The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

[MobBoss]

No, this isn't fantasy. In the non-fantasy world, decriminalization/legalization in Amsterdam, Portugal, Oregon, California, and other places has shown consistently, again and again that overall usage never really increases that much, if at all. What's more, law enforcement saves money and time by not pursuing such ridiculous "crimes" as pot smoking/possession/sale.

But you can continue to ignore reality all you want, with your prohibition fantasies.

I guess thats why the percentage of recent users (previous 30 days) has gone up from 6.6% in 1995 to 8.36% in 2005. Oregon had a 38% higher number of recent users than the rest of the USA in 2005. It also continues to be one of the highest pot use states across all age demographs. Shouldnt that be less, since your claim is that decriminalization doesnt increase use?

Thats from your own provided links. Odd you missed it.

There's lots of other interesting stats, such as 38 percent of all persons polled saying they've tried cannabis.

And here I thought half of all americans had tried it.

So maybe the NAACP is more in line with it's base than you think.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I guess we will have to wait till November to find out.

Cite me one legit study that says pot smoking in and of itself causes one to seek harder drugs...haha jk you can't lol.

Uhm. Not so fast. How about this one? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/1981329.htm

Doctors have tracked 2,000 Victorian high school students for 10 years and found those who were smoking cannabis at the age of 15 were as much as 15 times more likely to be using amphetamines in their early 20s.

Not legit? I sure you wouldnt think so.

Also found this in regards to addiction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

A 2004 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that the stronger cannabis is contributing to higher addiction rates. The study, conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, compared marijuana use in 2001 and 2002 with use a decade earlier.

While the percent of the population using the drug remained stable during that time, dependence or abuse on the drug increased significantly, particularly among black and Hispanic men. Higher concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, the study said, was the likely reason for the growing dependency.

Your argument that people only smoke to get high is complete nonsense. Not everyone who smokes weed wants to get baked as a cake every time they smoke.

Thats not what I said...unless you equate getting high = baked as a cake.

Again, you might have red wine with beef, white wine with dessert, but you have pot to get a buzz and thats about it.

Some people prefer to take two puffs and pass, rather than smoke the whole joint. Many medical patients who need to get stuff done during the day will take maybe a few puffs here, a few puffs there, or make edibles with only a little bit of cannabis in them.

I already drew a distinction between medical use and casual use. My point is in regards to casual use only.

Do you honestly believe that today's anti-drug policies are effective in keeping people from obtaining drugs?

Since drug use among teens is down nationwide, I would have to say somethings working.

 

[El_Machinae]

EL_M, since you have comented before about these effects of smoking pot in other threads, can you give us your opinion on the story in the OP?

It's hard to read popularised articles in science, because they're too easy to slant. I haven't looked at the journal article yet (and, as an aside, I haven't looked at the "genetics of longevity" article you mentioned in another thread, because it wasn't accessible yet, and I haven't gone back. I have access to the paper article, but have been focusing elsewhere).

My main contribution to the article discussion would be that people're forgetting that mj can (imo) induce schizophrenia in people who're susceptible anyway. What this means is that the incidence of schizophrenia is not the same thing as penetrance of susceptibility. The article in the OP does not mention incidence or severity: it doesn't mention if there's more total schizophrenia (as measured by area-under-the-curve for schizophrenic symptoms) even if the number of schizophrenics hasn't changed all that much. Are hospitalizations/treatments occurring at an earlier age? Are hospitalizations/treatments lasting longer? How's medication compliance?

My experience is that people who're susceptible to marijuana are more motivated to try drugs like marijuana, and they perceive more benefit from its use than other people do. The amount of mj-affected schizophrenia might very well already be nearly saturated in society.

I don't think that the number of people who "would be schizophrenic, but aren't because of criminalisation" is very high. That's the target group that's 'protected' by the current criminalisation. There's too much other damage, imo, to warrant it. Of course, we cannot run any reasonable experiments, because the stuff is criminalised!

My main concern with MJ is that there's too much disinformation. People don't trust government health warnings. People don't really understand science. And dealers/friends aren't a reliable source of information on the topic. If MJ was being sold commercially, companies would have incentive to put accurate warning labels on the product, to mitigate liability.

 

[MobBoss]

At least he admits it is based on hearsay instead of scientific evidence.

In case you missed it:

A 2004 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that the stronger cannabis is contributing to higher addiction rates. The study, conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, compared marijuana use in 2001 and 2002 with use a decade earlier.

While the percent of the population using the drug remained stable during that time, dependence or abuse on the drug increased significantly, particularly among black and Hispanic men. Higher concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, the study said, was the likely reason for the growing dependency.

Do you reconize the JAMA as offering 'scientific evidence'? I think it qualifies, dont you?

Or is that just more 'hearsay' according to you?

 

[useless]

Not drinking/smoking seriously damages the governments wealth.

 

[MobBoss]

My main concern with MJ is that there's too much disinformation. People don't trust government health warnings. People don't really understand science. And dealers/friends aren't a reliable source of information on the topic. If MJ was being sold commercially, companies would have incentive to put accurate warning labels on the product, to mitigate liability.

Wouldnt those be the same companies that boosted nicotine in cigarettes in order to promote addiction and thus higher sales?

Dont you think the same thing could be done in relation to THC in marijuana?

 

[CaptainF]

Over the long-term it does make them a bit weird. The more edgy and irrational they get because of it, the more they insist they are "chilled out". But they know they are not, and we know they are not. It's just that the drug makes them defensive and wrecks their judgement.

You might as well admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're not fooling anyone with this drivel.

 

[useless]

For a libertarian he appears to have very little qualms with the government intervening and making it illegal.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Marijuana dependence? Don't make me laugh.

I smoked up to 15 joints a day nearly every day from 1990 to 2001 and gave up overnight

 

[MobBoss]

For a libertarian he appears to have very little qualms with the government intervening and making it illegal.

Its already illegal. There is no such thing as making an already illegal thing....illegal.

Marijuana dependence? Don't make me laugh.

I smoked up to 15 joints a day nearly every day from 1990 to 2001 and gave up overnight

Apparently you didnt read the article. It does specifically say that pot today is far more potent that pot from a decade ago. Helps if you notice the details if your going to argue against them.

 

[useless]

By that i meant i meant the illegalisation of it originally and the status quo.

 

[MobBoss]

By that i meant i meant the illegalisation of it originally and the status quo.

That occurred like 100 years ago or so. Kinda old news isnt it?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Its already illegal. There is no such thing as making an already illegal thing....illegal.



Apparently you didnt read the article. It does specifically say that pot today is far more potent that pot from a decade ago. Helps if you notice the details if your going to argue against them.

You still haven't explained how come marijuana use has gone up, pot has got stronger, and the rate of schizophrenia has remained the same.

I have no idea what marijuana dependence even means. I can assure you I was smoking some pretty strong bifters and 15 a day is a large amount.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldnt those be the same companies that boosted nicotine in cigarettes in order to promote addiction and thus higher sales?

Dont you think the same thing could be done in relation to THC in marijuana?

Yeah, of course they're going to do that. At least we have Big Tobacco as a giant warning sign against that behaviour. The evil of BT, of course, was that they boosted nicotine and at the same time tried to deny that it was addictive (or that they were responsible for the addiction and later cancers).

We already know it's going to happen, because it's what breeders are already doing. The free market is already selecting for THC content. If the stuff was legal, we could just ask that companies put the THC content on the label

 

[MobBoss]

You still haven't explained how come marijuana use has gone up, pot has got stronger, and the rate of schizophrenia has remained the same.

El_Mac just did by stating its possible that the schizophrenic demograph may already be that pot saturated. That could explain part of it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So basically you are saying people susceptible to schizophrenia are more likely to smoke pot? I'm pretty sure they are more susceptible to being smokers, alcoholics, abusers of other drugs, etc.

 

[Ayn Rand]

For a libertarian he appears to have very little qualms with the government intervening and making it illegal.

It appears many posters who have supported socialism and government intervention are now suddenly in favour of the free market. Or at least, one free market.

I disagree with libertarians and Objectivists who support the legalisation of drugs in our society. Maybe it could work in a free-market society [in theory], but I don't think it will work in our current system, not at all.

 

[MobBoss]

So basically you are saying people susceptible to schizophrenia are more likely to smoke pot? I'm pretty sure they are more susceptible to being smokers, alcoholics, abusers of other drugs, etc.

Thats precisely what the link in the OP says. Overwhelmingly so.

You may want to try reading it if you havent already.

 

[Ajidica]

The inverse of your point is also true in that just because you will never use it doesnt mean it should be legal either.

Nice logic ftw!!

Why should I deny someone a choice based solely on my personal prefrences? I hate SUV's and they are often bought by people who don't need them and they are excellent at pollution, but I wouldn't think to ban them.

Uhm, can you tell me when has the government EVER been able to underprice other market forces?

Not off the top of my head but pot is different. There aren't really any pre-existing channels for distribution. People who would deal it illegaly would inherently have a higher price as they would have a higher overhead. If someone was going to get pot, who would they get it from, a government agency that sells it cheaper or from a person which could get them thrown in jail and the pot is more expensive? There will inevitably be people who will buy it illegaly, but who cares? They will be driven out of business by the government being able to underprice them.

Btw, I didnt realize that legalization = government setting the price on pot. What happened to capitalism?

We already have that now, drug gangs see an opportunity and fill it. Wouldn't it make sense

Sigh. I think you make WAY too much of this. Again, its also 'going against the man' to drink alcohol underage as well. The point is specious at best.

Just pointing out, I'm 17 and in High school, I think I know what my peers are thinking. Underage drinking results less from 'going against the man' and more from simple looking to have a party.

I humbly point out that has not been the case with underage drinking. Your utterly ignoring reality here, and constructing some kind of fantasy land where kids never drink until they are 21. Thats fantasy, not reality.

I am not constructing a fantasy land. I know kids drink underage but the allure is less than if alcohol was flat out banned.

If its legalized, much of that 'stigma' will be erased.

Then tell me, why is the amount of smokers going down?
If anyone uses any drug heavily there will always be a stigma against it. Heavy smokers have a stigma, alcoholics have a stigma, and heavy pot users will have a stigma. Baseless argument.

I gave you the answer I give. Neither of them. If legalizing pot means we have to choose between addictions, then I wont ever support that.

When the available answers are a, b, c, or d, you can't say 3 is the answer.

I really dont see why you are for it. I mean you havent given any real reason aside you would never use it....which isnt really a valid reason to legalise it.

I don't seek to deny people rights I am never going to benefit from. Let people make their own choice. I don't have to be protected from myself. If you think the government has to protect people from themselves then what political party are you affiliated with?

Do you really think legalization would change that? Thats more fantasy.

Bad argument. The government dictates our lifes in this case to 'protect us'. If it is legalized then the government wouldn't have to get involved in our lives in this case.

Now you sound like any other libertarian. No thanks.

Thats what I am, a small L libertarian. I ask you, why are you seeking to deny people a choice? What gives you the right to say they are wrong and you are right?

It appears many posters who have supported socialism and government intervention are now suddenly in favour of the free market. Or at least, one free market.

Look at Market Socialism. Look at Lenins New Economic Plan. Lenin, for all his flaws, was probably the most 'socialist' of all the soviet leaders.

I disagree with libertarians and Objectivists who support the legalisation of drugs in our society. Maybe it could work in a free-market society [in theory], but I don't think it will work in our current system, not at all.

Wait. In a libertarian society isn't it already a free market? You will have to take steps to get the libertarian society. It won't just jump out of a hole in the ground and say "Happy Day Everybody, we are now Libertarians. Everybody rejoice and be merry in your society which is one step away from Anarchism which is the least stable of all social structures! But lets ignore that, but now you have our version of liberty!"[Too much sarcasm but you get my point.]

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nearly everyone supports the free market to some extent. Including moderate socialists (i.e. the vast majority).

I used to smoke pot because it helped me relax after working ridiculously long hours under highly stressful deadline conditions. The longest shift I worked was 30 hours with no sleep (10AM - 2PM next day).

Thats precisely what the link in the OP says. Overwhelmingly so.

You may want to try reading it if you havent already.

And that is news how?

I'm pretty sure schizophrenics murder more people than the average person. Are you going to claim that is because of marijuana too

 

[Formaldehyde]

In case you missed it...

You were the one who claimed it was hearsay, not me!

'Cause from what I am told, pot today is far more potent that it was just a few years ago, let alone when I was in high school.....and getting more potent every year.

Emphasis mine.

Are you really trying to blame me for your apparent inability to find any proof to support your contentions until now?

But the story isn't as clearcut as you try to allege:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/06/marijuana-more.html

Marijuana is more potent than at any time since scientific analysis of the drug began in the 1970s, according to a report from the University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project. The average amount of THC in marijuana, the primary psychoactive ingredient in the drug, was tested at 9.6% --more than double the potency of marijuana in 1983.

The highest concentration of THC found in a single sample was 37.2%.

Since 1975, the group, which is funded through the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has analyzed and compiled data on nearly 63,000 cannabis samples, mostly seized in drug arrests, in 48 states.

"The increases in marijuana potency are of concern since they increase the likelihood of acute toxicity, including mental impairment," Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, says in a news release. "Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction; however, more research is needed to establish this link between higher THC potency and higher addiction risk."