The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

[Ayn Rand]

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

Yes, it had to have a racist motive didn't it? What else can we expect from Nazi America?

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.

So the majority of people are a totalitarian minority?

Provincial people legislating morality... that's the US Congress, the FBI and the DEA, right?

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

I'm sure that you don't mean they are opposed to Obamacare when you say that...

The government should not be regulating society's wholesomeness.

I agree, but why only drugs? Shall we eliminate pollution controls, financial regulations, anti-monopoly legislation and income taxes, or is it only drugs that should have the benefit of free-market capitalism?

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

The cheapest solution is not always the best solution. If we have to pay to fix the problem, we should pay enough to fix the problem by providing an effective deterrent to bring drug-users to their senses.

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.

Then why do you need to legalise it?

Prohibition has the effect of allowing criminals to be targetted and contained in a given industry, and reduces the extent of the drug menace. Drugs, once legalised, can rot an entire society if allowed to spread unchecked.

We can't give the message to decent people that it's okay to take drugs. If some leftists or criminals want to bust their brains and have a little pseudo-rebellion with drugs, then so be it. It probably helps to keep them under control so it's actually quite laughable, but we don't want everybody doing them.

I really hope that the attitudes expressed here are not something that any Republicans, Christians or other good people in America share in.

I'm still astonished how many people suddenly want free-market capitalism when it comes to drugs. We should find a way to take advantage of this

 

[Frank Drebin]

please explain what the legalisation of mj has to do with the idea "free market".

 

[EnglishEdward]

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?

I understand that schizophrenia was historically the catchall term for all other undefined types of insanity. However the shrink industry has invented further terms over the decades, so it has consequently diagnosed a smaller proportion of its patients as schizophrenics. I.e. the change in the definition and diagnosis of schizophrenia over time means that it is very difficult to be confident that the schizophrenia rate has been constant.

 

[Bill3000]

I really hope that the attitudes expressed here are not something that any Republicans, Christians or other good people in America share in.

Legalizing marijuana is as supported as being pro-life in the US, so it's a pretty common minority.

Obviously it needs to remain banned in Britain and America - I'm not an idealist who believes in attempting to literally apply the principles of a political philosophy without regard for the complexities of reality and human psychology.

Yeah you are.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I agree, but why only drugs? Shall we eliminate pollution controls, financial regulations, anti-monopoly legislation and income taxes, or is it only drugs that should have the benefit of free-market capitalism?

Apples and oranges.

If we go by the principle of negative liberty, then any substance, activity, etc. is okay up until the point it harms another... and many of those cases you cite protect negative liberty.

1. Pollution has to be regulated because it releases so many toxins into the air and thus decreases the quality of life for all human beings in great enough quantities. Drugs that are smoked probably release chemicals, but I don't think any of us are against making drugs more pure and taking that crap companies put into them out.

2. Financial regulations make sense because banks NEED to be singled out. Most companies provide a good or service to whichever segment of the economy needs it. Banks, however, fuel the entire economy, by holding unspent money in savings and lending money to consumer and business-builder alike. Because of this, they are vital to the economy's well-being and need special protections, as they - along with the government as well - control the key element of the modern economy: cash. To let banks do as they please is potentially suicidal.

3. Anti-monopoly legislation ensures competition and, to an extent, equality of opportunity. Both of which are key to free market ideals. And to the quality of goods.

---

Now for the exception to the negative liberty principle...

4. Income taxes are probably the most debatable here and not completely apples and oranges. The issue is that there are a lot of factors that come into play, such as: a) is your money your property, or was it stolen from the people you "exploited" to get it?; b) How equal society should be in fiscal terms; c) The economic impacts of the way taxes are structured.

It can be quite a mess, as you can see, and it can be hard to argue how high taxes have to be before they infringe on liberty. You can argue that people have the right to every penny they make, how the workers have the right to every penny produced by their company, how the higher income taxes are the price for citizenship, or how taxes should be entirely flat... or if the income tax should be abolished completely.

This is quite muddy, and not as easy to factor into negative or positive liberty. This is a more sound debate, and you may have a point on income taxes, but I already cited that competitive market principles stay pretty solid on the other three.

 

[_random_]

I'm sure that you don't mean they are opposed to Obamacare when you say that...

That's not what being a libertarian means though. Just about all of us are libertarians in some sense, some socially, some economically, and some both.

I agree, but why only drugs? Shall we eliminate pollution controls, financial regulations, anti-monopoly legislation and income taxes, or is it only drugs that should have the benefit of free-market capitalism?

Those are different issues entirely, and ones that actually have something to do with the good of the public as a whole.

The cheapest solution is not always the best solution. If we have to pay to fix the problem, we should pay enough to fix the problem by providing an effective deterrent to bring drug-users to their senses.

But you've never really given any rational of why we have to pay.

Then why do you need to legalise it?

So it can be done legally.

Prohibition has the effect of allowing criminals to be targetted and contained in a given industry, and reduces the extent of the drug menace. Drugs, once legalised, can rot an entire society if allowed to spread unchecked.

Really? Because it was legal in the United States until 1937, and we did all right before that. Whatever was ruining our society, it wasn't drugs.

We can't give the message to decent people that it's okay to take drugs. If some leftists or criminals want to bust their brains and have a little pseudo-rebellion with drugs, then so be it. It probably helps to keep them under control so it's actually quite laughable, but we don't want everybody doing them.

The "decent people" probably won't do marijuana, just like lots of people don't drink or smoke.

I really hope that the attitudes expressed here are not something that any Republicans, Christians or other good people in America share in.

Off the top of my head, civ king and I are Christians, and my mom is a Republican who tends toward the side of legalization.

 

[warpus]

Yes, it had to have a racist motive didn't it? What else can we expect from Nazi America?

He's actually not too far off the mark there. That was only a part of the reason, though.

 

[civver_764]

I'm sure that you don't mean they are opposed to Obamacare when you say that...

I'm sure you don't think libertarian just applies to the right side of the spectrum. Libertarian began as a leftist term for the anarchist movement in the 19th century.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nobel prize winning John Nash was a schizophrenic. I don't think he smoked pot though.

 

[amadeus]

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?

As ethical and as practical as not mandating a USDA inspector stand in every housewife's kitchen as she prepares a chicken dinner. We know the damage salmonella can do, yet the government does not have in existence or enforce regulations regarding the handling of raw chicken.

In this case of danger, the government allows people to act for themselves and accept the risk of contracting this poisoning should they not follow through sufficiently with the cooking and sanitation processes.

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.

What? I'm fairly certain that when I smoked marijuana for the first time, I consented and accepted all responsibility thereafter. I'm an adult and I made a choice to consume that substance.

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.

There's more than enough data to support such a conclusion; I need not go into great depth about the rise of gang violence during the prohibition on the sale and possession of alcohol nearly 90 years ago. Had there been no prohibition, there would have been no Al Capone.

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.

What?!

 

[CaptainF]

Then why do you need to legalise it?

Hmm...I dunno, because we're throwing billions of dollars down the drain with no effect on the availability or the popularity of marijuana.

When marijuana was criminalized in 1937, the only people that smoked it were jazz musicians and Mexican migrant workers.

Nowadays, millions of people from all walks of life partake.

Some success, eh?

Prohibition has the effect of allowing criminals to be targetted and contained in a given industry, and reduces the extent of the drug menace. Drugs, once legalised, can rot an entire society if allowed to spread unchecked.

Reduce the extent of the drug menace? You clearly haven't been reading my posts. Marijuana is just as, if not more available than it ever has been despite the best efforts of the Feds.

Consider also that the "drug menace" is running unchecked nowadays with regards to teenagers. Illegal drug dealers don't ask for ID when you make a purchase.

We can't give the message to decent people that it's okay to take drugs. If some leftists or criminals want to bust their brains and have a little pseudo-rebellion with drugs, then so be it. It probably helps to keep them under control so it's actually quite laughable, but we don't want everybody doing them.

Decent people? Lol, you really know nothing about drug use or how many people use drugs.

I know lots of decent people who have smoked marijuana their whole lives while raising a family, holding down a six figure income job and generally enjoying life to the fullest.

You, as a "decent" person take drugs too I bet. Caffiene? Aspirin?

I really hope that the attitudes expressed here are not something that any Republicans, Christians or other good people in America share in.

How does using drugs make someone a bad person? I personally have smoked cannabis with many a conservative, christian republican.

I'm still astonished how many people suddenly want free-market capitalism when it comes to drugs. We should find a way to take advantage of this

Legalization and "Free-market capitalism" aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, it had to have a racist motive didn't it? What else can we expect from Nazi America?

The facts are the facts, dude. You may want to try googling a bit before you decide that something must not be true simply because you apparently never heard it before.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/11.htm

As the numbers of Mexican immigrants began to increase, especially in the border towns of the southwest, they were the object of close scrutiny by the townsfolk. Suspicious and often resentful of these newcomers, the townspeople humiliated, harassed, and abused them to make them feel as unwelcome as possible. When the Mexicans lashed back at their tormentors, their actions were often attributed to the influence of marihuana, which to many Americans symbolized the Mexican presence in America.

As early as 1914, the town of El Paso passed a local ordinance outlawing the sale or possession of marihuana. Like the outlawing of opium, the ordinance was meant to annoy and harass a class of people. The pretext for the law was said to have been a fight started by a Mexican who was allegedly under the influence of the drug, but the real reason was dislike, if not hatred, of the foreigners from across the Rio Grande.

http://www.arinsattic.com/index.php/farrago/comments/1930s_marihuana_and_the_mexican/

In the southwest, the sudden increase in Mexican immigration to the Untied States around 1910 set off yet another round of ethnic confrontation. The Mexicans were lower-class immigrants. They were crude, loud, uneducated. They lived in dirty shanties, ate strange food, and spoke a foreign language. The more resentful of these foreigners Americans became, the readier they were to attribute other negative characteristics to the Mexican. The fact that the Mexicans were Catholics made their situation even more touchy since Protestant America considered Catholicism a religion of dark superstition and ignorance.

The Mexican was the Negro of the southwestern United States. While not a slave or a sharecropper, he was a peasant. The stereotype of the Mexican was that of a thief, an untamed savage, hot-blooded, quick to anger yet inherently lazy and irresponsible.

Small farmers, unable to compete with large growers because of the cheap wages paid to the Mexicans, were being driven out of business. Labor unions likewise complained of the competition from cheap labor. Local governments were unhappy about the number of Mexicans on relief. Business interests countered that the Mexicans were the most preferable of all the cheap labor available and were more suited than American whites at working at menial tasks. Caught in the middle, the Mexicans became the scapegoats for the economic conflict between business and labor. It was largely in this role of monkey-in-the-middle that the habits and customs of the Mexicans began to be attacked as un-American, and at the top of the list of un-American-like activities was their use of marihuana.

When the 1930s devastated the American economy, the Mexicans bore the brunt of the scapegoat mentality in the southwest. Everything about them was abhorrent to many Americans, and there was a general hew and cry to kick them out of the country. Harassment was commonplace. The Mexicans were censured for almost everything they did or failed to do, including smoking marijuana. Marihuana, in fact, became the pretext for vexing the Mexicans just as opium had been the pretext for vexing the Chinese years before.

In the 1930s the racist head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Harry Anslinger, was renaming hemp as ‘marijuana’ to associate it with Mexican laborers and claiming that marijuana ‘can arouse in blacks and Hispanics a state of menacing fury or homicidal attack.’

So the majority of people are a totalitarian minority?

If that's what you got from my statements, try reading them again because I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

But you do understand that totalitarianism, e.g. fascism, is indeed the opposite of libertarianism. Right? That depriving an adult of the right to use a basically harmless recreational drug, such as marijuana, is the exact opposite of personal liberty. Right?

I agree, but why only drugs? Shall we eliminate pollution controls, financial regulations, anti-monopoly legislation and income taxes, or is it only drugs that should have the benefit of free-market capitalism?

It has absolutely nothing to do with "free market capitalism", which is true of a great deal of our laws. It has to do with criminalizing a segment of the population that the far-right has always thought of as being a serious problem.

We can't give the message to decent people that it's okay to take drugs.

You mean like alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine?

If some leftists or criminals want to bust their brains and have a little pseudo-rebellion with drugs, then so be it.

Yeah. That's what's really going on here. It's a plot by the "leftist criminals" to have a "pseudo-rebellion". Either that, or it's simple common sense.

 

[CaptainF]

That dern marihuana makes the darkies lust for white wimmins, doncha know?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

No it makes the white wimminz desire the black guys.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I don't have time to respond to all the posts tonight - but there must be a massive difference between people who smoke marijuana in the USA and those who smoke it in Britain. 5 minutes with a British marijuana smoker will convince you that it's an awful drug smoked by awful people [with a few exceptions here and there].

Maybe I need to reconsider. Seems like I'm the only one arguing this side of the case which is worrying.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Paul McCartney, one of the richest men in the world.

I rest my case.

 

[Communisto]

I don't have time to respond to all the posts tonight - but there must be a massive difference between people who smoke marijuana in the USA and those who smoke it in Britain. 5 minutes with a British marijuana smoker will convince you that it's an awful drug smoked by awful people [with a few exceptions here and there].

Maybe I need to reconsider. Seems like I'm the only one arguing this side of the case which is worrying.

Obviously what convinces Ayn doesnt necessarily convince the rest of us. You can take my weed from my cold, dead hands.

Oh wait, you cant because it's already illegal and I can still get some any time I want.

 

[CaptainF]

I don't have time to respond to all the posts tonight - but there must be a massive difference between people who smoke marijuana in the USA and those who smoke it in Britain. 5 minutes with a British marijuana smoker will convince you that it's an awful drug smoked by awful people [with a few exceptions here and there].

Maybe I need to reconsider. Seems like I'm the only one arguing this side of the case which is worrying.

I think you've encountered the wrong type of smokers. I've smoked with British people who were perfectly normal, sociable, active individuals.

Yes, there are some cannabis smokers who fit the "burnout" stereotype, but it's usually because they were a moron before they started smoking.

Like I said, people from all walks of life smoke. Rich and poor, male and female, conservative and liberal, smart and stupid.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The people you want to watch out for are the coke snorting bankers who ruined the economy.

 

[nonconformist]

I don't have time to respond to all the posts tonight - but there must be a massive difference between people who smoke marijuana in the USA and those who smoke it in Britain. 5 minutes with a British marijuana smoker will convince you that it's an awful drug smoked by awful people [with a few exceptions here and there].

Maybe I need to reconsider. Seems like I'm the only one arguing this side of the case which is worrying.

How many people wh osmoke it do you know?

Cos I assure you, most I know either are, or wil be earning several times what you are.