Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE

"5trfg6h7"  wrote in message 
news:89192$49f23e91$5ed05229$3226@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE

But isn't it now starting to be recognised that with some people who smoke 
it, and who have a propensity to psychoses, they may suffer mental health 
issues.  This I understand is shown by relatively heavy 'smokers' in their 
teens.  In these cases it starts to manifest itself maybe as a paranoia or 
schizophrenia in their early / mid twenties.

A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no apparant 
adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern 
lies.

Iain

Iain wrote:
> "5trfg6h7"  wrote in message 
> news:89192$49f23e91$5ed05229$3226@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE
> 
> But isn't it now starting to be recognised that with some people who smoke 
> it, and who have a propensity to psychoses, they may suffer mental health 
> issues.  This I understand is shown by relatively heavy 'smokers' in their 
> teens.  In these cases it starts to manifest itself maybe as a paranoia or 
> schizophrenia in their early / mid twenties.

	The correlation is uncertain in these cases.  Perhaps the incipient 
mental difficulties lead people to use illegal drugs and the mental 
difficulty is manifested without the cannabis being a truly 
precipitating factor.

> 
> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no apparant 
> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern 
> lies.
> 
> Iain 
	All murderers in the USA consume mashed potatoes but not all
consumers of mashed potatoes go on to do murder.  The same is true
of cannabis but not nearly as many murderers consume cannabis as
mashed potatoes.

	later
	bliss - chocolate and mashed potato consumer

Noticed at Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:59:33 +0100: Iain informed us:

> "5trfg6h7"  wrote in message 
> news:89192$49f23e91$5ed05229$3226@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE
> 
> But isn't it now starting to be recognised that with some people who smoke 
> it, and who have a propensity to psychoses, they may suffer mental health 
> issues.  This I understand is shown by relatively heavy 'smokers' in their 
> teens.  In these cases it starts to manifest itself maybe as a paranoia or 
> schizophrenia in their early / mid twenties.
> 
> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no apparant 
> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern 
> lies.

So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/

> 
> Iain
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:75ge6kF1882ihU1@mid.individual.net...

>> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no 
>> apparant
>> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern
>> lies.
>
> So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.

I suppose it would be useful if those who did have a propensity to a 
psychosis could be diagnosed.  But I understand the situation is that they 
can't, and those who are affected can suffer a very significant and 
debilitating degradation of their life, where treatment can last for 
decades.

Maybe if those could be distinguished from the rest, there would be a valid 
argument for general legalisation because those would be able to be 
protected.  But it seems they cannot.  So how else can they be protected?

Iain

Iain wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:75ge6kF1882ihU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no 
>>> apparant
>>> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern
>>> lies.
>> So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.
> 
> I suppose it would be useful if those who did have a propensity to a 
> psychosis could be diagnosed.  But I understand the situation is that they 
> can't, and those who are affected can suffer a very significant and 
> debilitating degradation of their life, where treatment can last for 
> decades.

	And I understand how parents are unwilling to face the fact that 
their child would have descended into frank schizophrenia no matter 
what what substances they consumed and then blame a relatively
harmless weed for the inborn condition.

> 
> Maybe if those could be distinguished from the rest, there would be a valid 
> argument for general legalisation because those would be able to be 
> protected.  But it seems they cannot.  So how else can they be protected?
> 
> Iain 

	The rate of schizophrenia overall is not increased by the use
of cannabis or so far as I know any other substance.

	If children are educated properly about drugs and told that they 
should refrain until after a legal age limit say, 21 years of age
when their brains should have matured then they might avoid such
problems.  But with the constant & obvious lies put forward as 
anti-drug education they have no reason to trust.

	           	  ___________________

                     It's time to correct the mistake:
                     truth:the Anti-drugwar
                     <http://www.briancbennett.com>

                     Cops say legalize drugs--find out why:
                     <http://www.leap.cc>

                     Stoners are people too:
                     <http://www.cannabisconsumers.org>
	            	 ___________________


     later
     bliss -- Cacoa  Powered... (at sfo dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

      "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
      It is by the beans of cacoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
      the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
      It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
         --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

Iain wrote:
> "5trfg6h7"  wrote in message
> news:89192$49f23e91$5ed05229$3226@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>> Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE
>
> But isn't it now starting to be recognised that with some people who
> smoke it, and who have a propensity to psychoses, they may suffer
> mental health issues.  This I understand is shown by relatively heavy
> 'smokers' in their teens.  In these cases it starts to manifest
> itself maybe as a paranoia or schizophrenia in their early / mid
> twenties.
> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no
> apparant adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where
> the concern lies.
>
>
If this were true and actually provable in any way whatsoever do you 
honestly not think that the psychotic drug war zealots in the media and 
elsewhere wouldn't be ramming it down everyones throats as perfect 
justification for a counter-productive, harmful, hypocritical and corrupt 
war on some drug users without end?

Power and Control Inc don't give a shit about these drugs or their effects 
on anyone. The CIA actively peddle the stuff. P&C Inc. care about the 
systems, policies, organisation and forces needed to fight a futile war 
against the problems their futile wars generate and encourage. We already 
have a paramilitary police force completely disconnected from the 
communities they "serve" where everyone is a potential drug dealer / 
terrorist thanks to the idiotic wars on some drugs and some terror.

"Iain"  wrote in message news:75fjlnF18c3e5U1@mid.individual.net...
> "5trfg6h7"  wrote in message
> news:89192$49f23e91$5ed05229$3226@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> > Marijuana Use Studies - A History, with Ethan Russo, MD
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRIZbzRyzE

> But isn't it now starting to be recognised that with some people who smoke
> it, and who have a propensity to psychoses, they may suffer mental health
> issues.

That is not a strong enough argument to put people who
just use it in prison - which is what prohibition has meant.

Anyone may suffer from mental health issues. Because the
exact cause and even nature of schizophrenia itself is badly
understood, how can anyone blame weed for it?

For instance, if you say - marijuana causes schizophrenia,
I would counter with the question: what *usually causes*
schizophrenia?

My guess is that there is a closer and more established
connection between schizophrenia and alcohol (delirium tremens),
than marijuana. And of course alcohol is toxic, where marijuana is not.

Literally millions of people smoke marijuana on a regular basis,
but there is no similar increase in schizophrenia - which is another
clean bill of health for marijuana.

Also, it has such a long history of human use, that if there
was anything wrong with it, we would know by now. Not from
some vague study issued by prohibitionists, but from even
classical literature, from Romantic literature, etc.

> This I understand is shown by relatively heavy 'smokers' in their
> teens.  In these cases it starts to manifest itself maybe as a paranoia or
> schizophrenia in their early / mid twenties.

Or maybe not.

> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no apparant
> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern
> lies.

Someone is trying to find concern so it can be banned.

If you have to go looking for negative effects, because they
are not obvious, or routinely related to something, you're
fishing for reasons to get it banned, not reacting to real
problems from the real world.

Noticed at Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:13:12 +0100: Iain informed us:

> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:75ge6kF1882ihU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no 
>>> apparant
>>> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern
>>> lies.
>>
>> So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.
> 
> I suppose it would be useful if those who did have a propensity to a 
> psychosis could be diagnosed.  But I understand the situation is that they 
> can't, and those who are affected can suffer a very significant and 
> debilitating degradation of their life, where treatment can last for 
> decades.
> 
> Maybe if those could be distinguished from the rest, there would be a valid 
> argument for general legalisation because those would be able to be 
> protected.  But it seems they cannot.  So how else can they be protected?

The link I posted (which you snipped) shows that cannabis does not cause
schizophrenia, but is a first episode of the disease. The person who
became ill after using cannabis would have done so anyway.

There has been no change in the prevalence of psychosis over the last 50
years, if cannabis caused the illness it would have varied with the
varying rate of cannabis use, it has not.

You may recall Debra Bell, of Talking About Cannabis, who blames it for
her son's mental health problems. On the BBC news channel last year, she
said her son's uncle (not sure if he's her brother) had mental health
problems - giving a possible genetic link.

The other point is the degree of risk associated with other activities.
Should we ban marathons because 6 people had heart attacks during the
Great North Run about 3 years ago? Peanuts which kill about 10 people a
year? Horse riding, which is more deadly than ecstasy?

It seems that other activities are allowed to have a reasonable level of
risk - not a high risk, but a risk never the less. With drugs, we have to
prove that they have zero risk, which, apart from being impossible (you
can't prove a negative), has the red tops making up killer drug stories
about. Drugs are a good scapegoat, just like single mothers, asylum
seekers and the ill-defined terrorists.

> Iain
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:13:35 +0200: 5trfg6h7 informed us:

> My guess is that there is a closer and more established connection
> between schizophrenia and alcohol (delirium tremens), than marijuana.
> And of course alcohol is toxic, where marijuana is not.

"In-patient care for people who have mental health or behavioural
disorders resulting from alcohol misuse, has also increased significantly,
rising to 126,300 admissions in 2004-05, from 72,500 in 1995-96 (75 per
cent over the ten years)."

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200602/al200602_p3.html

We'd better ban alcohol and jail all the boozers.

DT's can be fatal:

Five percent of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to delirium
tremens.[3] Unlike the withdrawal syndrome associated with opiate
dependence, delirium tremens (and alcohol withdrawal in general) can be
fatal. Mortality can be up to 35% if untreated; if treated early, death
rates range from 5-15%.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street