Posted on 06/10/2005 2:32:31 PM PDT by Nachum
It is this reporter's opinion that each generation in turn takes a new look at the marijuana question. Now it's this generation's turn. In a 6-to-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-marijuana statutes overrule the laws in ten states that allow the use of marijuana plants to ease pain or nausea.
Fifty years ago, as a much younger television reporter, I did a series of interviews with Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at the University of California Berkeley. Dr. Jones, in his thorough study, raised disturbing questions about marijuana's effects on the vital systems of the body, on the brain and mind, on immunity and resistance, and on sex reproduction.
Dr. Jones addressed such problems of society as the hazards to non-smokers, crime, the law, and the effect of widespread smoking among the military – including atomic weapons personnel. And he didn't stop there. The good doctor included telling comments from interviews conducted with scores of marijuana users and ex-users.
I concluded, after this exhaustive study, that the very idea of legalizing marijuana is to follow a senseless, immoral, perilous path – a slippery slope, that the use of marijuana is dangerous on many fronts, that it impairs memory, alters time perception, reduces coordination, damages the immune system, is psychologically habit-forming and creates a wide range of effects on moods and behavior.
Dr. Jones offered an open letter to parents. Following are the main points discussed in his letter:
Marijuana is not a benign drug. Use of this drug impairs learning and judgment and may lead to the development of mental health problems.
Smoking marijuana can injure or destroy lung tissue.
Teens who are high on marijuana are less able to make safe, smart decisions about sex, including knowing when to say "no."
Marijuana can impair perception and reaction time, putting young drivers and others in danger.
Marijuana use may trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and even psychoses.
Marijuana can impair concentration and the ability to retain information during a teen's peak learning years.
Recent research indicates a correlation between frequent marijuana use and aggressive or violent behavior.
Dr. Jones concludes: MARIJUANA IS ADDICTIVE, and says that more teens are in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.
Personally, I recall one visitation to a rehabilitation center where we interviewed recovering heroin addicts. We had to interview 25 hard-core drug users before we found a single one who had not started with marijuana!
As for those who say they must rely on marijuana to treat their pain, Dr. Jones cited a Washington University School of Medicine study on the subject: the experiment on twenty young men who were experienced marijuana smokers. Before and after they smoked reefers, electric impulses of different strengths were applied to their fingers and pain thresholds recorded. It was a method that earlier had verified the pain-killing effects of morphine, aspirin and codeine. MARIJUANA NOT ONLY FAILED TO LESSEN PAIN, IT ACTUALLY INCREASED IT! That finding casts doubt on the usefulness of marijuana as an analgesic.
The same facts and conclusions are repeated generation after generation with the same conclusion: DON'T EVER LEGALIZE POT!
Yeah, the only place more militant for support of illegal drugs than the libertarians around here is DU. They truly shake hands on this issue.
I have a feeling it's simply internet users with no life that depend on pot because otherwise they'd kill themselves that post this stuff. It seems to transcend politics online.
True, they worship their drugs like a bride, I see that in their post.
Psychosis, Hype And Baloney
Although the mainstream media is eating it up, a new study claiming a link between marijuana use and psychosis should be approached with great caution.
As the month began, the worldwide press jumped all over a study in the March issue of the journal Addiction purporting to show a causal link between marijuana use and psychosis. "Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk," the BBC reported. "Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis," the Washington Times chimed in.
Such purported links have lately become the darling of prohibitionists, but a close look at the new study reveals gaping holes unmentioned in those definitive-sounding headlines.
Before we look at the study itself, let's consider some basics: If X causes Y, it's reasonable to expect a huge increase in X to cause at least a modest increase in Y, but this has not been the case with marijuana and psychosis. Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both.
For this reason, researchers should approach "proof" that marijuana causes serious mental illness with great caution. The researchers in this case, a New Zealand team led by David M. Fergusson of the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, seem to have done just the reverse.
Fergusson's team looked at a group of 1,265 New Zealand kids who were followed from birth to age 25 and assessed at various points along the way for a variety of physical, mental and social problems and issues. At ages 18, 21 and 25 they were assessed for both marijuana use and supposed psychotic symptoms. Having found a correlation with daily users reporting the highest frequency of psychotic symptoms, they then applied a series of mathematical models. These models are designed to adjust for possible variables that might confound the results and to assess whether the marijuana use caused the symptoms or vice versa.
Whatever model was applied, the correlation held up. But the reported "growing evidence" that "regular use of cannabis may increase risks of psychosis" depends completely on the validity of the underlying data, and those data raise some screamingly obvious questions.
Psychotic symptoms were measured using 10 items from something called Symptom Checklist 90. Participants were asked if they had certain ideas, feelings or beliefs that commonly accompany psychotic states. The researchers did not look at actual diagnoses, and the symptom checklist is not identical to the formal diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV manual. Perhaps most important, they only used 10 "representative" items from a much larger questionnaire.
These 10 items focus heavily on paranoid thoughts or feelings, such as "feeling other people cannot be trusted," "feeling you are being watched or talked about by others," "having ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This presents a big methodological problem, because it is well known that paranoid feelings are a fairly common effect of being high on marijuana.
But the article gives no indication that respondents were asked to distinguish between feelings experienced while high and feelings experienced at other times. Thus, we are left with no indication at all as to whether these supposed psychotic symptoms are long-term effects or simply the normal, passing effects of marijuana intoxication. While it's possible the researchers had these data and didn't see a need to report them, the failure to do so is downright bizarre. It's like reporting that people who go to bars are more erratic drivers than people who don't, without bothering to look at whether they'd been drinking at the time their driving skills were assessed.
Even if these were long-term effects, the researchers seem not to have considered that what might be an indication of psychosis in other circumstances could be an entirely normal reaction for people who use marijuana. Consider: Someone using a substance that is both illegal and socially frowned-upon almost by definition has "ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This is not a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of a rational person realistically assessing his or her situation.
The same goes for "feeling other people cannot be trusted." Just ask Robin Prosser, the Montana medical marijuana patient arrested last summer on possession charges by the cops who came to save her life after she'd attempted suicide because she was in unbearable pain after running out of medicine.
Fergusson reports very little raw data, so we don't know which symptoms came up most often, or whether the differences in average levels of symptoms between users and non-users came from a few people having a lot of symptoms or a lot of people having a couple symptoms. The heavy-user group, with the highest levels of supposed psychosis, reported an average of less than two symptoms each. So it is entirely possible that the entire case for marijuana "causing" psychosis is based on marijuana smokers having the completely reasonable feelings that they have beliefs different from mainstream society and thus should be a tad suspicious of others.
"Proof" that marijuana makes you psychotic? No. Not even close. But don't expect the mainstream media to figure this out.
Pinging you to the above post.
Who here thinks that CA Guy is a "nanny-state-lovin" pain in the ass?
My guess is the majority of pot usage is a form of recreation. It is the nations that ignore the benefits of recreation that are the "easy pickings." How much energy do dour "all work and no play" types put into defending their way of life?
Nice connection to the tenth amendment. I'd never thought of it that way before.
I always wondered what Congress and the courts thought the founders were talking about when they emphasized limited government. Why did they carefully craft section 8 of article 3 with those few, tightly circumscribed powers only to throw in the commerce clause which now, supposedly, gives the federal government power over virtually everything. Makes no sense.
No. Pot smokers who have cancer would disagree with George here.
Why is this reporter relying upon fifty year old data to support his conclusions?
Actually, I'm wondering if any of the major tobacco companies would get involved, unless congress were to pass some sort of waiver, ensuring that the companies would NEVER be sued by the states or consumers for health risks associated with smoking MJ.
Something that mystifies me to this day, is just how the states got away with stealing all that money. In most "damages" law suits, you go after the people who made the money. Well, most of the profits from tobacco sales actually go to the states, in the form of taxes. So, what we had here was the beneficiary of the sale of a harmful product suing the companies that made them all that money to begin with!
Of course, it had to be carefully staged. They needed to maximize the take, but at the same time, they had to ensure that they wouldn't actually put the companies out of business, otherwise their tax revenues would dry up!
Mark
If they'd remember to bathe.
Self medication has always been around. Undiagnosed Type II diabetics frequently find "relief" from high blood sugar levels through drinking (for example).
Strangest thing about the addictive qualities of alcohol they derive mostly from the fact that if you juice up frequently enough in sufficient quantities a fair quantity of that alcohol is converted into opiates (and probably cannaboloids), and that's what you get addicted to.
Alcohol by itself is just a solvent.
But you knew that didn't you.
That's not to say that undiagnosed Schizos aren't out there using MJ for self-medication of course ~
Bill Gates forgot to bathe 20 years ago. The man reeks!
And, where do we find our evidence for such a theory? Why right here in this thread!
Side point--your finding that violent criminals typically have used marijuana and other drugs does not mean that nonviolent people who use marijuana use other drugs as well. Those are two different populations.
Eternally vigilant types?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.