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.

[Aric2000]

As I said, there is NO in between.

Let them have an inch, they have taken a mile.

You are part of the problem, not the solution.

I find it rather sad.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Cathryn Crawford]

Actually, Libertarians make people go crazy.

[eyespysomething]

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

[jmc813]

According to the all the dopers and druggies, Reefer Madness was nothing but propaganda

Do you agree with Reefer Madness that pot makes white women have sex with black jazz musicians?

[jmc813]

In America today, it is illegal to cultivate, grow, sell, purchase and ingest marijuana.

Are you sure about that last one?

[eyespysomething]

See this post also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939600/posts?page=45#45

[eyespysomething]

please look at this post in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939600/posts?page=45#45

[Xenalyte]

Do you assert that it was not put here by God?

[jmc813]

Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Are you sure you shouldn't be calling yourself "Roosevelt Man"?

[jmc813]

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.

So why do you ridicule FReeprs who present their anti-WOD agenda to FR as potheads?

[jmc813]

According to the all the dopers and druggies, Reefer Madness was nothing but propaganda

For consideration for the list on your home page.

[clamper1797]

And it makes white women seek sex with black jazz musicians

[MrLeRoy]

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.

So they'll have to be presented with other arguments (which exist in plentitude). But at least true conservatives will find the Constitutional argument sufficient.

[MrLeRoy]

[Reagan Man:] Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Are you sure you shouldn't be calling yourself "Roosevelt Man"?

ZING!

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[Ken H]

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.

Do you support asset seizure without due process?

How about kicking down doors in no knock raids by SWAT on pot dealers?

[Wolfie]

I'm on my third bong-hit today. Still not crazy. I'll report back later. Happy 4th!

[Wolfie]

Ok, so I'm sitting here waiting to go nuts (still nothing yet, maybe I should have a talk with my supplier), and I came across the following criticism of the original Swedish studies that led to this nonsense:

From: Alan J Gijsbers,
Specialist Physician in Addiction Studies Turning Point Drug and Alcohol Centre Fitzroy Victoria 3065 Australia

Re: Cannabis and Psychosis - data overlooked

"While the BMJ editorial on the whole analyses the data well, Two most glaringly obvious observations from the original Swedish conscript study have been overlooked. That is that most of the people taking cannabis did not develop psychosis, and conversely most people who developed schizophrenia did not use cannabis."

Did you catch that? "That is that most of the people taking cannabis did not develop psychosis, and conversely most people who developed schizophrenia did not use cannabis."

Which means, of course, that cannabis use actually prevents schizophrenia!

But seriously, folks, the worldwide incidence of schizophrenia has remained stable for the last 30 years, precisely at the time when overall cannabis use has increased. You don't have to be an egghead scientist to figure out that there is no causal link between the two.

[truth_seeker]

Just because a USSC decision was made doesn't make it "Constitutional."

It has been my understanding that, a major role for the USSC is to rule, when conflicts arise, as to just what IS Constitutional.

Over time, courts with "different" makeups might arrive at different decisions, covering the SAME words in the original document.

But there IS no higher decision making body than them. So for the time of each of their rulings, it IS Constitutional.

You (and another later court) may differ, but your different opinion does NOT carry the weight of their role for determining what is for the time, Constitutional.

That is our system. Not perfect. But better than any other.