Marijuana makes you go crazy

Ananova ^ | July 2 2003

[rastus macgill]

Ananova: Regular cannabis users 'at greater risk of mental illness'

Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life, according to research.

One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London.

Speaking at the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual conference in Edinburgh, he said: "In the last 18 months a number of studies have confirmed that cannabis consumption acts to increase later risk of schizophrenia. This research must not be ignored."

The findings come as the Government prepares to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to Class C drug next year.

Most people caught in possession of a small amount will have the drugs confiscated and receive a reprimand or warning, the Home Office has said.

According to a Government fact sheet, cannabis "can cause psychotic reactions amongst individuals with mental health problems", but it does not suggest use of the drug can prompt those problems.

For his study, Professor Murray reviewed research in Sweden, Holland and New Zealand.

A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years.

Professor Murray said these findings had been largely ignored.

[poodle]

First this article is complete nonsense and typical propaganda. Actually you cannabis is helpful with manic depression and ADD/ADHD and is a remedy for migraines and you do not hear of people that use cannabis having headaches. And there are no studies, but just ask someone with experience if cannabis is not the best thing for a hangover. In direct opposition to this I will point out a recent article that NIDA and the National Institute of Health would love to be able to contradict- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16711.shtml

You say- " Roughly 70% of American's oppose legalizing marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is the legislation that stipulates marijuana is a dangerous substance."

From the last writing of Richard Cowan on June 30 at - http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=698 -

>>>Last Thursday’s Press Release from NORML had two stories that demonstrated the ever-increasing disconnect between DEAland’s prohibitionist ideology and the American people.

The first story reported that according to a “national poll of 1,204 likely voters by Zogby International and commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, forty-one percent of respondents agree that ‘the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate marijuana, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.’ <<<

The Controlled Substance Act came about because the Marijuana Tax Act was struck down as unconstitutional in 1969 thanks to Timothy O'Leary. Now that raises the question that if federal prohibition was unconstitutional in 1969 wasn't it unconstitutional since its inception on October 1, 1937.

But cannabis created a problem for the Nixon Administration and he stacked a commission to make cannabis the cornerstone on a war on drugs and Nixon created the DEA by executive order also 30 years ago. Unfortunately this stacked Schaffer Commission came back and said cannabis should be legalized. This would be just another report in the list including the La Guardian Report of around 1947 and the LaDain Commission in Canada in the 70's and the Special Senate Committee Report on Illegal Drugs of last year also out of Canada. And there is a recent British report saying the same thing. Anyway cannabis was classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, which it is no narcotic, until it could be studied. When Nixon did not get the results he wanted he ignored the report and left in the Schedule 1, which is an absolute lie. It should rightly be classified at Schedule 3 like Marinol, that the pill industry says is wonderful medicine and is synthetic THC which in cannabis is no medicine. You cannot extract THC from cannabis because it stonewalled as having no medical value which is absurd. An intellectual argument could be made for Schedule 4.

To say that marijuana is a dangerous drug is insane and is a favorite lie of Drug Bizarre John Pee Walters who is some kind of fundamentalist nut. It is not physically addictive as witnessed by the lack of physical withdrawal in its absence and the Canadian Senate report said it was psycologically addicted in 5% of users. Of course jail has to do a lot more harm than that and you tack on arrest records, and attorneys fees and fines, and property seizures and the laws are the dangerous part of cannabis- a fact that lead to the famous Jimmy Carter quote.

41% have overcome the lies and demonization of cannabis and the snowball will only grow. This report is propaganda just like Hearst made famous. I would also like to put up a spoof of Dickens Christmas Carol called the "A Drug War Carol" that outlines the history of cannabis prohibition in illustrated form- http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/ - with similar information in the documentary made by Woody Harrelson called "Grass"- http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1110.html Grass is a must see for anyone that wants to develop a cannabis perspective. For people that have not read Jack Herer's online edition of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", it is a must read in understanding the cannabis situation- http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html After "Grass" the next best video on the web is the documentary of Jack Herer called "The Emperor of Hemp"- http://crrh.org/hemptv/docs_emperor.html

[Reagan Man]

>>>It must take some rigor, because you cannot seem to get the point. If 70% of people oppose, then give the government the right to outlaw it with an amendment.

A Constitutional amendment isn't required in this specific case. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can do so, as long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure and guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law, as in due process, review and comment, etc.

>>>Don't ever reply to me again.

LOL This is a free and open conservative forum, for the exchange of political ideas, opinions, beliefs, values and facts. If you don't like what I have to say, mister thin skin, too bad.

[Reagan Man]

>>>To say that marijuana is a dangerous drug is insane and is a favorite lie of Drug Bizarre John Pee Walters who is some kind of fundamentalist nut.

Well, we know where you stand on this issue. You expect anyone to take this Richard (Pot Head) Cowan of the Marijuana News seriously? Get real and grow up!

To the vast majority of American's, marijuana is a substance that should remain illegal. IMO, anyone who supports legalizing marijuana is insane.

[poodle]

The prohibitionist are stuck on the same old lies and this article by Weiner, a prohibitionist hack, that recently appeared in the op-ed of the Moonies Washington Times is in the same vein- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16743.shtml Lehder at cannabisnews is a good commentator and he addressed the madness issue in this comment- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16749.shtml#9 - when he says- It is no wonder then that most people who have smoked marijuana in America often experience a state of anxiety, of threat, of paranoia in fact, which may lead to trembling or hysteria, at the microscopic awareness that they are breaking a law, that thousands of investigators all over the country are trained and paid to smoke them out and jail them, that thousands of their community are in jail, that inevitably a few friends are "busted" with all the hypocrisy and expense and anxiety of that trial and perhaps punishment -- jail and victimage by the bureaucracy that made, propagandized, administers, and profits from such a monstrous law.

[Clinging Bitterly]

I hate pot. It's sort of underrated what the current 3 grams for 50 bucks stuff does, it is not your father's weed, and I personally know long term potheads suffering the effects mentioned upthread, everything from incontinence to psychotic episodes. As are some drinkers, and some tobacco smokers.

Bad as the stuff is, you see we have plenty of other legal ways to get into the fix in which some of these folks imagine they are not. But bottom line, there does not seem to be anything in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to ban and criminalize it's use.

80 some years ago, Congress deemed it necessary to pass a constitutional amendment in order to grant the government the power to ban alcohol. This issue is no different. The operative words in the constitution have not changed, if Congress wants to ban pot, they need an amendment to do it. That they have done so without such an amendment does not alter the fact that the legitimate power does not exist.

It's a tough situation because contemporary courts have, for whatever reason, overlooked the plank in the collective eye that is the legislative history behind prohibition, but it is there nevertheless.

That some people are irresponsible enough to ruin their minds and bodies with the stuff may well be a good reason to regulate it's use, but that reasoning would be as applicable where there is a visible presence of irresponsible people harming themselves and/or others with things like handguns and assault weapons. In the latter, we argue every day that reason is not good enough, we argue that there is no government power to do so. I don't see much difference between the two issues.

States have clear authority to criminalize behaviour that actually harms others. A gunman can be prosecuted for ADW, murder, menacing, etc. A drunk, and as easily, a pothead can be prosecuted for DWI, child neglect, stealing to get the money to buy dope, and so on. Those things are all the protection we need for the various evil scourges, and are things with which few of us have any problem at all.

Dave in Eugene

[poodle]

Yes, I kind of think someone that was a past president of NORML and a person that writes about marijuana news at his own website- http://www.marijuananews.com/ - and student of cannabis policy for over thirty years should be taken seriously. It is you that is a joke. You are just an ignorant prohibitionist that has swallowed the lies.

It is Richard Cowan that says repeatedly, the reason for continued cannabis prohibition in two words is bad journalism. It is Richard Cowan that ask repeatedly "What have you done for freedom today?" I am here as a patriot interested in freedom. The only thing you are good for is to show the stupidity of the cult that support prohibition. We tried prohibition once. You would think people would learn either from the first one or the second one. Another thing I have come to understand in gaining a cannabis perspective is how dumb people can be. You are proof. Now call me a pothead. It sure does not bother me what a stupid prohibitionist says.

[Reagan Man]

Okay. You side with pot heads like Richard Cowan and Woody Harrelson.

I'll side with patriots like Ronald Reagan and George W.Bush.

[Oztrich Boy]

Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Congress can legislate anything under the Commerce Clause. It's the loophole they've found to get around the rest of the Constitution.

[jammer]

States have clear authority to criminalize behaviour...

They absolutely do and I totally agree. And I think they should. But if California doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to, the same as Texas shouldn't have to condone homosexual sodomy (personally, it's none of my business, but there are a lot of other people in Texas). My posts are just peeing in the wind, however, pointing out the pitfalls of FEDERAL jurisdiction.

[jammer]

I am coming from getting the federal government out of our lives and toward the Constitution. States can regulate marijuana, can regulate smoking, can define marriage, can (Constitutionally, but not according to the SC) ban abortions, can allow polygamy if they want. But the federal government as arbiter of these has absolutely no true Constitutional business in these matters.

First, I read the 10th Amendment, then I look in the Constitution for where the power to regulate the things I listed are enumerated. They are not. Therefore, the federal government unconstitutionally usurps power by entering the fray, and citizens voluntarily relinquish their rights by allowing it.

States can do it. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government cannot. It's that simple.

And you don't need to shout.

[jammer]

And, contrary to the speculations of some creeps on here, my ardent objection to federal regulation of polygamy does not make me a polygamist any more than my ardent objection to federal regulation of marijuana makes me a proponent of it, a smoker of it, or having some other hidden agenda.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Congress can legislate anything under the Commerce Clause. It's the loophole they've found to get around the rest of the Constitution.

It is a loophole. As a conservative I don't agree with all the decisions that Congress has made under the Commerce Clause. Especially those made by liberal Democratic Congresses. Nor do I support all the decisions made by the USSC either. I don't agree with the abomination called Roe V Wade. I think it's unconstitutional. But the CSA of 1970 is constitutional.

But that's why we have a political system. You gather your forces, present your agenda to the voting public and hope to get elected. It worked for the Founding Fathers, who were the best politicians of their time and it still works today. If you ever hope to get your message out and convince enough people your agenda is the best agenda for America, you have to work within the political arena.

If you don't work within the political arena, you're nothing but a political malcontent, throwing stink bombs from the sidelines for the rest of your life.

[poodle]

I do not think GW is a good example to draw justification for the drug war from, but go ahead. You will soon be outnumbered. Where Richard Cowan says that the best two words to describe the survival of cannabis prohibition is bad journalism, I say the one word for its survival is corruption. Isn't it strange there is no debate of this on what used to be the public airwaves or what used to be a free press. But on the corruption issue there was a recent resignation of a federal judge who wrote- Federal Judge's Protest Congressional meddlers dash judicial discretion. July 1, 2003 It wasn't the pay, although federal judges make less than a plate umpire in the major leagues. No, after 13 years of making calls on matters of far more gravity than the camber of a 3-2 forkball, U.S. District Judge John S. Martin last week said he's hanging up his robe and won't return to the federal bench. Small wonder. At least umpires get to call them the way they see them. Congress has stripped federal judges of almost all discretion to decide appropriate sentences in criminal cases. In an essay published by The New York Times last week, Martin said he is fed up with Congressional meddling that forces judges to give unjust 30-, 40- and 50-year prison sentences to low-level, non-violent felons "who society failed at every step." The last straw for Martin, a 68-year-old jurist from the Southern District of New York, came after President Bush signed new legislation April 30 dictating the sentences federal judges must impose for drug-related offenses. Congressional conservatives, determined to show constituents they're winning the "war on drugs," didn't like the fact that federal judges disregarded earlier sentencing guidelines in 18 percent of cases. The new law closes that small window of judicial discretion. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN02070103.htm But you keep talking and we will beat this attack on freedom we call prohibition. Free speech and the Internet are the tools of reformers, where as silence and lies and a budget for propaganda are the key tools of the prohibitionists. There is one thing that is hard not to notice on these boards. The favorite form of argument seems to be the shoot the messenger fallacy. Richard Cowan now lives in Canada and proudly claims to smoke pot every day. If marijuana is a dangerous drug why is he not dead or disfunctional. Oh, and in relation to the article, there are good indications that cannabis helps Alzheimers and actually helps the brain. And it was the Israeli's that made a synthetic compound that prevents brain damage in trauma. A lot of brain damage occurs when the swelling creates a damaging pressure and as news would have it a report recently came out on it- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16741.shtml Now this is from a pill company and they surely cannot admit that the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana works. It would not be profitable or politically correct. A dangerous drug my *ss. I say it is a beneficial plant. Why do I say that. Well first off it has roots and leaves and grows leaves and has flowers. Cannabis prohibition is a hoax. Get real. Or try the straw man fallacy. It is more entertaining than simply bashing people. You might think Richard Cowan has no knowledge of cannabis because he is gay.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> the same as Texas shouldn't have to condone homosexual sodomy...

Probly gonna step in something here, but that's another one of those things I think is wrong and potentally harmful, but in and of itself, not a legitimate concern of government. I don't necessarily give a rip myself what the fags are doing to each other as long as it involves consenting adults harming nobody else, so a law that simply bans "sodomy" would be over the line in my book.

Not up on the case enough to know if the USSC decision is about anything else in particular, so my dog and I will be going home now.

Dave in Eugene

[jammer]

Actually, I think your post and, especially, your previous one to me are excellent explanations of what I tried to get across. Although, I think that Texans do have a right to make the law, even if I disagree with it. Thanks for your reasoned discussion.

[Aric2000]

Reagan man, I have To disagree with you.

Either you agree with the way the commerce clause is used or you don't. It is NOT a matter of what you agree with or don't agree with, it is a matter of principal.

If congress abuses the commerce clause, whether you agree with what they did or not, you should still disagree, either you are FOR the constitution or you are NOT.

Roe vs Wade? I hoe it is overturned, because it was NEVER the fed's business in the first place, it is a state issue PERIOD, and I am pro-life. I agree with the results, but the means pisses me off!!

The WOD, same deal, this is a STATE issue, NOT the federal government. Education, SAME deal, it should be a LOCAL issue, not a state issue, NOT a federal issue, but a local county level issue.

Medicare, welfare, social security, THere is NO constitutional grounds for the federal government to be involved in it AT ALL, these ALL should be state issues.

The Federal government is only allowed that which is EXPRESSLY allowed them via the constitution, ANYTHING else they do IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THe constitution gives the government what it CAN do, NOT what it can't, because whatever the constitution says they can do is ALL they have permission to do, the states are given ALL other powers, PERIOD.

Therefore this WOD is NOT a federal issue, it is a state issue, show me where in the constitution that the Federal government is GIVEN permission to fight this so-called war on drugs, hint, you WON'T, unless you wish to pervert the commerce clause into something that it is not.

You either back up the constitution, or you don't, there is NO in between.

[Reagan Man]

With all due respect, you sound like an impractical idealist, blinded by a bad case of political absolutism.

You can't just say, this isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, so therefore it must be done away with. People, mostly liberal Democarts and some Republican's will laugh at you.

You've got to come to the realization that the only way to change the current system of excessive taxation, excessive federal spending and judicial activism, is to take your agenda to the people, as the Founding Fathers did. The Constitution isn't dead and it isn't dying either. This is all about agenda's and what policies will work in the political arena.

If you go around saying, this is what I think and to hell with the way things are in the real world, you'll be on the losing side most of the time.

[Walnut]

I stand corrected. I actually didn't get it. thanks

[rastus macgill]

I'll side with patriots like James Baker(who saved us from Al Gore in 2000 down in FLA)and George Schultz.
Funny how once retired from politics conservatives change their tune on WOD and revert to a position consistent with freedom and the Constitution.
Milton Friedman is a patriotic guy too.

[Pest]

just ask someone with experience if cannabis is not the best thing for a hangover.

THC = Total Hangover Cure