Posted on 06/12/2023 11:25:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
“The increased risk of getting schizophrenia after drug-related psychosis is even higher than what we find in first-degree relatives of those who have been given the diagnosis,” Bramness says.
First-degree relatives are parents and children.
The risk of being diagnosed with the malady for sons and daughters of a sick mother or father is "only" five to ten per cent.
In other words, there is no other risk factor for schizophrenia that is higher than related to drug-induced psychoses.
Trauma, infections and moving to another country are other known risk factors for schizophrenia, but these increase the risk to a much smaller degree.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenorway.no ...
Then shut up your delusional ravings.
It won't. The Government and the Powers That Be wants stoned zombies who will do as they are told without asking questions. They want zombies who had fried their brains with drugs.
All I'm saying is that if someone smoked tons of weed, then they dropped acid and used any number of other illicit pharmaceuticals.
Hint: that's why they called cannabis a gateway drug.
Another hint: it wasn't the cannabis that jacked their brains.
Never.
And the truth hurts, chief. You should check out Alex Berenson’s writings on the subject. He was right about covid. And he was right about weed.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/01/07/the-case-against-cannabis
It's like saying someone who broke an ankle falling into a pit is predisposed to fracture just because not everybody will suffer one.
Probably not.
“Nothing was said to deny it may happen in the future.”
Which proves what, now?
Yes. Climate change for sure.
Exactly. There was nothing about that person's anecdote which indicated much about alcohol. (Nor even much about weed, in that particular case).
“There was nothing about that person’s anecdote which indicated much about alcohol. (Nor even much about weed”
That’s my point: it was posted in a weed thread, though no more relevant to weed than to alcohol.
I am too disinterested to reply right now. Maybe later. This is one of those things where you have to have lived it to understand it. I know you would rather stay clueless than to listen to the voice of experience.
Not exactly. You referred to alcohol with a quote and then said sarcastically “But it’s the weed that’s the problem.”
Your misinterpretation is not my problem. Cheers!
From your link:
“I found many, many cases where the causation appeared clear. In some cases it was as simple and obvious as, this person—with no history of violence—smoked, became psychotic, and committed a homicide.”
No, that’s not how causation is determined.
Believe whatever fairy tales you want about the harmlessness of your favorite drugs, but the weed crowd’s arguments now mirror the tobacco industry’s arguments in the 1950s concerning cigarette-smoking and lung cancer. “Correlation isn’t causation.” “Most smokers don’t have/get lung cancer.” “Other confounding factors are at play.” Blah, blah, blah. It’ll likely take lawsuits to ultimately change the narrative, but it will happen eventually.
Then your faulty writing is not mine.
“Believe whatever fairy tales you want about the harmlessness”
Beat that straw man.
“your faulty writing”
ROTFL!
You referred to alcohol with a quote and then said sarcastically “But it’s the weed that’s the problem," and later tried to say it meant that neither marijuana nor alcohol was a problem.
Just like writing “Cheers!” and yet coming back, you’re full of contradictions.
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.