December 23, 2006

• See also some of the links in this thread.
• How does the fact that "cannabis can increase the risk of mental illness in a small number of people and is addictive" debunk the notion that "cannabis is less harmful to your health" than alcohol or tobacco? I'm not saying it's completely harmless, don't get me wrong. But to suggest it does anywhere near the harm done by alcohol or tobacco strikes me as blatant fear-mongering.
• This sounds pretty much exactly the same study that is brought out every year with slightly varied wording. It plays very well to the sort of people who have a burning need reinforce their belief in nonsensical and counterproductive prohibition laws, and makes no impression on anyone else with rudimentary reading comprehension skills, or common sense, or any experience of the matter.
• They could probably find the same conclusions with a study about pink sweaters.....
• *wolfs down another brownie, silently toasts Chy*
• Being a mind-altering drug, doesn't cannabis innately increase the risk for those who may be genetically or historically predisposed to trouble managing their thought processes while unaltered? Similar to saying alcohol can produce pronounced promiscuity in the children of swingers... or maybe that confuses the issue. So be it!
• *wolfs down pink sweater, seconds toast to Chy* *shakes angry fist at Internal Server*
• *shakily puts pink sweater on angry wolf, toasts infernal brownie for Chy*
• *Gets drunk with Chy, pukes a little on his shoes*
• *has a line of coke*
• Baloney. Any study that reaches the conclusion that it is addictive is a failed study.
• How exactly do you define "addictive?" I have had plenty of clients who know they are taking a drug test in one month and will go to jail if they test positive for marijuana. They fail the test and go to jail. I have mothers who know they will lose custody of their child if they test positive in a month. Again, they fail. I don't know what "addiction" means, but I do know that being unable to refrain from smoking something for a few weeks knowing that you will go to prison or lose your child suggests to me that you may have some sort of serious problem as it relates to the substance.
• *cough*cough* Me addicted? nah. . .
• My impression is that there are many people out there who don't understand the thing about cause and effect. They don't ask themselves "if I do x, how likely is it that y will follow." Or, if they do, they can't make the connection. Many of them are bright folks, but they live their lives as if they're dependent on chance or magic, and are blown away when cause comes to effect. There's probably a whole debate out there about whether my perception is true, and, if it is what causes this break. I think my generation was spanked into a certain amount of logic. I don't know that that's the best way to impart the idea of cause and effect, but what do you think?
• Regarding the bernockle and path observations and questions, there is always a larger-than-imaginable raft of people who cannot fathom that their actions have consequences. Aging is a sobering experience; I do not know a soul who at 30 thought his/her actions at 20 were wise, ditto 40-somethings recalling all the actions taken in their 30's. If we only knew then what we know now... Having said that, of the substances I have abused and can look back on, pot was the most benign. I don't need a scientific study to convince me of that. Those afraid of marijuana are chasing shadows.
• I think the point here is not so much that some dead-head pollie will inevitably try to use these stats as an excuse to re-introduce 'counterproductive laws' - but that for a small number of people, cannabis will trigger psychosis. What interests me is that people who know there is an inherited factor/predisposition for psychosis in their family will still smoke the stuff and take that risk. Over the years, i've seen the results of this effect and it is not a mind-altering experience to be enjoyed. Many people who have psychoses are terrified, in despair and suffering in ways those of us who are 'sane' cannot even begin to imagine. We rely on our senses to make order of the world, and rely on our brain to interpret information from the senses. Those who suffer a psychosis experience the effects of that psychosis as 'real' - and that suffering has a real effect on the psyche, the personality, emotions and physical health. For many, many people, marijuana is very effective to alleviate anxiety, pain, reduce the effects of glaucoma and of many other illnesses, including arthritis. It seems to me, though, that those who KNOW there is a predisposition for psychosis in their family are absolutely stupid, not to mention irresponsible and arrogant if they are prepared to take any risks with their mental health, and that's also a pretty good indicator of 'addiction' wouldn't you say?
• I dunno. My decisions in my early 20s were better than those in my late 20s - none of that involving marijuana. The study in the FPP really addresses effects only in people with a prediliction to mental illness. But their statistics on early use (age 9) are distressing, though I think they back up my theory. We've also seen a number of articles on binge drinking in teens. Would they be doing either of those at that age if they took seriously that there were possible consequences with marijuana and worse ones with liquor, for example?
• Everything has addictive potential. Most people I know are addicted to music. I'd estimate that 80% (at least) of Americans are addicted to television. Sugar is one of the most addictive substances on the planet. Seems like the key distinction is between chemical addiction and psychological addiction. Anything can be psychologically addictive, even things like books and puppies. (Yes, I'm just looking around the room for ideas.) IMHO, the most worthwhile target for those concerned about drug addiction is identifying substances which are chemically addictive, and helping addicts find ways to quit. The World Health Organization says: "Addiction is a term of long-standing and variable usage. . . . In the 1960s the World Health Organization recommended that both terms be abandoned in favour of dependence, which can exist in various degrees of severity." The WHO page on cannabis focuses mostly on psychological effects.
• Stoner mummy.
• What's worse than all the physical or psychological problems that cannabis caused/could ever cause? The problems inflicted on society stemming from punitive drug laws. Just legalize it already, dammit. *looks at overcrowded prisons and weeps
• Just legalize it already, dammit. We are working on it up north of the parallel here. Times are a'changing, a wee bit at a time.
• so, if you have a predisposition to schizophrenia, you should maybe refrain from smoking teh grass? super, thanks. common sense ftw!
• *smokes up, damns the torpedos*
• Some other stinker wrote that last comment, I swear it.