Cannibis

[KingYaba]

This will surely be on everyone's talking points tomorrow on TV, radio, newspaper, blogs etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471106&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%
By FIONA MACRAE and EMILY ANDREWS

There are great risks in smoking cannabis, a new report has revealed
A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.

The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category.

I can already predict the responses. ;)

[leekohler]

This will surely be on everyone's talking points tomorrow on TV, radio, newspaper, blogs etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471106&in_page_id=1770&ct=5



I can already predict the responses. ;)

Actually, no I'm not surprised. I quit smoking that stuff when I was 18. It made me lazy, and I'm a man of action to tell the truth. It just didn't fit into my lifestyle. LSD was quite fun though. Ahh.. the good ol' days. :) However, I don't see it as all that detrimental to society. How many people on pot kill others? Not too many. I say legalize it.

BTW- I haven't done any illegal drug in over 15 years. Man, but the memories are fun. :)

[KingYaba]

I can see some saying this is why we ought not to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. Hence why the "other side" will fire back with things like this is just propaganda cooked up by those right-wingers. Or better yet, one genius will say "If I smoke pot 4 times, like I will totally have schiizzoo man! Cause that's like, over 100% man!" :P

On a serious note. It will all boil down to weighing the odds.

Take pain medication (with certain risks) or use cannabis (with certain risks). Legalize it? Sure why the hell not? ;) My thinking is as long as the pot smoker does not jeopardize my well-being by smoking, then I have no problem.

[leekohler]

I can see some saying this is why we ought not to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. Hence why the "other side" will fire back with things like this is just propaganda cooked up by those right-wingers. Or better yet, one genius will say "If I smoke pot 4 times, like I will totally have schiizzoo man! Cause that's like, over 100% man!" :P

I really don't see the drug thing as right vs left though. Look at the 80's, when right-wingers were hooked on coke. I think drugs have been used by both equally for different reasons.

[KingYaba]

I really don't see the drug thing as right vs left though.
And it shouldn't be. But just watch someone like Bill O'Reilly talk about this in his "talking points memo" and link it to the legalize hemp crowd (predominantly left) and follow the partisan fireworks that ensue.

[leekohler]

And it shouldn't be. But just watch someone like Bill O'Reilly talk about this in his "talking points memo" and link it to the legalize hemp crowd (predominantly left) and follow the partisan fireworks that ensue.

Oh sure. I think the right loves to use it to cater to their base, but no one is fooled at this point. Too many of them have been busted for it. It's almost a non-issue.

[Sun Baked]

I think using this for the legal "drugs for guns" campaign would be a real winner.

[aquajet]

My own experience suggest to me that the risk with skunk is higher.

Ha ha. That made me laugh.

To be fair King, the article seems to imply the risks are typically associated with younger people, which is no surprise really. It's not really wise to muck around with brain chemistry while a person is still developing, something Eli Lilly failed to tell us about Prozac...

I started smoking pot while I was still an adolescent and smoked pretty much every day for seven years. No, it wasn't a good thing for me, nor was the LSD or mushrooms or cocaine. But I still don't think it's something which should be criminalized. There are legitimate medical uses for the drug.

[KingYaba]

But I still don't think it's something which should be criminalized. There are legitimate medical uses for the drug.

I don't think it should be criminalized either! I'm just saying how the media will be talking about this and some commentators will link this to partisan issues. So I'm saying sit back and watch the mud slinging. :)

[leekohler]

I don't think it should be criminalized either! I'm just saying how the media will be talking about this and some commentators will link this to partisan issues. So I'm saying sit back and watch the mud slinging. :)

Really? You might be surprised at how no one says much. People are over it.

[Swarmlord]

Reefer Madness revisited? It was a stupid stereotype then and equally unsubstantiated now.

[obeygiant]

A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.

The voices in my head disagree with this report.

[nbs2]

But I still don't think it's something which should be criminalized. There are legitimate medical uses for the drug.

But, it can be both. Make is a Schedule II drug, and you solve the conumdrum. It's legal for those who need it and under strict control. Regular possessions and recreational use would remain off-limits and those that can benefit from the medicinal uses could do so without worrying about impurities. Of course, those recreational users would get nailed even harder under that regime than they do now...

[Peterkro]

This quote:


But Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.

"Their prediction that 14% 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."

pretty much sums up how much bollocks this is.

[iBlue]

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/megarolleyes2.gif


rubbish.

How do they come up with these figures? There's no way to test this properly really. All you have is an outcome and they can only speculate how it came to that.
Perhaps these people were seeking to escape an illness they didn't know they had yet. Maybe this makes them more likely to be affected, but maybe it has nothing to do with the marijuana at all; maybe they were just mental of their own accord. So when the fit hits the shan later everyone is real quick to blame the poor little spliff. It's exasperating. I just don't believe it.

[Peterkro]

Over my longish lifetime I've come across many people with mental problems who control the symptoms with dope and exactly none who have had problems caused by dope.

[Sdashiki]

Why are agencies, govts, and people trying to make pot out to be something horrible?

Dont they have better things to waste their pseudo-science and statistics on?

Sigh.

Id never listen to any authority who only a few decades ago said Pot Kills, then it was Pot makes you a minority (and you being white you dont want that!), soon it was Pot makes you sterile, then Pot makes you crazy, then Pot makes you lazy, then Pot makes you stupid, then Pot makes you neglect everyone like a heroin junkie.

Moronic. :rolleyes:

goto an MIT campus, see what drugs can REALLY do. seriously.

[iBlue]

Why are agencies, govts, and people trying to make pot out to be something horrible? ...

$$$$$$

and justification for other much more dangerous things that are currently legal.


I bet if we research who really funds these we'll often find a big pharmaceutical companies trying to dope people up with their brand of medicine.

[iSaint]

I never really got a kick out of marijuana. I tried it a handful of times. That's been over twenty years, and I rarely even have a drink nowadays. However, I have a couple of old friends who call me up (they live out of state) and brag about their continued use. We're all in our mid-40s. I don't get it. One of them has a wife and two kids, and is in a position that is (supposedly) highly respectable in his town. He's a priest.

:confused:

I'm torn on the medical use. Any smoke you put in your lungs is damaging.

[Sdashiki]

When this country is so far in the toilet everyone, from the poor all the way to the rich, smell like sewage...

finally, even those brainwashed into thinking pot is basically Nazi lettuce, people will look for new streams of revenue.

legalize pot, tax it (find street price, cut it by even as little as 5%), put it in all the places you can get cigarettes, watch the money roll in, watch the crime rate fall (more if you legalize other drugs).

Me being a somewhat Constitutional Libertarian (i trust the Constitution only), I have a problem with this. If you legalize pot (for the reason that who is the govt to tell me what I can put into my body), you need to legalize everything. Its either all in, or nothing because it would be hypocritical to legalize pot and keep, say, heroin illegal. Thats the same reasoning behind pot being illegal today: "The govt knows whats best for you".

[Peterkro]

A perfect example of what I'm talking about,he has religious mania and is controlling it by his judicious use of dope.:D

(I'm answering iSaints post by the way)

[iBlue]

... One of them has a wife and two kids, and is in a position that is (supposedly) highly respectable in his town. He's a priest.

...
OK, the priest thing is a little startling. However the thing is, people often assume it turns you into a scoundrel. It doesn't. People live normal happy lives and occasionally smoke pot. Some of the most successful, creative and intelligent people I know smoke. It's just not a bother in almost every case I've ever known. I can never understand the huge argument against it.

[obeygiant]

When this country is so far in the toilet everyone, from the poor all the way to the rich, smell like sewage...

finally, even those brainwashed into thinking pot is basically Nazi lettuce, people will look for new streams of revenue.

legalize pot, tax it (find street price, cut it by even as little as 5%), put it in all the places you can get cigarettes, watch the money roll in, watch the crime rate fall (more if you legalize other drugs).

Me being a somewhat Constitutional Libertarian (i trust the Constitution only), I have a problem with this. If you legalize pot (for the reason that who is the govt to tell me what I can put into my body), you need to legalize everything. Its either all in, or nothing because it would be hypocritical to legalize pot and keep, say, heroin illegal. Thats the same reasoning behind pot being illegal today: "The govt knows whats best for you".

Well cigarettes and alcohol are considered drugs aren't they? Those are legal while pot isn't, so is that still hypocritical? I think they could legalize pot for medicinal purposes and still not be hypocrites.

[johnee]

The article states
The Government-commissioned report...

I stopped reading after that.

However I don't think pot should be legalized because it does make many people lethargic. The more widely available it is the more people will use it, making them worthless as time goes on. I've seen this time and again with people that use it generally long term.

[pooky]

Perhaps these people were seeking to escape an illness they didn't know they had yet.

This is a really good point, and it's (unfortunately) a problem with a lot of otherwise reputable scientists. Correlation is not the same as causation, and a lot of these media reports based on scientific studies get this wrong. Of course, we can't really expect the reporter to get it right if the researcher doesn't understand it, either. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of researchers either don't understand this basic concept, or forget about it in the bustle of getting excited about some admittedly interesting results.

That being said, there is something else deceptive in the way this is reported. The study cites that cannabis use by adolescents increases your risk of schizophrenia by 40%. That sounds HUGE - my god, stay away from cannabis, it's got worse odds than Russian roulette! Not quite...

The background rate of schizophrenia is about 0.4 to 0.6% (Bhugra, D. (2005). The global prevalence of schizophrenia. PLoS Medicine, 2 (5), 372–373. PMID 15916460). That means your chance without cannabis of developing schizophrenia is about 1 in 200. Smoke a bunch of pot as a teenager? If this study is correct, your chance is now 1.4 in 200, or about 0.7%. Not so scary/shocking any more, is it?

[dswoodley]

Look at the 80's, when right-wingers were hooked on coke.

Today their drugs of choice are prescription pain killers. There are already studies being done on long term abuse - probably due ut in about ten years, when pills really have become the new pot.

[Swarmlord]

But, it can be both. Make is a Schedule II drug, and you solve the conumdrum. It's legal for those who need it and under strict control. <snip>

Exactly! I don't know how they got away with classifying it as a Schedule I in the first place, but if scientists can't prove it meets the requirements of that category it should be changed immediately.

[Dagless]

I predicted this.

Someone claims drugs are bad = internet folk say lies.

Frankly a total ban on pot would be excellent. It's too late for my brother, but if a proper ban and criminalisation of cannibis is in place then perhaps other people will be saved. The situation is terrible in our town, the police found 2 cannibis farms and the hospitals are treating children as young as 8 for mental problems and cannibis addiction (as a singular problem).

My brother took it, now he's lost the friggin plot. Had to replace the cannibis with medicines to reduce his paranoia and schizophrenia. He just snapped when he started taking it.

I'm also of the mind that alcohol is extremely dangerous and should be banned or at least under strict control - but our society, give up on alcohol? hah!

[steamboat26]

So then an astonishing number of people from my parents generation should have some mental illness :eek:
It's nice to see some research into the effects of cannibis on the mind, but it also seems like this is just a scare tactic for kids. The interesting thing would be how often this happens, because a lot of the health class videos i saw had stupid stories where someone would die after their first drink/cigarette/hit of any drug.
And isn't kind of weird that most of this research is being done by baby boomers, who smoked more weed than any other generation?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>My brother took it, now he's lost the friggin plot. Had to replace the cannibis with medicines to reduce his paranoia and schizophrenia. He just snapped when he started taking it.

<snip>

Too bad about your brother, but do you think it's possible he was schizophrenic BEFORE trying pot?

[nbs2]

So then an astonishing number of people from my parents generation should have some mental illness :eek:
It's nice to see some research into the effects of cannibis on the mind, but it also seems like this is just a scare tactic for kids. The interesting thing would be how often this happens, because a lot of the health class videos i saw had stupid stories where someone would die after their first drink/cigarette/hit of any drug.
And isn't kind of weird that most of this research is being done by baby boomers, who smoked more weed than any other generation?

I don't understand how a generation being known for doing something disqualifies it/them from commenting on it being dangerous. Under than presumption, former gang members aren't qualified to tell kids to stay out of gangs.

The vids may be a bit of a scare tactic, but the death/massive mental problems after the first hit are more likely to slow down the first time user than something about chronic users.

As for this research, I am surprised that what with Prozac and friends being shown to tinker with developing minds way differently than developed that we aren't working more to keep kids in particular off of any psychotic drugs. At least there was some testing with Prozac - with street drugs, there really hasn't been any.

[pooky]

Someone claims drugs are bad = internet folk say lies.

We aren't the only ones thinking this is a bit dodgy...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070726-01395400-bc-switzerland-cannabis.xml

Cannabis/schizophrenia link questioned

ZURICH, Switzerland, July 25 (UPI) -- The Swiss government is questioning the results of a study showing a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia.

The Zurich University study showed a higher incidence of schizophrenia in the 1990s in the age groups most likely to use cannabis, Swissinfo said Wednesday.

"We know from other experimental studies that cannabis can cause psychosis, but we have now established a clear link to schizophrenia for the first time," study co-author Wulf Rossler said.

Swissinfo said the Federal Health Office is questioning the report, saying the patients' drug histories and other medical details remained unknown.

"It does not uncover the medical history of the patients, for instance the consumption of psychotic substances or other factors that could lead to psychotic illnesses," the health office in a statement.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

And why institute an outright ban on a substance that has been shown in numerous well-referenced and defensible studies to have a number of medically advantageous properties with minimal negative side effects? Your only evidence supporting a ban? A questionable study and an anecdote about your brother, which, tragic as it is, proves nothing about cannabis. There are plenty of things we could be banning, this isn't worth the energy.

And I'm not a smoker. Or a brownie baker. Or anything else. I don't use psychoactive drugs, probably never will. But that includes prozac, valium, etc. as well as cannabis.

[OutThere]

Scare the kids into not toking up!


Put simply, the usage statistics of pot make this survey unreasonable. I mean, the number of people who have smoked pot is astronomical.

I question how well controlled the study was...there are so many sociological and environmental factors that they would have needed to control for to produce really accurate results.

Like iBlue mentioned above...there's absolutely no chance that people were self medicating a yet undiagnosed condition. :rolleyes:


http://shop.grasscity.com/images/items/t-217_200.jpg

[pooky]

So I used my uni connection to download the study. The way it's being reported in the news is pretty ghastly, so I'll sum it up in a way that makes a bit more sense and has a bit more detail. Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, but I am a biologist, so I know at least something about this, and I'm familiar with the methods they used in their study.

First of all, this group didn't study anyone. They studied studies. This paper is a meta analysis, which means they dug up all the research on cannabis/pshchosis they could find and tried to make some sense out of all the different results people got. They didn't interview or study any people in any way. This paper analyzed 35 previous studies, which is a decent sample size for this type of analysis.

This was not a schizophrenia-specific study - they looked for all pschotic episodes, as well as other mental illness (depression, suicidal thoughts, etc).

Across all of the studies, they found that people who used any cannabis were 40&#37; more likely to become psychotic, representing an increase from 1.0% of the general population to 1.4% of cannabis users (remember a user is anyone who has ever used it). [my note - this is a relatively small increase, so it's no wonder that all of our parents aren't schizophrenic, it would still only be 1.4%].

The most frequent users had an increase of 110%, representing an increase from 1.0% to 2.1% schizophrenic.

Results for other mental illnesses were not clear.

This is very important: They had no ability to determine a cause-effect relationship. Direct quote from the paper:

The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reserved here.

[EricNau]

Frankly a total ban on pot would be excellent.
...
I'm also of the mind that alcohol is extremely dangerous and should be banned or at least under strict control - but our society, give up on alcohol? hah!
I agree: if alcohol and/or marijuana didn't exist, this world would be a better, safer place to live.

Unfortunately they do exist, and history (past and recent) has proven that these things are going to be around whether legal or not.

The question basically becomes, would legalizing marijuana make situations better, or worse? ...I don't know the answer to that, but legalizing it would be interesting to say the least. :D

I have no doubt that legalizing marijuana would lead to an increase in use, which would most likely lead to an increase in DUI cases (and related deaths). The good side to legalizing marijuana is virtually eliminating illegal drug-trade, and all associated crimes and injuries. ...I'm not sure which would be the bigger problem.


EDIT: Thanks Pooky for that summary. The fact that this was a meta analysis puts the study in a different perspective, and as usual, the media have jumped on a study that is still very preliminary.

[Blue Velvet]

I agree: if alcohol and/or marijuana didn't exist, this world would be a better, safer place to live.

Only if you have a hankering to live in somewhere like Saudi Arabia. No, the world would be a boring place to live where millions of deaths by war, disease, famine and infanticide would still go on. The relative safety of marijuana is indisputable.

[EricNau]

Only if you have a hankering to live in somewhere like Saudi Arabia. No, the world would be a boring place to live where millions of deaths by war, disease, famine and infanticide would still go on. The relative safety of marijuana is indisputable.
Boring? Maybe, but I fail to see how no marijuana would correlate with war, disease, famine, and infanticide.

[Swarmlord]

Boring? Maybe, but I fail to see how no marijuana would correlate with war, disease, famine, and infanticide.

Because the latter would exist whether marijuana or booze did or not.

[Blue Velvet]

Boring? Maybe, but I fail to see how no marijuana would correlate with war, disease, famine, and infanticide.


You missed my point. The world would not be a safer place, especially with puritans running the show.

Someone show me a country that they'd like to live in — where they would want to move to — where these things are outright banned...

[EricNau]

You missed my point. The world would not be a safer place, especially with puritans running the show.

Someone show me a country that they'd like to live in — where they would want to move to — where these things are outright banned...
But that's not what I said, was it? ;)

If such illegal, impairing substances didn't exist, crimes from use (e.g. DUI) and crimes from trafficking wouldn't exist either. With the total absence of these drugs, the associated dangerous crimes wouldn't even be a possibility.

And of course, you wouldn't know any better so you would be perfectly content without them. ;) :D

[.Andy]

So I used my uni connection to download the study. The way it's being reported in the news is pretty ghastly, so I'll sum it up in a way that makes a bit more sense and has a bit more detail. Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, but I am a biologist, so I know at least something about this, and I'm familiar with the methods they used in their study.

First of all, this group didn't study anyone. They studied studies. This paper is a meta analysis, which means they dug up all the research on cannabis/pshchosis they could find and tried to make some sense out of all the different results people got. They didn't interview or study any people in any way. This paper analyzed 35 previous studies, which is a decent sample size for this type of analysis.

This was not a schizophrenia-specific study - they looked for all pschotic episodes, as well as other mental illness (depression, suicidal thoughts, etc).

Across all of the studies, they found that people who used any cannabis were 40&#37; more likely to become psychotic, representing an increase from 1.0% of the general population to 1.4% of cannabis users (remember a user is anyone who has ever used it). [my note - this is a relatively small increase, so it's no wonder that all of our parents aren't schizophrenic, it would still only be 1.4%].

The most frequent users had an increase of 110%, representing an increase from 1.0% to 2.1% schizophrenic.

Results for other mental illnesses were not clear.

This is very important: They had no ability to determine a cause-effect relationship. Direct quote from the paper:
Nice summary Pooky, I most certainly agree as far as the media go beating it up. It's the perfect headline to grab attention. Here's the abstract for people to read;

Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or aff ective mental health outcomes: a systematic review
Theresa H M Moore, Stanley Zammit, Anne Lingford-Hughes, Thomas R E Barnes, Peter B Jones, Margaret Burke, Glyn Lewis
Summary
Background Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.
Methods
We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Proceedings, ZETOC, BIOSIS, LILACS, and MEDCARIB from their inception to September, 2006, searched reference lists of studies selected for inclusion, and contacted experts. Studies were included if longitudinal and population based. 35 studies from 4804 references were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were done independently and in duplicate. Findings There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1&#183;41, 95% CI 1&#183;20–1&#183;65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response eff ect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2&#183;09, 1&#183;54–2&#183;84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and aff ective outcomes.
Interpretation
The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

I'd like to add a few things about it being a meta-analysis and them not drawing a conclusion on causation.

Being a meta-analysis by no means dilutes the value of the study, on the contrary, done properly it increases the statistical power and results in conclusions greater than the sum of individual studies. Meta-analyses increase the size of the population and allow for greater determination of independent risk factors. This study was very meticulous in their both the analysis of the collected data, and about the studies that it included.

The authors were careful not to be drawn into causation/correlation, but there is good evidence to suggest this might be the case. This study, and practically all that are done on marijuana use do not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn on a causation. This is a drawback of the study type and is because you can't do double-blind randomised controlled studies - these results are probably the best we're ever going to have\. The lancet podcast (http://podcast.thelancet.com/audio/lancet/2007/9584_28july.mp3) has a great interview with the paper's author on the likelihood of causation if anyone's interested - it's the last 5 minutes or so. They explain it much better than I ever could.

For the types of studies used in this meta analysis, you can get an idea of the likelihood of causation from a number of criteria. These need to be taken together, as each on their own means nothing. Even all of them together don't necessarily equate to causation, they only increase its likelihood;

Strength off the association i.e. if the relative risk of a disease only goes up by 1.2, it's more likely that the result is correlation rather than causation. However as the relative risk increases (2x or 10x or 100x) it become more likely to be causation. For low use of pot, there's a very small increase in relative risk of schizophrenia, but as you increase consumption the relative risk increase quite dramatically, which is more suggestive of causation.

Dose response - this is something that's been known for quite a while. The biggest and most quoted study comes from Andreasson et al, 1987 and was a study of over 50 000 people (i.e. huge). They showed a very strong dose response between the number of times pot was smoked and the incidence of schizophrenia. If it were just correlation it is less likely that we'd see this response.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5509/marijuanacz3.gif

Temporality - i.e. did schizophrenia manifest before smoking pot. It really shouldn't be confused with the question do more people with schizophrenia smoke pot, as studies account for this by controlling who they conscript to the study or control for during statistical analysis. They are also careful to account for people that have known risk factors for mental illness such as divorced parents. In this meta-analysis they did not include any studies that had people included that were diagnosed with schizophrenia before starting the study. They also controlled for other mental conditions and didn't find any correlation.

Consistency across studies - this is something that most certainly holds true for pot. There are only a few studies that have shown no or an inverse link between pot consumption and schizophrenia. The more papers there are that control for all known correlation variables and still have some increase in relative risk, the more likely is causation.

Reversibility - This is something that hasn't really been shown to my knowledge i.e. that people that continue to smoke pot are at a higher risk of getting schizophrenia than those whom give up smoking pot. This is more suggestive of correlation, although somewhat weaker than the above criteria.

One thing that's going against these studies is that most rely on questionnaires that are either not anonymous, or are retrospective. People can be influenced by recall bias - i.e. someone with mental illness will likely over report their consumption of pot, whereas someone without a mental illness will usually under report their consumption given society's negative stigma on drug use. This can really skew the results and make them seem more striking/less striking that they actually are.

Taken together all the above categories provide reasonable evidence that there is some causation between pot use and schizophrenia - although we can never be 100% certain. However although pot users have a higher chance of schizophrenia, it should be stressed that it is a very, very small percentage of people. A relative risk of 100x might only give a couple of new cases per 10 000 people. Aside from causation, there is stronger evidence that (a) pot exacerbates schizophrenic episodes in previously diagnosed individuals, and (b) precipitates schizophrenia in those that are at risk but undiagnosed (i.e. have a family history). The issue of causation appears to take a back seat to these two. As recommended in the article in the OP, the best thing to do is keep your pot use in moderation, and really avoid it if you've got a first degree relative with a diagnosed mental illness, and drop it if you're starting to notice any severe mood changes.

[FFTT]

I always marvel at how these official reports never ever discuss the positive
aspects of RESPONSIBLE USE or even the benefits of regulated use.

Any use of cannabis or hashish is deliberately mislabeled "abuse" regardless
of the circumstances.

You can work hard, pay your bills on time, put your kids through college, and be a productive, taxpaying member of society, but catching a light buzz at home in complete safety, before you turn in, makes you a drug abuser or worse yet a criminal.

The person that drinks a 12 pack, drops a lude and smokes a fat one before
hopping into his car is not who we are talking about here.

Anyone can be self destructive, but these people are always the example
they use.

It is quite clear that people with mental issues do use illegal substances
in an attempt to either feel better or ignore other problems in their life.

Everyone here knows a lush, a person that is hell bent on remaining as wasted as possible. These people do need help, just as those who cant
stop eating or those dealing with depression.

News flash, yes some people with mental issues abuse drugs.


This ALL INCLUSIVE truthiness about the use of marijuana or hashish
comparing it to far more destructive and dangerous substances, is
simply false.

Some people, many people know when to quit and when safety or responsibility overides the desire to light one up.

There is no reason to ban strictly personal and responsible use by
adults on their own private property.

If you drive, go to work or risk the safety of others in any way, then
there should be appropriate legislation.

It's time for these laws to grow up.

[skunk]

Everyone here knows a lush, a person that is hell bent on remaining as waisted as possible.I thought that was someone on a strict diet. :rolleyes:

[FFTT]

I thought that was someone on a strict diet. :rolleyes:

OK so you put the skinny on my spelling error :-)

[steamboat26]

I don't understand how a generation being known for doing something disqualifies it/them from commenting on it being dangerous. Under than presumption, former gang members aren't qualified to tell kids to stay out of gangs.

The vids may be a bit of a scare tactic, but the death/massive mental problems after the first hit are more likely to slow down the first time user than something about chronic users.

As for this research, I am surprised that what with Prozac and friends being shown to tinker with developing minds way differently than developed that we aren't working more to keep kids in particular off of any psychotic drugs. At least there was some testing with Prozac - with street drugs, there really hasn't been any.

I understand this, but it's just kind of weird for my parent's generation to tell me not to do drugs, when many of them did, and they turned out fine.

Also, the increase in incidences of schizonphrenia could be due to other factors. 1% of the population gets schizophrenia, which increases to 10% if someone in your family has it, and is up to 50% if a sibling of yours has it. Schizophrenia is thought to be linked to
1) A prenatal virus which disrupts development of the mind
2) An increase in dopamine receptors
3) other factors i can't remember at this time
An increase in the incidents of schizophrenia could be linked to any of these factors, instead of the usage of cannabis.
Just playing devil's advocate, the link could be true...

[killr_b]

Too bad about your brother, but do you think it's possible he was schizophrenic BEFORE trying pot?

Or maybe his pot was tainted. Or he might have taken other drugs as well. I have never heard of someone freaking out from pot and never coming back. More like LSD or PCP or A LOT of meth, but never seen a stoner change in any way except the "it's a conspiracy, man…" and the "peace, love and happiness" neo-hippies.

Actually I've never heard of a person that only did pot, ever. Always, they have taken alcohol, tobacco, or other illicit drugs as well. These studies are an obvious attempt by the man to re-enforce their profiteering line of "patentable chemical substances are the only ones you should consume for medical purpose. They're the only ones we can prove are safe." Then you read the side effects that almost always include death, and realize that, if no one has ever died of pot, then these people must be lying.

[Desertrat]

I've not smoked very much pot, but I've been around hippies, musicians and "just smokers" for some 42 years, now. Folk music night clubs as both customer and owner, plus "hanging out". Most were already adult at the time. I don't guess I've ever been around teeny-bopper smokers.

Absent getting totally stoned, about the only effect I ever saw was a general mellowing out. Marijuana is a tranquilizer. Pot-smokers don't get into fights after smoking pot. They smile a lot, though, and get the giggles.

As far as the schizoidal bit, I've always wondered if it's not a chicken-and-egg situation. Same for the "lost his ambition" stuff. That is, the probability for problems existed before the smoking. Smoking was an effort to deal with the problems, regardless of effectiveness.

I don't see how these studies can accurately include the antecedent mental structure that existed prior to use of pot/booze/acid/whatever. The proclivity for problems could have already existed.

As far as fatalities, we're told that some 700,000 people per year die from health problems associated with booze and tobacco. The only number I've seen as to drugs'n'health was 30,000 per year.

'Rat

[-::ubermann::-]

i smoked cannabis in the last 4 months almost daily, i gave it spiritual use and i think it helped me while writing about my personal issues, but it DOES increases your risk of schizophrenia, i dont care much about hallucinations, what worries me is that you cant think properly, you become idiot.
so i suddenly stopped using it 2 weeks ago, with no problem, didnt cause any addiction in me

[wonga1127]

I really don't care about the risks. Its not the governments job to shield me from stuff they deem "dangerous" or "bad". What they should be doing is educating people on the risks, and then let them make their own decisions. If something happens, it was the persons own fault. If I drink a ton of alcohol and get alcohol poisoning, its not the alcohols fault, its mine for drinking it. If weed gives me schizophrenia, then it's my fault for smoking it.

[Peterkro]

It appears the latest wheeze is being left-handed raises the risk of schizophrenia,us left-handed dope smokers are starting to feel persecuted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6923577.stm


RIP The Reverend Goatboy.

[FFTT]

We do not understand :D

Gee I wonder what Sir Paul thinks of this study.

[doctor pangloss]

I have to wonder about an OP who would start a thread about cannabis and fail to get the spelling right. :confused::confused:. It just about confirms the case against marijuana. Or it certainly make a good example why one shouldn't get high and and start threads!:D

I stopped smoking pot years ago and have since learned how to use the spell-check feature when I drink a few glasses of scotch.:cool:
Technology is so cool.;)

[Sdashiki]

You can not tell me what I can and can not put into my body.

Oh, they can try, but in reality, its just political posturing.

If it grows naturally, how can you control it?


I saw a recent study from the UK saying weed is bad for your lungs. Well no sh**, no one said its gonna heal your lungs now did they?

The entire article about this study talks about the effects on asthma and wheezing etc, but not once do they talk about how tobacco does the same damn thing and is freakin legal?!

[skunk]

I've probably smoked about 100,000 spliffs in my time, and gave up at the New Year. No cough, little mental impairment, no schizophrenia. Of course I could be imagining things...

[Sdashiki]

The voices in my head tell me not to listen to you.

[Peterkro]

I've probably smoked about 100,000 spliffs in my time, and gave up at the New Year. No cough, little mental impairment, no schizophrenia. Of course I could be imagining things...

If you start hearing "voices" start again pronto or you'll end up knocking on doors of a saturday morning.:)

[Sdashiki]

Well FINALLY someone did a bit of actual research, instead of just writing some article without giving the research...

A good read.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/again_with_the_marijuana.php

This is the chart used in the article I believe:
81023

[yellow]

Hrm.. I've know an extreme number of 'heads in my lifetime and to date, not one that I've kept in touch with has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Stratistically that would be improbable according to the report.

[.Andy]

Well FINALLY someone did a bit of actual research, instead of just writing some article without giving the research...

A good read.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/again_with_the_marijuana.php

This is the chart used in the article I believe:
The article you link to is a blog commentary about a completely different study. And if you read the blog article they're not rallying against the science, they're explaining it and showing how shoddy The Gardian's reporting on the matter is. And why did you post that chart? It's really got nothing to with anything that is being discussed here :confused:.

Hrm.. I've know an extreme number of 'heads in my lifetime and to date, not one that I've kept in touch with has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Stratistically that would be improbable according to the report. Statistically that wouldn't be improbable at all. As the authors of the report point out in their conclusions, the percentage increase in schizophrenia cases they report would only constitute a very very very very small increase in actual cases in community.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Statistically that wouldn't be improbable at all. As the authors of the report point out in their conclusions, the percentage increase in schizophrenia cases they report would only constitute a very very very very small increase in actual cases in community.

In fact - as the government isn't too quick to point out - you're more likely to die from Tylenol or incur permanent liver damage from Lipitor than to develop mental illness from even prolonged pot smoking.

The entire case against hemp is medically and scientifically unsupportable. I'd like to see a blind/blind test conducted with THC versus other "safe" medications and see if it would be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic or even a dangerous substance for that matter.

[2nyRiggz]

Ganja......good times indeed.




Bless

[.Andy]

In fact - as the government isn't too quick to point out - you're more likely to die from Tylenol or incur permanent liver damage from Lipitor than to develop mental illness from even prolonged pot smoking.And you're at even less risk from islamic terrorists than any of the above you mentioned, yet you still froth at the mouth and go blue in the face about how big a risk to the american values they are. Where's you rage at the government putting terrorism in perspective?

The entire case against hemp is medically and scientifically unsupportable. Rubbish. Pot is known to exacerbate schizophrenia and precipitate it in people that are at hight risk. It's also known to impair functions such as driving and operating machinery. It's only the causation between smoking pot and new cases of schizophrenia that is what this research is trying to figure out. If this study conclusion had fallen the other way, you'd be shouting these figures to the rafters as reason to fully and unreservedly legalise it. What you should be arguing is that the legal case against it being an illicit drug (when demonstrably more dangerous recreational drugs are on the free market) is unsupportable.

I'd like to see a blind/blind test conducted with THC versus other "safe" medications and see if it would be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic or even a dangerous substance for that matter.
Wouldn't we all. Unfortunately as it stands the only thing holding researchers back from carrying out a double blind trial is the ethico-legal issues.

[SMM]

...<snip>....

Me being a somewhat Constitutional Libertarian (i trust the Constitution only), I have a problem with this. If you legalize pot (for the reason that who is the govt to tell me what I can put into my body), you need to legalize everything. Its either all in, or nothing because it would be hypocritical to legalize pot and keep, say, heroin illegal. Thats the same reasoning behind pot being illegal today: "The govt knows whats best for you".



Medical Chemistry:

Hyperactive individuals seek drugs which produce a calming effect
The drugs are usually stimulates

Depressed individuals seek drugs which produce a stimulating effect
The drugs are usually depressants

Chemists are perfectly able to produce drugs for those who have chemical dependance. Even the Opiate based drugs are different. It is possible to rotate heroin, morphine, codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone and the other derivatives, and avoid addiction (some exceptions). It would be very possible to produce legal pharmaceutical drugs, which would supplant existing illegal (and very dangerous) street drugs. If you do not want to accept this on face value, google this with Harvard Medical School and John Hopkins.

[obeygiant]

I've probably smoked about 100,000 spliffs in my time, and gave up at the New Year. No cough, little mental impairment, no schizophrenia. Of course I could be imagining things...

100,000? Thats like, what, 10 a day for like thirty years? You're a hardcore stoner. I'm impressed.:)

[yellow]

100,000? Thats like, what, 10 a day for like thirty years? You're a hardcore stoner. I'm impressed.:)

Well, his nick IS "skunk". ;)

[Sdashiki]

Legalize it.

[Swarmlord]

And you're at even less risk from islamic terrorists than any of the above you mentioned, yet you still froth at the mouth and go blue in the face about how big a risk to the american values they are. Where's you rage at the government putting terrorism in perspective? But my government is constitutionally required to defend me from terrorists. It's not empowered to be my mother or my conscience.

Rubbish. Pot is known to exacerbate schizophrenia and precipitate it in people that are at hight risk. It's also known to impair functions such as driving and operating machinery. It's only the causation between smoking pot and new cases of schizophrenia that is what this research is trying to figure out. If this study conclusion had fallen the other way, you'd be shouting these figures to the rafters as reason to fully and unreservedly legalise it. What you should be arguing is that the legal case against it being an illicit drug (when demonstrably more dangerous recreational drugs are on the free market) is unsupportable.
So, you support making anything that impairs functions a Schedule 1 narcotic? We tried that with booze once and it didn't work.

Wouldn't we all. Unfortunately as it stands the only thing holding researchers back from carrying out a double blind trial is the ethico-legal issues.It's the government allowing researchers permission to do so that's the problem. It's easier to legally obtain samples of anthrax for studies than pot.

[.Andy]

But my government is constitutionally required to defend me from terrorists. It's not empowered to be my mother or my conscience.
Don't cowardly hide behind the constitution. It was a simple question. You're the one who dropped the relativity argument so don't scurry away from it. Why are so you so frightened of terrorism that is less of a threat than tylenol? Where's you rage at the government investing so many american lives into something relatively harmless?

So, you support making anything that impairs functions a Schedule 1 narcotic? We tried that with booze once and it didn't work.
No. I was rebutting your assertion that pot is like licorice and there is no scientific or medical merit in it being harmful for ones health. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion when I posted; What you should be arguing is that the legal case against it being an illicit drug (when demonstrably more dangerous recreational drugs are on the free market) is unsupportable.

It's the government allowing researchers permission to do so that's the problem. It's easier to legally obtain samples of anthrax for studies than pot.
No it's not.

[Swarmlord]

Don't cowardly hide behind the constitution. It was a simple question. You're the one who dropped the relativity argument so don't scurry away from it. Why are so you so frightened of terrorism that is less of a threat than tylenol? Where's you rage at the government investing so many american lives into something relatively harmless?
I wish I could even partially make out what you said there.

No. I was rebutting your assertion that pot is like licorice and there is no scientific or medical merit in it being harmful for ones health. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion when I posted; What you should be arguing is that the legal case against it being an illicit drug (when demonstrably more dangerous recreational drugs are on the free market) is unsupportable. I never said it was like licorice, but then I don't expect only things as innocuous as candy to be the only things legal for sale either. I guess you're against all recreational drugs like alcohol, Viagra and other unnecessary stuff too.


No it's not.
Interesting. They just had a report on the news about anthrax being sold to a fake organization. (I believe that some radioactive stuff was sent to another). You never hear about the government accidently issuing pot to someone to study though.

[Sdashiki]

Tobacco - legal
Weed - illegal


Alcohol - legal
Weed - illegal

Tobacco - typically not sold in natural state
Alcohol - 100&#37; man made
Weed - created by "God", untouched by man

Tobacco - responsible for the only preventable death in the world
Alcohol - responsible for numerous health, emotional and social problems
Weed - responsible for making unfunny things hilarious; health benefits for some


See the conundrum handed to us by our Govts? What is legal and what is not legal is an arbitrarily thought up set of rules based on nothing but propaganda and racism.

[Swarmlord]

Tobacco - legal
Weed - illegal


Alcohol - legal
Weed - illegal

Tobacco - typically not sold in natural state
Alcohol - 100% man made
Weed - created by "God", untouched by man

Tobacco - responsible for the only preventable death in the world
Alcohol - responsible for numerous health, emotional and social problems
Weed - responsible for making unfunny things hilarious; health benefits for some


See the conundrum handed to us by our Govts? What is legal and what is not legal is an arbitrarily thought up set of rules based on nothing but propaganda and racism.

Good comparisons. You can add that hemp is also a better industrial crop for fuel and fiber than switch grass, corn or any of the other commodities the government is pushing these days also. Of course, the government says they can't allow farmers to grow it, because they can't tell hemp from the good stuff. Therefore, factories making clothing out of hemp fiber have to import it from China.

[kainjow]

I've got a friend whose brother has schizophrenia, and he got it after a car accident. Up until that point he was perfectly normal. Now he smokes pot as much as he can.

I haven't read any studies on the link between schizophrenia and marijuana use, but in this case it's not a cause of smoking. He had it before the marijuana started.

Anyways, I had a brother in high school who smoked it a lot. He doesn't have any mental problems now :)

I've been watching documentaries and interviews for the last several hours on marijuana. Quite fascinating. (I'm writing a speech on why it should be legal.)

I think I might take a vacation to Holland someday :p

Oh yeah, this "War on Drugs" is BS now that I know the facts.

[LethalWolfe]

Prohibition was a failure. Abstinence only polices are ineffective. Banning lawful citizens from owning firearms isn't all it's cracked up to be. How much longer will the War on Drugs continue before the population at large realizes "Just Say No" just isn't cutting it? It hasn't in the past and I see no reason why it would in the future. Legalize it, tax it and educate the general public about it. Treat it like tobacco and alcohol.

How many people are killed each year and how many communities live in fear from violent gangs that sell drugs to fund their turf wars?

I'm not a proponent of going out and getting stoned, but legalization is just a more pragmatic and effective course of action, IMO.


Lethal

[skunk]

I've been watching documentaries and interviews for the last several hours on marijuana.Is the ambiguity deliberate?

[Iscariot]

I really don't care about the risks. Its not the governments job to shield me from stuff they deem "dangerous" or "bad". What they should be doing is educating people on the risks, and then let them make their own decisions. If something happens, it was the persons own fault. If I drink a ton of alcohol and get alcohol poisoning, its not the alcohols fault, its mine for drinking it. If weed gives me schizophrenia, then it's my fault for smoking it.

In that case, if you become sick from anything that is "dangerous" or "bad", should you be refused medical aid on the grounds that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for your choices?

I've probably smoked about 100,000 spliffs in my time, and gave up at the New Year. No cough, little mental impairment, no schizophrenia. Of course I could be imagining things...

You better start again. Macrumors forums is actually the sum of your collective hallucinations. I don't want to stop existing!

[CorvusCamenarum]

Prohibition was a failure. Abstinence only polices are ineffective. Banning lawful citizens from owning firearms isn't all it's cracked up to be. How much longer will the War on Drugs continue before the population at large realizes "Just Say No" just isn't cutting it? It hasn't in the past and I see no reason why it would in the future. Legalize it, tax it and educate the general public about it. Treat it like tobacco and alcohol.

How many people are killed each year and how many communities live in fear from violent gangs that sell drugs to fund their turf wars?

I'm not a proponent of going out and getting stoned, but legalization is just a more pragmatic and effective course of action, IMO.


Lethal

I agree with that in premise, but I really have a hard time believing it would be feasible. From a more practical standpoint, I can't really fathom your local corner dealer moving from the current method of doing business to setting up a corner store somewhere, having to get a business license etc, and most importantly, paying his taxes like a good little citizen.

More cynically, I think one of the reasons drugs haven't been legalized is that no one who can really fix the problem wants to do so. There's far too much money, power, and/or influence to be gained by standing up and saying "I will fix this," and then doing nothing until it's time to say it again (i.e. election day). You don't need a mechanic until your car won't start. You can apply the same logic to the IRS, universal healthcare, or whatever else a large enough group of people think to be broken.

[LethalWolfe]

I agree with that in premise, but I really have a hard time believing it would be feasible. From a more practical standpoint, I can't really fathom your local corner dealer moving from the current method of doing business to setting up a corner store somewhere, having to get a business license etc, and most importantly, paying his taxes like a good little citizen.
The corner dealer gets cut out of the equation though. No one wants to buy from that guy but they do 'cause they have no choice right now. But, if Wal-Greens starts selling then they have a choice. The same thing that happened to the rum runners and moon shiners after Prohibition was repealed will happen to the drug dealers. Legit business will be able to buyer in a higher volume than dealers and have lower operating costs because they won't have to do the cloak-and-dagger stuff to get around the cops. The FDA steps in and sets quality standards, and, bingo, you have a cheaper, higher quality product that you can purchase legally and more conveniently than what a corner dealer can offer. By and large dealers go bye bye and so does a large catalyst for gang violence.

The money saved from the WoD can be put into public education which will further hamstring gangs and create a new generation of people that can have the tools to be productive and contributing members of society (as opposed to criminals). Speaking of criminals, the harsh, mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders will be repealed and even more people can get back into the rat race and start paying taxes. So now, not only do we have even more contributing members of society, but we have fewer people in prison being housed on the public's dime.

It's this an very optimistic view? Yeah, but I don't think it's that far fetched and even at it's worst I can't see it being any more ineffective than what we have going on now.

More cynically, I think one of the reasons drugs haven't been legalized is that no one who can really fix the problem wants to do so. There's far too much money, power, and/or influence to be gained by standing up and saying "I will fix this," and then doing nothing until it's time to say it again (i.e. election day). You don't need a mechanic until your car won't start. You can apply the same logic to the IRS, universal healthcare, or whatever else a large enough group of people think to be broken.
I think that's definitely part of it. Lots of people make their living fighting the War on Drugs (and locking people up) and they just aren't gonna go, "Well ***** this *****" and take up basket weaving.;)


Lethal

[CorvusCamenarum]

The corner dealer gets cut out of the equation though. No one wants to buy from that guy but they do 'cause they have no choice right now. But, if Wal-Greens starts selling then they have a choice. The same thing that happened to the rum runners and moon shiners after Prohibition was repealed will happen to the drug dealers. Legit business will be able to buyer in a higher volume than dealers and have lower operating costs because they won't have to do the cloak-and-dagger stuff to get around the cops. The FDA steps in and sets quality standards, and, bingo, you have a cheaper, higher quality product that you can purchase legally and more conveniently than what a corner dealer can offer. By and large dealers go bye bye and so does a large catalyst for gang violence.
I'll stipulate that you're probably right with regards to those drugs that have a more complicated manufacturing process. Simpler drugs like weed, though, are going to be another matter. Don't forget that it's perfectly legal to make/process your own tobacco and alcohol, provided you don't sell it. I've brewed mead before and except as a novelty, it's definitely cheaper to just go buy a bottle. It doesn't take very much to grow your own pot.

The money saved from the WoD can be put into public education which will further hamstring gangs and create a new generation of people that can have the tools to be productive and contributing members of society (as opposed to criminals). Speaking of criminals, the harsh, mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders will be repealed and even more people can get back into the rat race and start paying taxes. So now, not only do we have even more contributing members of society, but we have fewer people in prison being housed on the public's dime.

I think that's definitely part of it. Lots of people make their living fighting the War on Drugs (and locking people up) and they just aren't gonna go, "Well ***** this *****" and take up basket weaving.;)

By the same token, I don't think lots of criminals making their living fighting the other side of the WoD are suddenly going to say "Oh crap, drugs are legal now, I guess I better sign up for night school and learn to be a plumber,". A more resonable scenario is that they will just simply find another outlet of criminality. Helping people to educate themselves out of poverty is all well and good, but it's going to take a couple generations at least to change the mentality.

[LethalWolfe]

It doesn't take very much to grow your own pot.
It doesn't take much to grow your own tomatoes either, but I think most people still opt to buy them from the store. :p



Helping people to educate themselves out of poverty is all well and good, but it's going to take a couple generations at least to change the mentality.
Nothing is going to happen over night, but I think more will positive things would happen over, let's say, 20yrs than what's happened in past 20yrs of the WoD.


Lethal

[kainjow]

Is the ambiguity deliberate?

I'm not sure what you mean :confused:

[skunk]

I'm not sure what you mean :confused:I was wondering whether if it was the documentaries that were on marijuana or you... :)

[aquajet]

I've many documentaries on my shelf. They can be very informative. :)

[iJon]

The day I can go down to the gas station and pick me up a carton of Heavy Duty Fruity and Jack Frost will be one exciting day.

Unfortunately I may not see that day in my life time.

jon

[hulugu]

I'll stipulate that you're probably right with regards to those drugs that have a more complicated manufacturing process. Simpler drugs like weed, though, are going to be another matter. Don't forget that it's perfectly legal to make/process your own tobacco and alcohol, provided you don't sell it. I've brewed mead before and except as a novelty, it's definitely cheaper to just go buy a bottle. It doesn't take very much to grow your own pot.



By the same token, I don't think lots of criminals making their living fighting the other side of the WoD are suddenly going to say "Oh crap, drugs are legal now, I guess I better sign up for night school and learn to be a plumber,". A more resonable scenario is that they will just simply find another outlet of criminality. Helping people to educate themselves out of poverty is all well and good, but it's going to take a couple generations at least to change the mentality.


Nonetheless, a drop in drug prices may result in fewer property crimes as drug users need less cash to purchase their fix. Furthermore, by changing the economic model of the drug market, you also reduce the profit in drug running which might mitigate the violence along the US-Mexico border.

There appear to be few downsides to legalization and in many cases the problems that are part of the drug war will either stay the same or the effects will be mitigated by other changes.

The only downside I actually believe might be true is the increase in the number of drug users, especially in the beginning of legalization, but this may be mitigated by less-potent drugs (drug manufacters are more likely to insert addictive additives in their product to ensure repeat customers) from a regulated marketplace.

As for the home grown pot, the people who don't do it now aren't going to start and the people who do it for profit will decrease. The people who remain will grow it no matter what the situation, just as there are still moonshiners in the backwoods. But, now if you buy a bottle of "White Lightning" you're more likely to get something that won't blind you because the few who remain actually care about making it rather than making a quick buck.

[solvs]

SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_277214611.html
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation's war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems.

"If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70&#37; in this country overnight, end this war on drugs," he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. "You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs."

Gotta love those San Francisco values. ;)

[solvs]

Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/romney-confronted-with-medical-marijuana-issue/).

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was confronted head-on Saturday over the issue of medical marijuana.

Following a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire, a member of the audience, Clayton Holton, told Romney he has muscular dystrophy and said five of his doctors say he is "living proof medical marijuana works."

"I am completely against legalizing it for everyone, but there is medical purposes for it," Holton told Romney.

Romney pointed out that there is synthetic marijuana as well as other pain medications available.

"It makes me sick. I have tried it, and it makes me throw up," Holton said. "My question for you is will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana."

"I am not in favor of medical marijuana being legal in the country," Romney said as he moved on to greet other people.

Holton continued, "Excuse me, will you please answer my question?"

"I think I have. I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana," the Massachusetts Republican said.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Govt has lied to the people so many times on weed it aint funny this report is more of the same.

Romney not allowing medical marijuana is just more politics of the right wing.

I know one thing and thats big Alcohol & Tobacco love keeping weed illegal just as do the pharmacy giants. Its all about $$$ and growing the police state.

[kainjow]

Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/romney-confronted-with-medical-marijuana-issue/).

It's kind of interesting. Romney, McCain, and Giuliani all don't support medical marijuana. Obama made a comment about it but he didn't seem very positive towards it. Edwards seems in favor of it but he doesn't have a voting record on it. I don't know what Clinton's opinion on it is. If I were to guess, I'd say no.

Only the lesser known candidates support it (Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson).

Oh well, at least the states can make up their own minds (and they are :)).

[Swarmlord]

The Govt has lied to the people so many times on weed it aint funny this report is more of the same.

Romney not allowing medical marijuana is just more politics of the right wing.

I know one thing and thats big Alcohol & Tobacco love keeping weed illegal just as do the pharmacy giants. Its all about $$$ and growing the police state.

That's not a fair statement. MANY conservatives have come out in favor of both decriminalization and legalization. Also, I notice that none of the current crop of democrats running have piped up that they would eliminate the War on Drugs as part of their platform. No one side owns this stupid policy. They are both confused about it.

[wonga1127]

That's not a fair statement. MANY conservatives have come out in favor of both decriminalization and legalization. Also, I notice that none of the current crop of democrats running have piped up that they would eliminate the War on Drugs as part of their platform. No one side owns this stupid policy. They are both confused about it.
I agree. Its not really an issue that is divided with the parties, more a question of personal freedom.

[Shotglass]

"Music and herb is a healing of the Nation" --Peter Tosh

Seriously, let people do to their body what they want to, be it positive or negative. If you sell alcohol, why not sell ganja too.
Actually, alcohol abuse can lead to aggressive, antisocial behaviour. Ganja, on the contrary, can lead to slow thinking, slow speaking, etc. Now which one is the more dangerous drug?

[kainjow]

Drew Carey Defends Medical Marijuana (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/57.html)