about what they do...they will tell you that dealing with drunks and the mayhem and deaths that they cause is the real problem if you're comparing the two indulgences.

[RiffRaff]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. My sense is to care for the former rather than the later, to keep something illegal just makes it more fun imho.

[Rogers]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance.
Cannabis will not make you harm others. It can make you drowsy and you shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence. But in the privacy of your home or with like-minded friends? Why not?
There are two steps in my argument that cannabis should continue to be banned to fit in with your John Stuart Mill quote, LG.

The first step is that cannabis use increases the rate of schizophrenia and psychosis:
Cannabis use linked to 40% rise in risk of schizophrenia
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2135991,00.html

The second step is that patients with schizophrenia pose a significant risk of violence, especially when they don't take their medication:
NEW STUDY LINKS VIOLENCE AND SCHIZOPHRENIA
CATIE data show 19.1% of patients violent in six-month period
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/PressRoom/rls-CATIEstudy.htm

So: cannabis use triggers schizophrenia in susceptible individuals ---> schizophrenics pose a significant risk of violence towards others ---> others get harmed because of cannabis use.

It's essentially the same reasoning behind drunks not being allowed to drive, or smokers not being allowed to smoke in public places, which you support according to John Stuart Mills, LG.

John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

[peggygee]

At the risk of sounding as if I am contradicting myself, I woud say that I
would vote for the legalization of marijuna, however it still would need
to be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco.

It should not be sold to minors, and people should not be allowed to use
it while engaging in hazardous activities.

I do not see it as a gateway drug, one that will lead to abuse of harder
substances.

On it's side effects, such as it's respiratory concerns, perhaps people can
imbibe it in tea form or brownies. Lowered sperm count - oh well. :?
Cognitive processing, don't take when you are engaged in those types
of activities.

On the issue of psychosis, for me the jury is out as to whether moderate
use will have a deleterious effect. Further, as I stated in a previous post
and as a number of studies have pointed out, there isn't a certainty that
there hadn't previously existed an underlying psychosis.

Bottom line in moderation, marijuana usage in moderate amounts should
be safe for most individuals, in my opinion.

[Rod la Rod]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance.
Cannabis will not make you harm others. It can make you drowsy and you shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence. But in the privacy of your home or with like-minded friends? Why not?
There are two steps in my argument that cannabis should continue to be banned to fit in with your John Stuart Mill quote, LG.

The first step is that cannabis use increases the rate of schizophrenia and psychosis:
Cannabis use linked to 40% rise in risk of schizophrenia
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2135991,00.html

The second step is that patients with schizophrenia pose a significant risk of violence, especially when they don't take their medication:
NEW STUDY LINKS VIOLENCE AND SCHIZOPHRENIA
CATIE data show 19.1% of patients violent in six-month period
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/PressRoom/rls-CATIEstudy.htm

So: cannabis use triggers schizophrenia in susceptible individuals ---> schizophrenics pose a significant risk of violence towards others ---> others get harmed because of cannabis use.

It's essentially the same reasoning behind drunks not being allowed to drive, or smokers not being allowed to smoke in public places, which you support according to John Stuart Mills, LG.

John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

While it is true that Marijuana causes mental illness?????? Huh???

Everyone knows that
MASTURBATION is the major cause of schizophrenia.

It has been known for centuries that not only does JACKING OFF cause madness and homosexuality It is also well known that it causes blindness,
HAIR GROWTH IN THE PALMS OF THE HANDS, and in some rare cases an erotic interest in blokes who dress up like ladies.

WHAT FUCKING CENTURY ARE YOU LIVING IN? I thought England was more enlightened than the USA.

If you personally don't care for marijuana that is great. Congratulations.

Please don't post such utter ignorant nonsense. It is stressful for me and may cause me to smoke more pot. This could cause me to spiral into a homicidal Cannabis driven rage.

I fear for the safety of my family and neighbors.

BTW THE MORE POTENT THE WEED, THE LESS YOU SMOKE. IT IS THEREFORE LESS DAMAGING TO THE LUNGS.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE ACTUAL EFFECT OR BLOOD CONCENTRATION OF THC.

:banghead :screwy

[freak]

I think I am going to conduct my own study, I will smoke as much MJ as I can for the next 30 years then I will quit for the next 30 and I will publish my study online when completed.
Anyone want to donate?

[Rogers]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance.
Cannabis will not make you harm others. It can make you drowsy and you shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence. But in the privacy of your home or with like-minded friends? Why not?
There are two steps in my argument that cannabis should continue to be banned to fit in with your John Stuart Mill quote, LG.

The first step is that cannabis use increases the rate of schizophrenia and psychosis:
Cannabis use linked to 40% rise in risk of schizophrenia
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2135991,00.html

The second step is that patients with schizophrenia pose a significant risk of violence, especially when they don't take their medication:
NEW STUDY LINKS VIOLENCE AND SCHIZOPHRENIA
CATIE data show 19.1% of patients violent in six-month period
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/PressRoom/rls-CATIEstudy.htm

So: cannabis use triggers schizophrenia in susceptible individuals ---> schizophrenics pose a significant risk of violence towards others ---> others get harmed because of cannabis use.

It's essentially the same reasoning behind drunks not being allowed to drive, or smokers not being allowed to smoke in public places, which you support according to John Stuart Mills, LG.

John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

While it is true that Marijuana causes mental illness?????? Huh???

Everyone knows that
MASTURBATION is the major cause of schizophrenia.

It has been known for centuries that not only does JACKING OFF cause madness and homosexuality It is also well known that it causes blindness,
homosexuality, HAIR GROWTH IN THE PALMS OF THE HANDS, and in some rare cases an erotic interest in blokes who dress up like ladies.

WHAT FUCKING CENTURY ARE YOU LIVING IN? I thought England was more enlightened than the USA.

If you personally don't care for marijuana that is great. Congratulations.

Please don't post such utter ignorant nonsense.
I have posted links to scientific articles, Rod, you on the other hand have just given your opinion. It never fails to amaze me the amount of people who continually knock science, but benefit immensely from it. For example, we would not be communicating online now without the implementation of a whole lot of science. You can't just cherry-pick the science you like, and the science you don't, Rod. Weed might not damage you or your friends and family, others however aren't so lucky. No illness lowers the social standing of a person more than schizophrenia. It is not something to be taken lightly. On a side-note, Rod, you do seem to be rather angry/tetchy. Why is that?

[Rod la Rod]

Just legalise it already.

Agreed. Given that there is proper awareness and education regarding the risks of marijuana, I'll go with John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So going by John Stuart Mill, LG, cannabis should remain an illegal substance.
Cannabis will not make you harm others. It can make you drowsy and you shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate machinery under its influence. But in the privacy of your home or with like-minded friends? Why not?
There are two steps in my argument that cannabis should continue to be banned to fit in with your John Stuart Mill quote, LG.

The first step is that cannabis use increases the rate of schizophrenia and psychosis:
Cannabis use linked to 40% rise in risk of schizophrenia
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2135991,00.html

The second step is that patients with schizophrenia pose a significant risk of violence, especially when they don't take their medication:
NEW STUDY LINKS VIOLENCE AND SCHIZOPHRENIA
CATIE data show 19.1% of patients violent in six-month period
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/PressRoom/rls-CATIEstudy.htm

So: cannabis use triggers schizophrenia in susceptible individuals ---> schizophrenics pose a significant risk of violence towards others ---> others get harmed because of cannabis use.

It's essentially the same reasoning behind drunks not being allowed to drive, or smokers not being allowed to smoke in public places, which you support according to John Stuart Mills, LG.

John Stuart Mill, who wrote that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

While it is true that Marijuana causes mental illness?????? Huh???

Everyone knows that
MASTURBATION is the major cause of schizophrenia.

It has been known for centuries that not only does JACKING OFF cause madness and homosexuality It is also well known that it causes blindness,
homosexuality, HAIR GROWTH IN THE PALMS OF THE HANDS, and in some rare cases an erotic interest in blokes who dress up like ladies.

WHAT FUCKING CENTURY ARE YOU LIVING IN? I thought England was more enlightened than the USA.

If you personally don't care for marijuana that is great. Congratulations.

Please don't post such utter ignorant nonsense.
I have posted links to scientific articles, Rod, you on the other hand have just given your opinion. It never fails to amaze me the amount of people who continually knock science, but benefit immensely from it. For example, we would not be communicating online now without the implementation of a whole lot of science. You can't just cherry-pick the science you like, and the science you don't, Rod. Weed might not damage you or your friends and family, others however aren't so lucky. No illness lowers the social standing of a person more than schizophrenia. It is not something to be taken lightly. On a side-note, Rod, you do seem to be rather angry/tetchy. Why is that?

I am a trained scientist, BS in Chem.

Please let me know your scientific credentials.

[TsVanessa69]

who cares
weeed keeps me sane in this fucked up world!

[Rod la Rod]

"I have posted links to scientific articles, Rod, you on the other hand have just given your opinion. It never fails to amaze me the amount of people who continually knock science, but benefit immensely from it. For example, we would not be communicating online now without the implementation of a whole lot of science. You can't just cherry-pick the science you like, and the science you don't, Rod. Weed might not damage you or your friends and family, others however aren't so lucky. No illness lowers the social standing of a person more than schizophrenia. It is not something to be taken lightly. On a side-note, Rod, you do seem to be rather angry/tetchy. Why is that?"

These "scientific" articles which you don't understand and are not qualified to evaluate.

[TsVanessa69]

who cares, weed is good

[chefmike]

who cares
weeed keeps me sane in this fucked up world!

Now that's my kind of gal...she's hot and she also knows how to get mellow...and anyone who has ever toked knows that ganja makes for some very sensual, very good sex...that's why I love college towns....

[LG]

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

Perhaps, you have a point (I haven't read the Lancet's report yet, although the science seems a little fuzzy especially when it comes to "cause and effect"- Interestingly, the recipients of the violence most often exhibited by people with schizophrenia are they patients themselves).

But by the same logic, alcohol should also be banned.

In addition, one must not forget that legalising cannabis will also bring have some positive effects. It will bring an end to the underground culture. Going from pot to another drug is not a natural progression, but at the moment dealers are often trying to push harder drugs to kids who have tried cannabis. If everybody is allowed to make it at home, this will no longer be an issue. And it could save a load of money spent on the faltering war against drugs.

Legalizing it can keep kids off the streets. It will also mean that medical marijuana will be widely available. Marijuana can help alleviate chronic pain, after all.

And hemp can be used to make a bunch of useful things, too.

But what you're making is an argument as to why it should be banned not as to why it actually is banned and will continue to be so. The reason why cannabis will continue to be illegal has nothing to do with science, psychiatry or risk assessment. It has everything to do with politics. You and I both know that.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marijuana_Tax_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Reefer-Madness-Drugs-American-Market/dp/0618334661
The propaganda film "Reefer Madness" can be accessed on Google videos and is apparently hilarious:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236


Finally, more from John Stuart Mill (from Utilitarianism) to answer your point:
"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness".
(Note that by "happiness" doesn't neccessarily mean "pleasure" but also means the absence of unhappiness- including disease, etc- and, I think, is most likely based on the Greek concept of "eudaimonia" which mean "good spirits" or on "eutychia" which means "good fortune").

Mill isn't saying that anything that can harm others should be banned. He's calling for reason in trying to determine what is good for society as a whole.


Finally, if your girlfriend is allergic to peanuts and you have a Snickers and then kiss her you can give her a nasty rash and difficult breathing. This does not mean that either kissing should be banned or that chocolates with peanuts inside should be banned.

A silly point, admittedly, and not all that relevant. I just felt like sharing it. :D


Anyway, I'll let you get back to arguing with Rod. :D


And, to Peggygee: I agree with you. (we've got to stop agreeing this way :wink: )

[Rogers]

I am a trained scientist, BS in Chem.

Please let me know your scientific credentials.
What does that have to do with anything, Rod? I'm still waiting for papers to back up your position that weed doesn't harm people.

Look, Rod, all I'm saying is that the scientific evidence strongly points to weed being an extremely dangerous substance to certain people. That is part of the reason why it will most likely never be fully legalized in the U.S. or the U.K.. I personally don't care if people use it, and you shouldn't get so worked up about it with me. Save your energy for convincing your politicians, as I have no power other than a single vote.

[LG]

I am a trained scientist, BS in Chem.

Please let me know your scientific credentials.
I have a BSc.(Hons.), MSc., and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology and Oceanography with Mathematical Modeling.

Hoo-wah! If we get together and get Trish in on it we can even campaign for our own little Science Forum here on HA. Nobody else would want to read it though....

Sorry for the threadjack, guys. :oops: Please continue...

[peggygee]

The propaganda film "Reefer Madness" can be accessed on Google videos and is apparently hilarious:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236


And, to Peggygee: I agree with you. (we've got to stop agreeing this way :wink: )

Always a pleasure exchanging bytes with you too. :wink:

And thanks for the link to Reefer Madness, I could use a good laugh,
and that movie is off the chain

[Rod la Rod]

I am a trained scientist, BS in Chem.

Please let me know your scientific credentials.
I have a BSc.(Hons.), MSc., and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology and Oceanography with Mathematical Modeling. What does that have to do with anything, Rod? I'm still waiting for papers to back up your position that weed doesn't harm people.

Look, Rod, all I'm saying is that the scientific evidence strongly points to weed being an extremely dangerous substance to certain people. That is part of the reason why it will most likely never be fully legalized in the U.S. or the U.K.. I personally don't care if people use it, and you shouldn't get so worked up about it with me. Save your energy for convincing your politicians, as I have no power other than a single vote.

Ok this is my final post on this thread;

"extremely dangerous substance" compared to what? Mashed potatoes?

My opinion is that it is in fact much less dangerous than alcohol. Little more dangerous than tobacco or caffeine.

I think the idea that it CAUSES mental illness is laughable.

Although I think that it is true that people who are mentally ill find it useful for self medication along with alcohol, opiates, amphetamines and other illicit drugs. I believe that among the illegal and legally abused substances Marijuana is among the least harmful.

[Kriss]

the latest generation of plants whose active ingredient (THC) was literally many thousands of time stronger than the dope they smoked in college.

COMPLETE BULLSHIT.


This so called 'super skunk' can fell an elephant with a single grain (trust me)

DO NOT TRUST HIM. PRICK.


cannabis (and skunk is even worse) is that it brings out, or exaggerates, flaws in an individual's character. Schizophrenics have the flaw in their brain from the day they are born, and the use of cannabis makes it far more likely

so HIPPIES ARE BORN EVIL?

[Rogers]

And just so you know, LG, I'm not jerking your chain here, just making an argument as to why cannabis will most likely continue to be banned. :wink:

Perhaps, you have a point (I haven't read the Lancet's report yet, although the science seems a little fuzzy especially when it comes to "cause and effect"- Interestingly, the recipients of the violence most often exhibited by people with schizophrenia are they patients themselves).
Cause and effect is often a "little fuzzy" in science, LG, just like in the area of climate change. :lol: I could be wrong, but from what I've heard I definitely disagree with you on your latter point. I'd definitely be interested in finding out more though.


But by the same logic, alcohol should also be banned.
The difference is that weed is banned and alcohol isn't. You are arguing for a change in the status quo, whilst I am not.


In addition, one must not forget that legalising cannabis will also bring have some positive effects. It will bring an end to the underground culture. Going from pot to another drug is not a natural progression, but at the moment dealers are often trying to push harder drugs to kids who have tried cannabis. If everybody is allowed to make it at home, this will no longer be an issue. And it could save a load of money spent on the faltering war against drugs.

Legalizing it can keep kids off the streets. It will also mean that medical marijuana will be widely available. Marijuana can help alleviate chronic pain, after all.

And hemp can be used to make a bunch of useful things, too.
Those are not arguments against the potentially devastating health impacts of weed. The pain releaving chemicals in weed will be isolated sooner or later, if they haven't been already.


But what you're making is an argument as to why it should be banned not as to why it actually is banned and will continue to be so. The reason why cannabis will continue to be illegal has nothing to do with science, psychiatry or risk assessment. It has everything to do with politics. You and I both know that.
The only argument I'm making here is for the continuation of its ban under health grounds, nothing more. And the science is now starting to give further weight to the arguments of the politicians.


Finally, more from John Stuart Mill (from Utilitarianism) to answer your point:
"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness".
(Note that by "happiness" doesn't neccessarily mean "pleasure" but also means the absence of unhappiness- including disease, etc- and, I think, is most likely based on the Greek concept of "eudaimonia" which mean "good spirits" or on "eutychia" which means "good fortune").

Mill isn't saying that anything that can harm others should be banned. He's calling for reason in trying to determine what is good for society as a whole.
You are clearly an expert on John Stuart Mills, LG. I'd never heard of him before.

[Kriss]

Link to EXCELLENT film that chronicles the criminalisation of weed in the US and then THE WORLD. NARRATED BY WOODY HARRELSON

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5472332679367311144&q=grass&total=25470&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Rogers]

Ok this is my final post on this thread;

"extremely dangerous substance" compared to what? Mashed potatoes?

My opinion is that it is in fact much less dangerous than alcohol. Little more dangerous than tobacco or caffeine.

I think the idea that it CAUSES mental illness is laughable.

Although I think that it is true that people who are mentally ill find it useful for self medication along with alcohol, opiates, amphetamines and other illicit drugs. I believe that among the illegal and legally abused substances Marijuana is among the least harmful.
The scientific evidence points to weed being an "extremely dangerous substance" to certain people. Schizophrenia is a flaw that people are born with. Drug use makes it far more likely for it to show. You're probably right that it is far less dangerous to most people than alcohol, Rod, but to certain individuals it can be devastating. And all the evidence points to it worsening mental health problems, not reducing them. Getting out of your head for a few hours doesn't cure mental health problems, it only lets you forget about them for a while. The problem that advocates of legalized drug use face is that the staus quo is a hard thing to change, and the case against changing it has stengthened.

[Rogers]

cannabis (and skunk is even worse) is that it brings out, or exaggerates, flaws in an individual's character. Schizophrenics have the flaw in their brain from the day they are born, and the use of cannabis makes it far more likely

so HIPPIES ARE BORN EVIL?
Definitely not, Kriss, I'm a bit of a hippy myself. :wink:

[LG]

You are clearly an expert on John Stuart Mills, LG. I'd never heard of him before.

Not an expert, no, but his works have influenced the way I see things in my own life.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/m#a1705
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/mill/ten/contents.html
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_mill.html

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) profoundly influenced the shape of nineteenth century British thought and political discourse. His substantial corpus of works includes texts in logic, epistemology, economics, social and political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, religion, and current affairs. Among his most well-known and significant are A System of Logic, Principles of Political Economy, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, The Subjection of Women, Three Essays on Religion, and his Autobiography.

Mill’s education at the hands of his imposing father, James Mill, fostered both intellectual development (Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight) and a propensity towards reform. James Mill and Jeremy Bentham led the “Philosophic Radicals,” who advocated for rationalization of the law and legal institutions, universal male suffrage, the use of economic theory in political decision-making, and a politics oriented by human happiness rather than natural rights or conservatism. In his twenties, the younger Mill felt the influence of historicism, French social thought, and Romanticism, in the form of thinkers like Coleridge, the St. Simonians, Thomas Carlyle, Goethe, and Wordsworth. This led him to begin searching for a new philosophic radicalism that would be more sensitive to the limits on reform imposed by culture and history and would emphasize the cultivation of our humanity, including the cultivation of dispositions of feeling and imagination (something he thought had been lacking in his own education).

None of Mill’s major writings remain independent of his moral, political, and social agenda. Even the most abstract works, such as the System of Logic and his Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, serve polemical purposes in the fight against the German, or a priori, school otherwise called “intuitionism.” On Mill’s view, intuitionism needed to be defeated in the realms of logic, mathematics, and philosophy of mind if its pernicious effects in social and political discourse were to be mitigated.

In his writings, Mill argues for a number of controversial principles. He defends radical empiricism in logic and mathematics, suggesting that basic principles of logic and mathematics are generalizations from experience rather than known a priori. The principle of utility—that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”—was the centerpiece of his ethical philosophy. On Liberty puts forward the “harm principle” that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” In The Subjection of Women, he compares the legal status of women to the status of slaves and argues for equality in marriage and under the law.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l206/stevelvis/JohnStuartMillConservativesStupid.jpg

And apologies, once again, for the threadjack. :D

[Tanuki]

Cannabis can cure cancer..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8IqPscdy4&mode=related&search=

[chefmike]

Reefer Inanity: Never Trust the Media on Pot
Maia Szalavitz

Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana.

Since marijuana use rates have skyrocketed since the 1940's and 50's, going from single digit percentages of the population trying it to a peak of some 60% of high school seniors trying it in 1979 (stabilizing thereafter at roughly 50% of each high school class), we would expect to see this trend have some visible effect on the prevalence of schizophrenia and other psychoses.

When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell. This is not the case with marijuana and psychotic disorders; if it were, we'd be seeing an epidemic of psychosis.

But readers of the AP, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters were not presented with this information. While CBS/WebMD mentioned the absence of a surge in schizophrenia, it did so by quoting an advocate of marijuana policy reform, rather than citing a study or quoting a doctor. This slants the story by pitting an advocate with an agenda against a presumably neutral medical authority.

Furthermore, very little of the coverage put the risk in context. A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists, however, a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don't find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won't publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that's hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!

By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women. Although this study was not a meta-analysis (which looks at multiple studies, as the marijuana research did), it certainly is worth citing to help readers get a sense of the magnitude of the risk in comparison with other drugs linked to psychosis.

Of course, if journalists wanted to do that, they would also cite researchers who disagree with the notion that marijuana poses a large risk of inducing psychosis at all, such as Oxford's Leslie Iversen, author of one of the key texts on psychopharmacology, who told the Times of London that

"Despite a thorough review the authors admit that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Their prediction that 14 per cent of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

Such comments don't help the media stir up reefer madness, which they've been doing, quite successfully, for the last few decades. Perhaps covering the marijuana beat makes you crazy.

[Cross-posted at stats.org]

article and links-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html

[Rogers]

Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case ---
Thanks for the new link, chefmike. The author is right about journalists being bad at reporting science. However, she appears to be as guilty as the rest of her industry.

Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence
If cannabis use can cause psychosis, how can we explain that, despite steadily increasing rates of cannabis use over past decades, the incidence of schizophrenia in the population has remained stable? First, with a population-attributable fraction of 8% the causal influence of cannabis use on the incidence of schizophrenia is probably not easily visible in the general population. Second, the Dunedin study showed that cannabis use in early adolescence (first reported use at age 15 years) was associated with the strongest effects on schizophrenia outcomes. Trends of cannabis use among adolescents in the USA indicate that cannabis use under the age of 16 years is a fairly new phenomenon that has appeared only since the early 1990s (Johnston et al, 2002). One would therefore predict an increase in rates of schizophrenia in the general population over the next 10 years. Indeed, there is already some evidence that the incidence of schizophrenia is currently increasing in some areas of London, especially among young people (Boydell et al, 2003).
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/2/110

Incidence of schizophrenia in south-east London between 1965 and 1997
Results There was a continuous and statistically significant increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, which was greatest in people under 35 years of age and was not gender-specific.

Conclusions The incidence of schizophrenia has doubled in south-east London over the past three decades.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/182/1/45?ijkey=3199ce9454c3b3ce87240ccea3fe184b91ad950b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[TJT]

[quote=Quote] Trends of cannabis use among adolescents in the USA indicate that cannabis use under the age of 16 years is a fairly new phenomenon that has appeared only since the early 1990s

LOL!!! Are you friggin' kiddin' me?

I came of age in the late 60's early 70's. About half the population from 12-16 was smoking weed then. In the late 70's it was probably more like 75%? Weed was cheap and easy to get. Where's this joker getting his info,Fantasyland?

Where are all those schizophrenics? (Well besides the wacko in the White House? Coke was that ol' boy's drug of choice,though.)

Marijuana use in the States generally starts about the ages of 13-16 and it's always been more widespread than other Western countries. It's been that way since the mid-60's. Why? A)Because it's easy to get. B)Since the early 70's it's been socially acceptable.

Kids today just raid Mom and Dad's stash if they want to try weed.

I think I'll stick the Count Five's "Psychotic Reaction" on and worry about the madness that's sure to engulf me due to all that inhaling from '69 to '93.

[Rogers]

This is going to be this "joker"'s last post on this thread. I leave it for others to continue to post their personal opinions and tales of their own experiences after this (sample size (n) = 1 :lol: ).



Trends of cannabis use among adolescents in the USA indicate that cannabis use under the age of 16 years is a fairly new phenomenon that has appeared only since the early 1990s

LOL!!! Are you friggin' kiddin' me?

I came of age in the late 60's early 70's. About half the population from 12-16 was smoking weed then. In the late 70's it was probably more like 75%? Weed was cheap and easy to get. Where's this joker getting his info,Fantasyland?
That line is from the first paper I cited in my last post, TJT:
Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/2/110
And its source is:
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M. & Bachman, J. G. (2002) Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings 2001 (NIH Publication No. 02-5105). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse.
I suggest you contact the NIH's Institue of Drug Abuse if you disagree, TJT. Of course, any study is only as good as its data set.

Your personal experience (n = 1), TJT, does however fit well with the findings of the second paper I cited in my last post. The U.K. follows the social trends of the U.S. very closely, especially London.
Incidence of schizophrenia in south-east London between 1965 and 1997
Results There was a continuous and statistically significant increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, which was greatest in people under 35 years of age and was not gender-specific.

Conclusions The incidence of schizophrenia has doubled in south-east London over the past three decades.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/182/1/45?ijkey=3199ce9454c3b3ce87240ccea3fe184b91ad950b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


Where are all those schizophrenics? (Well besides the wacko in the White House? Coke was that ol' boy's drug of choice,though.)
Firstly, schizophrenia occurs in roughly 1% of the population. Patients are either in hospital, or being treated in the community. When they are in the community they don't go about saying, "Hello, I have schizophrenia", TJT. As I've already mentioned, no diagnosis reduces the social standing of a person more than schizophrenia. Those with the illness who aren't being treated are either down-and-out or in jail. Secondly, only a small percentage of people are suseptible to developing the illness. Thirdly, I think I'm right in saying that coke is a stimulant, not a psychotropic drug. You're more likely to have a heart attack with coke than trip on it. Bush's problems, apart from him looking like a monkey, is that he is an idiot who suffers from hubris, not schizophrenia (I hope!).

My personal experience of weed (n = 1): I only know one guy who takes weed regularly. He started taking it in his teens, just like you, TJT. In his mid-20's he went manic. He's now in his early 30's and still doesn't have a job thanks to his bipolar disorder. When he has a couple of drinks his grasp on reality is tenuous at best, because the alcohol interferes with the lithium he has to take for the rest of his life.

What I've said from my very first post on this thread, TJT, is that if you are genetically susceptible to mental disorders, you are far more likely to develop them thanks to cannabis. That's what the scientific evidence strongly points to, along with my own personal experience (n = 1). You might not have been affected, TJT, but others have clearly not been so lucky. And knowing what I know, I wouldn't want any of my kids taking it. And just because there is no history of mental illness in the parents, doesn't mean their children aren't susceptible. Sexual reproduction mixes genes, that is its purpose. If a kid takes weed, it is playing Russian Roulette with its health.

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

[TJT]

And I'm saying if you're susceptible to psychosis ANYTHING stressful can set it off,death in the family,job loss,marriage,divorce,etc..... I'm sure one could tweak numbers to prove that a more protein rich diet is the cause of the rise of schizophrenia in the West in the post WWII era. You could probably link depression to long commutes to work if you were so inclined?

In other words,show me the bodies. Jamaica would be overrun with schizophrenics if this were true. So would much of India,Nepal,Mexico,Central and Southern Africa etc.... where cannabis use has been common and widespread for hundreds of years.

The big problem with marijuana is it's illegal and can land you in jail.

[chefmike]

Never underestimate Americans and their pioneer spirit...

Illegal Crops Creep Into the Suburbs
Increased Border Security Forces Growers To Change Locations, Officials Say

BARRINGTON, Ill. -- This town of 10,000 in the northwest Chicago suburbs is home to upscale subdivisions, one of the wealthiest Zip codes in the country, and borders a leafy forest preserve popular with bird-watchers, hikers and runners.

So, to many people, it was a shock when federal and state agents raided the preserve two weeks ago and eradicated 18 fields of about 60,000 marijuana plants, some of them 8 feet tall.

Marijuana crops on public land are old news in Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest. But drug enforcement agents and drug policy analysts say tighter security along the U.S.-Mexico border since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has led to an increase in domestic marijuana cultivation closer to urban areas such as the one at the Crabtree Nature Center.

"Obviously, it saves the drug organizations money when they can grow it here in the U.S., instead of smuggling it across the border," said Joanna Zoltay, spokeswoman for the Chicago field division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "Since 9/11, the border is definitely tighter. There have always been crops grown on public land, but since 9/11, there's been a steady increase."

Lloyd Easterling, acting assistant chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, said 145,438 pounds of marijuana were seized at the border during the fiscal year that ended June 30, up from 138,822 pounds in the previous year.

The deployment of National Guard troops to the border in Operation Jump Start has put pressure on drug smugglers, he said.

"We've added additional manpower, more tactical infrastructure, more technology in the field; we have more people and more things in more places than we've ever had before, so it's definitely a lot harder" to get drugs across, he said.

Zoltay said marijuana crops are discovered in suburban Chicago preserves every year, but the plant count is usually in the hundreds.

In 2006, more than 4.8 million marijuana plants were found on public land, up from 3.9 million in 2005 and 2.9 million in 2004, Zoltay said, noting that plants seized from public land outnumber indoor seizures 10 to 1.

Large operations in suburban areas are still rare, DEA officials said, but the pressure on the border could change that.

"You're not normally going to see drug-growing near urban areas where it will raise flags," said Ramona Sanchez, spokeswoman for the DEA's Phoenix field office. "But drug traffickers will do whatever they can."

The marijuana found in the Crabtree preserve, which is close to several interstates, would have been worth more than $30 million on the street, the DEA estimates. Agents also found a campsite stocked with tables, canned and perishable food, cots, a tent, an irrigation system powered by a generator using pond water, and an underground bunker with logs blocking the entrance.


CONTINUED>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401388.html?hpid=topnews

[chefmike]

Interpreting Hazy Warnings About Pot and Mental Illness
Paul Armentano and Mitch Earleywine

Smoking pot won't make you crazy, but trying to find the truth behind the recent rash of headlines regarding a supposed link between cannabis and mental illness might.

According to the Associated Press and other news sources, a new study in the British medical journal The Lancet reports that smoking cannabis - even occasionally - can increase one's risk of becoming psychotic. It sounds alarming at first, but a closer look at the evidence reveals that there's less here than the headlines imply.

First, there is no new study. The paper published in The Lancet is a meta-analysis -- a summary of seven studies that previously appeared in other journals, including some that were published decades ago. Second, the touted association between cannabis and mental illness is small--about the same size as the link between head injury and psychosis. Finally, despite what some new sources suggest, this association is hardly proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis and psychosis,

So why the sudden fuss?

Part of the answer is political. The recently elected Conservative British government longs to stiffen penalties against marijuana users. One way to justify this move involves convincing the public that The Lancet proved that puffing the weed will make you batty. Of course, that's not what the article says at all.

In fact, investigators actually reported that cannabis use was associated with a slight increase in psychotic outcomes. However, the authors emphasized (even if many in the media did not) that this small association does not reflect a causal relationship. Folks with psychoses use all intoxicants more often than other people do, including alcohol and tobacco.

Cannabis use can correlate with mental illness for many reasons. People often turn to cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of distress. A recent study performed in Germany showed that cannabis offsets certain cognitive declines in schizophrenic patients. Another study shows that psychotic symptoms predict later use of cannabis, suggesting that people might turn to the plant for help rather than become ill after use.

Perhaps the most impressive evidence against the cause-and-effect relationship concerns the unvarying rate of psychoses across different eras and different countries. People are no more likely to be psychotic in Canada or the United States (two nations where large percentages of citizens use cannabis) than they are in Sweden or Japan (where self-reported marijuana use is extremely low). Even after the enormous popularity of cannabis in the 1960s and 1970s, rates of psychotic disorders haven't increased.

Despite this evidence, we'd like to spread the word that cannabis is not for everybody. Teens should avoid the plant. Folks with a predisposition for mental illness should stay away, too. This potential for health risks in a few people, however, does not justify criminal prohibitions for everyone. (We wouldn't pass blanket prohibitions against alcohol simply to protect pregnant women, for example.) The underground market does an extremely poor job of keeping marijuana out of the hands of teens and others who should stay away from it. A regulated market could better educate users to potential risks and prohibit sales to young people.

Consequently, the review in The Lancet suggests that if cannabis really does alter risk for mental illness, we can't leave control of sales to folks who are willing to break the law. Instead, a taxed, regulated, age-restricted market is our best chance to keep any negative consequences of marijuana under control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano-and-mitch-earleywine/interpreting-hazy-warning_b_59543.html

[Jericho]

Part of the answer is political. The recently elected Conservative British government longs to stiffen penalties against marijuana users.

Damn...Did i get stoned and miss a general election? :?

Apart from that, nice job of debunking.