The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

[Monkeyfinger]

Another interesting thing about this drug is the claim that it chills you out - all the people I've met who smoke cannabis are agitated, paranoid, edgy and borderline criminal. They are the least chilled-out people I know [except when it comes to their responsibilities, or sponging off others, they are chilled-out about that].

It may just depend on where you live. I know that here in California, the place we're discussing, the responsible, successful, mellow smoker people like to hold up in high regard is pretty common. It would probably be a lot less so in a culture which is a lot less receptive to legalizing pot.

Eh... can California even get away with trying to pass this bill, though? Under federal law Marijuana is still a class 1 illegal substance. Is this the kind of federal law that can be waved away with "STATES RIGHTS LOL"? I'm not really up on that sort of thing but it doesn't seem likely.

 

[Bartleby]

Maybe it's a myth, but I thought marijuana was originally made illegal due to pressure from commercial interests, such as rope and paper manufacturers; not because of harmful effects it may or may not have.

 

[Berzerker]

As for turf wars and gang formation, I think those criminals will behave that way no matter what we do. If we have to choose a battleground [and we do] to fight the criminals, we may as well choose drugs.

Why dont you choose actual criminal behavior instead? Or better yet, look at homicide rates for the 20th century USA and see how many more people died because of drug wars and black markets - you do understand what those are, right?

@taniciusfox - drug takers are not exactly innocent. A strong deterrent effect will take the casual users out of the market and then they can spend their cash on more wholesome goods.

Ayn Rand is preaching to us about buying wholesome goods? She called, she wants her name back. Whats that about drug users not being innocent? Where is my victim? The drug war is based on hypocrisy and collective guilt and punishment, people who dont use drugs dont want to be punished because somebody else did a bad thing, but that aint the standard applied to everybody else. hypocrites

I don't want the government to be the national drug dealer [you may laugh and say that they are already, but that's a different story ].

They are, so whats yer point? I dont want the government taking my money to jail millions of people because you're confused about the meaning of freedom.

@Formaldehyde - drug-related crime is not always related to the illegality of the substance, but to its toxicity, the need to steal to get drugs [and they would still be expensive even if legalised, in order to pay for tax/lawsuits, encouraging theft], and the kind of irrational anti-social personality that develops in drug takers.

So expensive drugs promote theft? Thats what "effective" drug wars do, make drugs more expensive. So are you admitting the policy you support results in more stealing? See, we got a jail cell waiting for you because your irrational behavior harms society. You do realize of course thats a fascistic argument, the good of society and all that?

@contre - it's not in my rational self-interests to fund rehab. It's in my interests to have a strong deterrent for irrational behaviour as opposed to soft treatment for people who are irresponsible and harming society.

Being irrational aint a crime, but dont let that stop you from smearing millions of people with generalizations. You'd be in jail if your arguments applied to you...

 

[amadeus]

Thanks for the stats, but what do they mean in context?

Thankfully, it means that the amount of resources put into the drug war are insufficient to combat the import of presently illegal substances into the United States. It also means that we have given up a great deal of liberty in this futile pursuit and it means that our government has driven up the prices of these substances, leading to, not causing, a great deal of crime.

I'm from the UK, but I thought the DEA were primarily concerned with making arrests and building cases so that criminals get put into jail. Taking criminals out of the system is more important than drugs intercepted - how many criminals does that 1% represent?

That's actually less than 10% of their annual budget. Most of it actually goes to interception.

As for turf wars and gang formation, I think those criminals will behave that way no matter what we do. If we have to choose a battleground [and we do] to fight the criminals, we may as well choose drugs.

Gangs deal drugs because drugs are illegal. If you could buy cocaine or heroin at a store like you can liquor or tobacco, there would be no reason to buy from drug dealers. The profits from illegal drug sales would evaporate overnight.

As Berzerker also points out, the drug war helps to encourage other violent crime because so many resources are wasted fighting this futile war against the American people.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Why dont you choose actual criminal behavior instead? Or better yet, look at homicide rates for the 20th century USA and see how many more people died because of drug wars and black markets - you do understand what those are, right?

Those people chose to commit crimes of their own free will, and drug-takers choose to support those crimes of their own free will.

It's surprising that you seem to be defending the right to take drugs when you know the damage they cause. How ethical do you think that is?

Ayn Rand is preaching to us about buying wholesome goods? She called, she wants her name back. Whats that about drug users not being innocent? Where is my victim? The drug war is based on hypocrisy and collective guilt and punishment, people who dont use drugs dont want to be punished because somebody else did a bad thing,

If that somebody else consists of the violent criminals who supply and distribute drugs, and you buy those drugs, then you are a guilty partner in the process.

The drug war is based on the hypocrisy of drug-takers, who think the government is responsible for actions carried out by criminals. Guilty conscience?

They are, so whats yer point? I dont want the government taking my money to jail millions of people because you're confused about the meaning of freedom.

Drug takers are confused about the meaning of freedom. They want freedom without responsibility, which is only possible by forcing someone else to take the responsibility for them. Drug-takers even go so far as to blame the government and police for the actions of criminals who the drug-takers are supporting and funding. But then what else can be expected from people with judgement poor enough that they take drugs in the first place.

So expensive drugs promote theft? Thats what "effective" drug wars do, make drugs more expensive. So are you admitting the policy you support results in more stealing?

So what if it does? The people doing the stealing are responsible for their own actions. If we pass a sensible law and people break it, harming others in the process, then it is not the law-makers who are being unethical, it is the criminals.

See, we got a jail cell waiting for you because your irrational behavior harms society. You do realize of course thats a fascistic argument, the good of society and all that?

Anyone who takes drugs is harming all the people around them. It is an offensive attack on society and the freedom and safety of communities and the rights of individuals living in them.

Being irrational aint a crime, but dont let that stop you from smearing millions of people with generalizations. You'd be in jail if your arguments applied to you...

No I wouldn't because I don't take drugs. You just pointed out how many people are hurt by the drugs trade yet you blame the authorities instead of the perpetrators.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm not so sure legalizing drugs will immediately solve the gang problem. If only it will make them switch to other activities like racketeering or outright vandalism.

 

[JerichoHill]

The OP's conclusions about the article are wrong - the article does not imply there is any proven causal link and mentions many studies that suggest no link exists.

Furthermore, marijuana is not more of a harmful drug than alcohol, which has its own proven host of diseases it causes or exacerbates. In the sense of legalization, the same arguments go for both - abusive use of either drug can be quite harmful to people but it is enjoyed recreationally and in moderation by many more.

Quoting this because it is completely accurate

 

[JerichoHill]

So, am I accurate in saying that people who smoke pot dont care if it might make them schizophrenic?

Because that seems to be the prevaling attitude of many who seem desirous of downplaying the information given in the article.

So I guess thats the question. Is smoking pot worth become schizophrenic over? Is that a good trade off?

Is it worth risking your life to get on an airplane? Same question. Further, you're continuing as if there was some sort of defined, causal link, which the research hasn't found.

If schizo rates are stable at 1% over time and the percentage of ppl smoking pot has been rising over time, where's the relationship? Shouldn't schizo rates be rising as pot smoking rises if what you claim is true?

 

[nonconformist]

Ayn ,your arguments are absolutely circular....

"Marijuana use damages society, because society choses that it should (via incarceration etc)"

surely the logical answer is, you know, legalise?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe it's a myth, but I thought marijuana was originally made illegal due to pressure from commercial interests, such as rope and paper manufacturers; not because of harmful effects it may or may not have.

Actually, in the US the original law criminalizing marijuana was written to harass "uppity" Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the Southwest.

Quoting this because it is completely accurate

Everyone believes very easily whatever they fear or desire. Jean De La Fontaine

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

You mean bring up an obviously absurd law that most everybody but the opposite of libertarians, e.g. those who believe in absurd totalitarian control of the populace, are opposed to it?

Marijuana will eventually be legalized once the number of provincial people who believe in legislating morality, because they think they know how everybody else should think and act, become a minority. It is just a matter of time.

 

[civver_764]

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

I'd wager that 90% of the people on the internet are libertarian.

 

[warpus]

I smoked some marijuana on the weekend and the worst thing that happened was that my upstairs bathroom is totally clean.. Like, dude, I spent 2 hours cleaning that thing. It is looking awesome. There was this guy, Steve, who helped me clean, and even though he totally doesn't exist, who cares, he scrubbed teh bathtub.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Drug prohibition promotes neither obedience to the law nor social order, unless you think gang turf wars and adults consenting to what you believe are self-destructive behaviors being jailed is somehow law and order.

In the United States, the Drug Enforcement Agency has over a $2 billion budget and intercepts about $500 million worth of drugs. So for every $4 we spend on this agency that violates the rights of the people and the sovereign states, we intercept $1 worth of drugs. Now consider that the DEA intercepts less than 1% of drugs imported into or sold in America.

Law and order?

Great stats to deal a blow to the Prohibitionist camp. We waste far more money on the status quo than we would with legalised (or at least decriminalised) marijuana.

@taniciusfox - drug takers are not exactly innocent. A strong deterrent effect will take the casual users out of the market and then they can spend their cash on more wholesome goods.

The government should not be regulating society's wholesomeness.

And drug takers are generally innocent by merit of not being able to escape addictive substances. They're guilty of the first few takings at best. They need help, not jail. And this help can be funded by taxes imposed on their habit.

You've also got the wrong idea about taxing drugs. It will be difficult to find a private company willing to sell such dangerous products - they will get sued.

We need reform anyway on the validity of lawsuits. And once that's done, all the smart businesses will get in on the business. Hopefully they won't go the way of tobacco and put a bunch of crap in it, though.

Eh... can California even get away with trying to pass this bill, though? Under federal law Marijuana is still a class 1 illegal substance. Is this the kind of federal law that can be waved away with "STATES RIGHTS LOL"? I'm not really up on that sort of thing but it doesn't seem likely.

Obama said, if I recall, that he wouldn't continue DEA raids on marijuana - or at least medical marijuana - facilities. That more or less amounts to a de facto turning of marijuana into a states' rights issue.

And before anyone gets on about the President's constitutional responsibilities, his power to not enforce the law is actually one of his greatest, but least appreciated, ways of checking Congress.

I'm not so sure legalizing drugs will immediately solve the gang problem. If only it will make them switch to other activities like racketeering or outright vandalism.

It at least removes one source of revenue. Forget a victory for prohibition... we need victories against crime.

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

That or at least Mary Jane.

I'd wager that 90% of the people on the internet are libertarian.

At least socially. We may have to inhibit ourselves in reality, but due to anonymity, we can be whoever we want to be online.

 

[Japanrocks12]

The article you linked to itself mentions that they have only noted a correlation between schizophreniacs and marijuana users, not that one causes the other. This isn't convincing enough for voters to change their opinion either way.

 

[emzie]

@contre - it's not in my rational self-interests to fund rehab. It's in my interests to have a strong deterrent for irrational behaviour as opposed to soft treatment for people who are irresponsible and harming society.

So... your rational self interest is to pay more for less results? You pay either way through taxes and lost economic activity.

 

[CaptainF]

Ayn Rand clearly hasn't learned that prohibition doesn't work.

If I want to, I could buy marijuana in less than an hour, at almost any time of day. 80% of high school students say the same thing, and they've been saying the same thing for 40 years now, when the "War on Drugs" started.

If 4 out of 5 U.S. high schoolers can buy marijuana within one hour, can anyone honestly say that prohibition is achieving it's goals?

Of course not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

4 out of 5 U.S. high schoolers can buy marijuana within one hour, can anyone honestly say that prohibition is achieving it's goals?

Of course not.

Perhaps if all states enact the 5 year minimum prison sentence for simple possession that Texas once had...

Those who continue to advocate the prohibition of marijuana are essentially stating they support the persecution of political prisoners. That they want the police to be able to arbitrarily enforce absurd laws to harass people they don't particularly like.

 

[Earthling]

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

You don't understand or are not using the term in the way others use it. On the vast majority of social issues posters here and on the Internet in general as others suggested already take liberal or libertarian stances.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Amazing. Bring up drugs and suddenly everyone on CFC is a libertarian.

Because humans can't apply different outlooks to different issues?

Or should we all have 100% consistent views so those who rely on narrow views of "rationality" can easily make sense of us?