Marijuana and Mental Illness

[Mirrorglass]

Then prohibit smoking it, and not ingesting it and inhaling the vapors of the vaporized product.

I think if we legalized everything and gave a thorough education to our children, without the fear mongering and dishonest inflation of often fabricated danger, things would be in a better place that they are today. Treating the dangers more as a health issue/epidemic and not a criminal issue is what I feel makes the most sense.

The thing is, if there is a product that causes medical issues, the logical thing to do is to stop it from reaching people. It's fine to consider drug addiction an illness instead of a crime - but infecting people with that illness is a different matter altogether.

Criminalize tobacco? If you think we have drug violence NOW, just try that.

Well, it's not going to happen overnight. But a man can dream.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Well, it's not going to happen overnight. But a man can dream.

Carrie Nation thought that about alcohol. She eventually got her dream fulfilled...

 

[Halfcentaur]

The thing is, if there is a product that causes medical issues, the logical thing to do is to stop it from reaching people. It's fine to consider drug addiction an illness instead of a crime - but infecting people with that illness is a different matter altogether.



Well, it's not going to happen overnight. But a man can dream.

This creates a strange splinter debate.
The product does not cause the medical issue, the smoke does. Tobacco also causes harm from "chewing", this isn't an issue with cannabis. The intended effect can be achieved without smoking it, easily so, in a number of ways. The slippery slope you've opened up with this trepidation over "smoking" an herb is quite the slippery one because of it's similarity to tobacco. Still, I would argue it's nobodies place to legally prohibit the smoking of tobacco, perhaps the industry around it, but not the right to do what you want to your body. You're just giving the cartels something else to profit from perhaps. But the debate you've opened up with this is too slippery for my wee brain to continue. I will hide in this box unless you provide another opening for me to "reason" at.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Carrie Nation thought that about alcohol. She eventually got her dream fulfilled...

Yes, and I hear Hitler was a vegetarian. I shudder to think what will become of me.

This creates a strange splinter debate.
The product does not cause the medical issue, the smoke does. Tobacco also causes harm from "chewing", this isn't an issue with cannabis. The intended effect can be achieved without smoking it, easily so, in a number of ways. The slippery slope you've opened up with this trepidation over "smoking" an herb is quite the slippery one because of it's similarity to tobacco. Still, I would argue it's nobodies place to legally prohibit the smoking of tobacco, perhaps the industry around it, but not the right to do what you want to your body. You're just giving the cartels something else to profit from perhaps. But the debate you've opened up with this is too slippery for my wee brain to continue. I will hide in this box unless you provide another opening for me to "reason" at.

Actually, cannabis does cause some issues; addiction and earlier onset of several mental illnesses are well documented, and some others are suspected with too little data to make a final judgment.

Also, the idea that cannabis could be made legal, but smoking it illegal, is ludicrous. How many users would agree to that?

As to the argument about people having the right to decide what they do with their own bodies, I understand it and disagree with it, but it's too fundamental an issue to debate fruitfully about.

 

[Halfcentaur]

While smoking common food products and any other manner of thing isn't the commonly intended use, they would present many health problems if in fact you did smoke them. But the health complications of smoking go away once you don't inhale the smoke that is produced when burning them. Cannabis should not be prohibited because it can be unhealthy in situations, lot's of things can be that you would not advocate similar action against I assume. While yes, smoking cannabis is one traditional method, it's not limited to that. You really condone prohibiting it on the same grounds as tobacco for the similarity you've cited?

 

[BenBurch]

The same result will be obtained as Carrie Nation got; Gangs formed to supply illegal tobacco, gunfights over turf, people killed, huge expenditures of law enforcement dollars, and tobacco use barely effected.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Yes, and I hear Hitler was a vegetarian. I shudder to think what will become of me.



Actually, cannabis does cause some issues; addiction and earlier onset of several mental illnesses are well documented, and some others are suspected with too little data to make a final judgment.

Also, the idea that cannabis could be made legal, but smoking it illegal, is ludicrous. How many users would agree to that?

As to the argument about people having the right to decide what they do with their own bodies, I understand it and disagree with it, but it's too fundamental an issue to debate fruitfully about.

I posted my last post before I saw this. No, I would say that addiction is not well documented at all, especially if you're going to throw around terms like "final judgment". Bad habits are not the same thing as physical dependence. The issue of mental health issues due to chronic use are also not well documented, this issue has been addressed several times in this thread, so if you're going to go down this road, there's nothing more to be said. Your entire premise on regulation seems centered on the idea that cannabis causes otherwise normal people to become chronic pot addicts. This is simply not true. You are proposing actions to be taken based on what could possibly happen, and the logic soon becomes silly when you begin to make similar comparisons.

As for prohibiting smoking being "ludicrous", if you can scientifically demonstrate to people what smoking does to you, and then present the other commonly used methods for ingesting, people would have to be ludicrous or suicidal not to agree. You seem to not be aware of how common pot brownies are.

 

[Mirrorglass]

While smoking common food products and any other manner of thing isn't the commonly intended use, they would present many health problems if in fact you did smoke them. But the health complications of smoking go away once you don't inhale the smoke that is produced when burning them. Cannabis should not be prohibited because it can be unhealthy in situations, lot's of things can be that you would not advocate similar action against I assume. While yes, smoking cannabis is one traditional method, it's not limited to that.

It's not the nicotine that kills, it's the smoke.


On a more serious note; do you truly believe the idea of prohibiting smoking cannabis while having the substance itself freely available would have the slightest hope of working?

Many things are prohibited despite them only being unhealthy in certain situations. Poisonous foods, automatic weapons and high-intensity lasers are all only dangerous in some fairly specific situations - the problem is, those situations happen to be quite likely.

You really condone prohibiting it on the same grounds as tobacco for the similarity you've cited?

I'm sure you remember that the point about tobacco was a footnote in my list of reasons for not wanting to legalize cannabis. It's not the most important one, and I thought I made that fairly clear.

Also, I'm not condoning 'prohibiting cannabis on the same grounds as tobacco' - I'm advising against legalizing it while at the same time attempting to lessen tobacco smoking, as that would be an illogical double standard. There is quite a difference between those two.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Actually, cannabis does cause some issues; addiction and earlier onset of several mental illnesses are well documented, and some others are suspected with too little data to make a final judgment.

There seems to be some dispute about the meaning of "well documented". Maybe the phrase you're looking for is "often alleged".

Also, the idea that cannabis could be made legal, but smoking it illegal, is ludicrous. How many users would agree to that?

The ones who wanted to get high, and not arrested? Brownies are good.

As to the argument about people having the right to decide what they do with their own bodies, I understand it and disagree with it, but it's too fundamental an issue to debate fruitfully about.

Do you have any opinions about who gets to decide what you do with your body for you?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Actually, cannabis does cause some issues; addiction and earlier onset of several mental illnesses are well documented, and some others are suspected with too little data to make a final judgment.

Marijuana is much less addictive than many other legal substances. The correlations with mental illnesses are best described as overstated--not well documented (see one of my previous posts for the peer-reviewed reference). There are also other activities associated with mental illness that remain perfectly legal (like living in a city)... Try again please.

 

[Mirrorglass]

There seems to be some dispute about the meaning of "well documented". Maybe the phrase you're looking for is "often alleged".

There's dispute over many things, but the evidence for the schitzophrenia-onset thing is pretty strong, and I don't think there's anyone credible out there claiming cannabis isn't addictive.

The ones who wanted to get high, and not arrested? Brownies are good.

Well, if you truly believe it would work, you have more faith in humanity than I do. But it's quite strange that there are people smoking pot now. Do they want to get arrested? Why would anything be different if only smoking was illegal?

Do you have any opinions about who gets to decide what you do with your body for you?

Of course. I just don't think explaining them would achieve anything more than getting a few people to tell me how stupid and/or evil they are, and by extension, I am.

 

[FattyCatty]

. . . What you have is an issue of practicality. Of course there would be no point in incarcerating all those people. But then, nobody is suggesting every drug user should go to jail. That's a typical strawman used to make it seem like all advocates of drug criminalization are crazy nazis hoping to send all potheads into concentration camps. They're not.

Instead, make that incarceration a two hundred dollar fine. Suddenly that ten billion dollars turns positive - easily enough to pay for the incarceration of the small percentage of people who really are dangerous in addition to being criminals. And indeed, in practice this is usually what is done (although in practice, not enough fines are collected to make the whole thing profitable).

It's pointless to claim the fact that a prison sentence can be given for possession means it always, usually or even often is. The facts are out there, and you're not fooling anyone but those who want to be fooled. There are several good arguments for decriminalizing drug use, but this isn't one of them.

Asking, not saying. In terms of practicality, wouldn't decriminalization result in a net gain in income for the government? Costs of law enforcement agencies, courts, and prisons go down; taxes bring in revenue.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Asking, not saying. In terms of practicality, wouldn't decriminalization result in a net gain in income for the government? Costs of law enforcement agencies, courts, and prisons go down; taxes bring in revenue.

Many people would answer a simple 'yes'. The truth is we don't really know. At the moment, it does seem like legalizing cannabis would produce a net gain, but it's impossible to predict the long-term effects. For harder drugs, it's even more uncertain.

 

[quadraginta]

There's dispute over many things, but the evidence for the schitzophrenia-onset thing is pretty strong, and I don't think there's anyone credible out there claiming cannabis isn't addictive.

Sure there is, unless your definition of "addictive" is basically analogous to "want to do it again because it feels good".Plenty of people stop using marijuana with no problem. I'll see your "I don't think ..." and raise you.

I don't think anyone credible claims that marijuana is addictive without twisting the meaning of the word "addiction" until it screams for mercy.

Alcohol is addictive. Withdrawal can be fatal sometimes if not closely monitored by medical professionals. Most rehab facilities either have provisions to do just that, or they won't take alcohol addicts until the withdrawal phase is past.

Do you know of any cases of someone dying from marijuana withdrawal?

Anyone who has actually succeeded in overcoming the immediate withdrawal effects of a truly addictive substance would be either insulted or perhaps amused by the idea that marijuana is even comparable.

Well, if you truly believe it would work, you have more faith in humanity than I do. But it's quite strange that there are people smoking pot now. Do they want to get arrested? Why would anything be different if only smoking was illegal?

No, they want to get high. It would be different if they could get high without being arrested.

I'm not sure why that is confusing to you.

Of course. I just don't think explaining them would achieve anything more than getting a few people to tell me how stupid and/or evil they are, and by extension, I am.

This may be food for thought. If only a few people would find fault with what you say, that suggests that many would not. Do you think they would hesitate to defend your opinions if they agreed with them?

If it turns out to be somewhat more than "a few" then perhaps your opinions may deserve some reconsideration by you. Why would you avoid that?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Sure there is, unless your definition of "addictive" is basically analogous to "want to do it again because it feels good".Plenty of people stop using marijuana with no problem. I'll see your "I don't think ..." and raise you.

Well, there are some fallacies to wade through here.

Firstly, 'addictive' does not mean 'all who try it get addicted'. It means 'some who do it get addicted'. In the case of cannabis, it's around ten percent of the people who try it. And a person who continuously wants to do something because it feels good can still be addicted; the two are not mutually exclusive, and addicts often don't realize they are addicted until they have to stop for external reasons.

I don't think anyone credible claims that marijuana is addictive without twisting the meaning of the word "addiction" until it screams for mercy.

Funny you should say that.

Alcohol is addictive. Withdrawal can be fatal sometimes if not closely monitored by medical professionals. Most rehab facilities either have provisions to do just that, or they won't take alcohol addicts until the withdrawal phase is past.

That is true.

Do you know of any cases of someone dying from marijuana withdrawal?

And that is irrelevant. Something being addictive and something having lethal withdrawal symptoms are two different things. It's true that cannabis withdrawal is generally less intense in symptom than alcohol withdrawal. That doesn't mean cannabis isn't addictive.

Anyone who has actually succeeded in overcoming the immediate withdrawal effects of a truly addictive substance would be either insulted or perhaps amused by the idea that marijuana is even comparable.

Remember it was you who decided to compare the withdrawal symptoms of extreme alcoholics and the effects felt by a casual smoker of cannabis.

And I'm sure you know not all alcoholics have dramatic symptoms. The common alcohol addiction is very similar to the common cannabis addiction; neither is usually associated with lethal withdrawal symptoms, but both make quitting the substance extremely difficult.

The problem is that it's not a matter of 'true' and 'fake' addiction. It's a scale, a matter of how addictive a substance is. Cannabis is not the most addictive substance out there, but it's addictive enough to cause a lot of trouble.

If you still doubt me, I'll find the cites tomorrow.

No, they want to get high. It would be different if they could get high without being arrested.

I'm not sure why that is confusing to you.

Well, if you truly feel that way, then let's agree that smoking cannabis should be illegal. That still leaves the question of whether or not the product should be available at all, but it's a good start.

This may be food for thought. If only a few people would find fault with what you say, that suggests that many would not. Do you think they would hesitate to defend your opinions if they agreed with them?

If it turns out to be somewhat more than "a few" then perhaps your opinions may deserve some reconsideration by you. Why would you avoid that?

I'm afraid I don't decide my moral views by popular opinion, and I don't measure popular opinion by assuming a random sample of people will respond to my every post. If I explain my ethical reasoning against drug legalization here, it will receive several responses from pro-drug people, ranging from sarcastic to condescending to outright hostile. Someone who agrees with me may chip in, but more likely they really don't care about this particular debate so much. Your idea that I should take this as a sign of my opinions being wrong is rather amusing in itself.

If you truly are curious, I can explain my opinion on the matter, but I really don't expect it to benefit the discussion.

 

[Marcus]

Do you suppose that being guilty of a federal and usually state crime for taking a puff might contribute to this mild paranoia?

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a certain level of paranoia was common among anyone who was even "holding", whether they were using or not. This could cast some doubt on the drug use being responsible for paranoia in situations like you describe.

The effect is present even when you are out in the middle of the wilderness, or any other place far away from any danger,and is different then what you feel when you are holding but not high.

I know we are not big on anecdotes here, but when you are really, really, familiar with something (25 years smoking for me) it goes way beyond a theoretical discussion.

I will add for information, since it seems relevant to this thread, why I quit 7 years ago. I started having more and more smoke free days to enjoy what I thought of as the "energy bonus". More energy (and improved processing power) for work and more for working out. When it got to the point that I wanted the energy bonus every day, I was no longer a smoker.

 

[Marcus]

I posted my last post before I saw this. No, I would say that addiction is not well documented at all, especially if you're going to throw around terms like "final judgment". Bad habits are not the same thing as physical dependence. The issue of mental health issues due to chronic use are also not well documented, this issue has been addressed several times in this thread, so if you're going to go down this road, there's nothing more to be said. Your entire premise on regulation seems centered on the idea that cannabis causes otherwise normal people to become chronic pot addicts. This is simply not true. You are proposing actions to be taken based on what could possibly happen, and the logic soon becomes silly when you begin to make similar comparisons.

As for prohibiting smoking being "ludicrous", if you can scientifically demonstrate to people what smoking does to you, and then present the other commonly used methods for ingesting, people would have to be ludicrous or suicidal not to agree. You seem to not be aware of how common pot brownies are.

Weed is not addictive in the way that alcohol or tobacco is, but there are withdrawal symptoms for regular users, mainly trouble sleeping and jitteriness. They last a couple weeks but are really insignificant compared to tobacco.

Interestingly, in recent years it has been found that there is something in marijuana smoke that prevents lung cancer, for decades it was assumed that smoking it would be at least as bad as tobacco, since it has at least as much tar and presumably carcinogens.

 

[Dancing David]

There's dispute over many things, but the evidence for the schitzophrenia-onset thing is pretty strong, and I don't think there's anyone credible out there claiming cannabis isn't addictive.

I don't think you have done your actual research, the data on onset of schizophrenia is indicative, not really strong.(How does ita ccount for self selection, under reporting of symptoms and age of onset?)
The addictive profile for mj is very low compared to other SoA.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, there are some fallacies to wade through here.

Firstly, 'addictive' does not mean 'all who try it get addicted'. It means 'some who do it get addicted'. In the case of cannabis, it's around ten percent of the people who try it. And a person who continuously wants to do something because it feels good can still be addicted; the two are not mutually exclusive, and addicts often don't realize they are addicted until they have to stop for external reasons.

Actually in terms of 'addictive profile' it is directly related to the number of people who are addicts per exposure, withdrawal profile is self explanatory.

And addiction is defined by the behaviors of dependance. The only way a person is addicted is if they meet the criteria

DSM-IV Substance Dependence Criteria
Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive
pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of
the following, occurring any time in the same 12-month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect
or
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
or
(b) The same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (for example, current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not the nicotine that kills, it's the smoke.

O Rly?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509255/pdf/bripharmchem00121-0085.pdf

I looked for but couldn't find the video from this experiment, luckily for you, as it is a truly disturbing watch.