The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

[emzie]

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?

If smoking pot meant one would become schizophrenic, then of course, it would be a stupid drug. As the article says, the incidence of schizophrenia hasn't risen with more prevalent use of pot.

Consider that mobby. There are not more schizophrenics despite more pot smokers. I'm willing to wager anything that if you were to double the amount of drinkers in a population, you would see a rise in alcohol-related illnesses.

And further, even if there is a causation in your article, not merely a correlation (also, please google causation and correlation while we're at it) that doesn't mean banning pot is a good policy. Just do cost / benefit analysis: does it cost more to enforce prohibition of marijuana, or does it cost more to treat the additional marijuana-related illnesses that will occur due to legalization? Mind you, the latter, since marijuana is presumed legal, has an additional mitigating factor in tax revenue.

In my opinion, anyone who drinks, and I know you do, has no ground in any way shape or form, to argue against legalization of pot. Your hypocrisy on the matter renders your opinion moot.

 

[nonconformist]

you learn something new everyday...

A "hallucinogen", contrary to popular belief, doesn't mean "I see pink elephants, and God talks to me", it actually refers to distorted sensations, especially relating to visual and auditory sensations; i.e heightened sense of colours and shapes, heightened sense of rhythm etc.
Why do you think stoners love their weird-arse music and tie-dye t-shirts?

 

[Frank Drebin]

A "hallucinogen", contrary to popular belief, doesn't mean "I see pink elephants, and God talks to me", it actually refers to distorted sensations, especially relating to visual and auditory sensations; i.e heightened sense of colours and shapes, heightened sense of rhythm etc.
Why do you think stoners love their weird-arse music and tie-dye t-shirts?

i dont know, i like stupid stuff when just drunk too, and ethanol isnt a hallucinogen.

wait, is it?

 

[civver_764]

So, in the interests of the government not locking people up in padded cells, cannabis should remain banned.

Your name is Ayn Rand and you don't even think weed should be legal?

I don't care if they show that weed kills you instantly, it still shouldn't be illegal.

 

[emzie]

Your name is Ayn Rand and you don't even think weed should be legal?

I don't care if they show that weed kills you instantly, it still shouldn't be illegal.

Yeah, he has demonstrated one of two things: he's a troll or he has no idea what objectivism is, but admires other people who claim to follow it as a philosophy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The only truly corroborable correlation I seen regarding marijuana is that people who are opposed to the legalization of it typically believe everything negative about the drug they have ever been told, and the vast majority of it has eventually turned out to be nothing but lies.

 

[civver_764]

The only truly corroborable correlation I seen regarding marijuana is that people who are opposed to the legalization of it typically believe everything negative about the drug they have ever been told, and the vast majority of it has eventually turned out to be nothing but lies.

This is so true.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Your name is Ayn Rand and you don't even think weed should be legal?

I don't care if they show that weed kills you instantly, it still shouldn't be illegal.

We are not talking about whether weed should be banned in an Objectivist society, but whether it should be banned in this society [ie Britain, America]. 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.

And just because my avatar is "Ayn Rand" doesn't mean I'm a Randian clone - most people in Britain haven't heard of Ayn Rand [the author]. She's clearly much better known in America than in our country, I would have chosen a different name if I'd realised

 

[Perfection]

I'm not seeing huge evidence for causal links between marijuana and Schizophrenia here. There are some interesting correlations, but I don't find the evidence all that good.

In any case, arguments for medicinal usage of marijuana shouldn't be affected by this (presumably schizophrenics that could be affected wouldn't be prescribed the drug). Recreational usage I could see it hold some sway, but I find it likely that other arguments would swamp these considerations.

 

[civver_764]

@Ayn Rand: What would be different in an Objectivist society that would make it "safe" to legalize?

 

[Ayn Rand]

@Ayn Rand: What would be different in an Objectivist society that would make it "safe" to legalize?

Innocent people wouldn't be made to pay the consequences of drug-takers irrationality.

So long as the taxpayer is paying for rehab, police [drug-related crime], hospital, benefits etc, then the taxpayer gets to decide what these people are allowed to smoke or not.

Those clamouring for the freedom to smoke pot, don't want the freedom to deal with the consequences for themselves.
In an Objectivist society, people would have true freedom - meaning they will have the responsibilities that come with freedom and won't be able to offload them onto others.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So long as the taxpayer is paying for rehab, police [drug-related crime], hospital, benefits etc, then the taxpayer gets to decide what these people are allowed to smoke or not.

Pot rehab? Hospital costs? "Benefits"? You are kidding, right?

And as far as "drug-related crime" is concerned, it will all vanish overnight when it is finally legalized. Not that there is really much of it anyway. Most cops could care less about possession of pot anymore unless they want to harass you for something else.

Those clamouring for the freedom to smoke pot, don't want the freedom to deal with the consequences for themselves.

It sounds more like those who oppose it just want to continue to make stuff up and pretend it is really a serious societal problem when it obviously is not.

And just think of the millions in propaganda costs the government will save by no longer having to spread all those lies to every school-aged child in the country once it is finally legalized.

 

[Communisto]

This thread isnt about stuff thats already legal thats bad for us or whether the government has a right (it does) to regulate such things. The point is why would we knowingly add an additional potentially harmful and addictive drug to our populace fully realizing it can have harmful and addictive effects on the people that smoke it?

This is where you always stumble on drug related issues. This drug was "added" to our populace about the same time as alcohol was. Anyone in your or my country can get it whenever they want. It is not going anywhere.

Oldest Marijuana Stash in the World Found in Gobi

 

[civver_764]

Innocent people wouldn't be made to pay the consequences of drug-takers irrationality.

So long as the taxpayer is paying for rehab, police [drug-related crime], hospital, benefits etc, then the taxpayer gets to decide what these people are allowed to smoke or not.

They also have to pay for prison sentences if it is illegal..

 

[emzie]

Innocent people wouldn't be made to pay the consequences of drug-takers irrationality.

So long as the taxpayer is paying for rehab, police [drug-related crime], hospital, benefits etc, then the taxpayer gets to decide what these people are allowed to smoke or not.

Those clamouring for the freedom to smoke pot, don't want the freedom to deal with the consequences for themselves.
In an Objectivist society, people would have true freedom - meaning they will have the responsibilities that come with freedom and won't be able to offload them onto others.

Just as an FYI, the cheapest way to stop drug abuse is rehab, not enforcement. Unless your solution is a bullet to the brain stem for position of any illegal drug, it's in your rational self interest, in terms of lower tax burden, for society to treat addiction as a disease first and foremost.

 

[Earthling]

Uhm, no, they are not. I took my time and read the article very, very carefully. What I mentioned is indeed in the article

I read the article very carefully too, and anyone here can or has done the same. The simple answer is yes, I was correct, and your conclusion is not in the article and thus still incorrect.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

should we really keep beating this poor dead and buried horse? I mean the facts are obvious to anyone that cares to look at them with no bias, and the ban madness is finally dying. once it's legal in hollywood, everyone else will follow suit.

 

[Karalysia]

Oh come on people, just look at this line from him, you know he's being satirical:

Awful drug which has been known for years to cause mental illness, the solution is to stop putting the dealers in prison and send users with small amounts to jail for a long time.

 

[Duo]

If marijuana was very strongly linked to schizophrenia then I think it would be a very silly thing to ingest, and that anyone who did use it would deserve whatever they got, but the correlation isn't that strong, and most people who take cannabis at some point don't become schizophrenic, or layabouts, or tax cheats or rapists or... whatever. I don't feel much sympathy for someone who takes a drug and doesn't do some sort of research in advance.

Silly conservatives and their big government.

 

[CaptainF]

There is no proven causal link between marijuana use and schizophrenia.

Now, what else will the prohibitionists pull out of their posteriors?