To: Huck
are you a mental health expert?
215 posted on
01/26/2004 6:16:18 PM PST by
mac_truck
(Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
To: mac_truck
Oh my goodness. Am I now to be subjected to voidire? (I've seen My Cousin Vinny countless times!) Dude, this isn't debate club, ok? I am not obligated to quote sources, form arguments, present facts in a logical sequence, or qualify myself to speak. It's a free country, it's a public forum. I am speaking. I think the article is dumb. You don't. Why is that a problem? Why not just leave it at that?
217 posted on
01/26/2004 6:22:17 PM PST by
Huck
(Was that offensive? I hope that wasn't offensive.)
To: mac_truck
Well, if I might stick my oar in here, it appears that there weren't any direct references in the article, although the 1987 Swiss study might be worth running down (I skimmed the 'net for it with no success so far, but what she said about it is intriguing. The November 2000 British Medical Journal isn't, alas, available online). But I did find just how wide the range of correlation is between substance abuse and paranoid schizophrenia
HERE. Contrary to the article's claim, nobody can really say whether we have cause-and-effect here or simple positive correlation. The range is just too wide.
Of the drugs correlated with schizophrenia alcohol is by far numero uno, but pot is right up there. I'd guess in both cases the fact that both are much more widely available than other drugs of abuse may skew the numbers. I worked for a brief time in the mental health treatment field, and I can testify that giving a disturbed person any recreational drug is likely to make them worse. Which shouldn't be a revelation to anybody...
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson