Carl Sagan Dedicated Pothead
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
It is possible for someone who is schizophrenic, and not showing signs yet, to have their psychosis accelerated. I had a friend similar to yours.But I have worked with and been friends with many people who are consumers of mental health services. Most of them are on meds but also smoke pot and are perfectly capable of functioning. Those few that still drink, however, cannot function very well.
Personally, I don't smoke any more but I am around the stuff and its consumers constantly and other than the one case, have never seen any harm done in my forty five years of experience with it. By the way, the schizophrenic doesn't smoke any more either.
Personally, I don't smoke any more but I am around the stuff and its consumers constantly and other than the one case, have never seen any harm done in my forty five years of experience with it. By the way, the schizophrenic doesn't smoke any more either.
Does not smoking help your friend?
A lot of my friends abuse various types of substances and the pot smokers are by far the most stable mentally and health wise. As I said, my interest in this stemmed from my friend and his eventual diagnosis, since I had never heard of it. I'm always skeptical of any mental health diagnosis having been misdiagnosed myself, some years ago.
The way it sounds like a review for Reefer Madness. A chemical imbalance could be one of the long-term effects of cannabis use in some people - just the same as cancer may be one of the long-term effects of following city busses.
I have not ascribed any words to you. Your post leaves me with the impression the condition was brought on by cannabis use. Though possible, it would certainly be a rare case. Scare tactics and misinformation were the whole gist of Reefer Madness.
Does not smoking help your friend?
Said1,
My friend is a rabid catholic who thinks pot is the devil's weed. I say rabid because he has gone off the deep end of fundamental lunacy. He got himself banned from this town because, among other things, he was going around writing chalk messages on the sidewalks near the high school warning the god does not approve of condoms. He sent an ambulance to his ex-wife's house at two in the morning, saying she was having a heart attack - twice. He did it because she had a restraining order put out on him.
Said1,
My friend is a rabid catholic who thinks pot is the devil's weed. I say rabid because he has gone off the deep end of fundamental lunacy. He got himself banned from this town because, among other things, he was going around writing chalk messages on the sidewalks near the high school warning the god does not approve of condoms. He sent an ambulance to his ex-wife's house at two in the morning, saying she was having a heart attack - twice. He did it because she had a restraining order put out on him.
I honestly don't know what brought about his problems. He was normal, 20 yrs later, at 37, he's not. He smokes a lot of weed daily, which doctors attribute to his diagnosis. That is what peaked my interest in that theory, but as far as I know, he could have had problems all along that I didn't notice until they began to surface in really strange ways. I know he always had and exceptionally good memory, especially for dates.
Cliffy: that's too bad about your friend, I take it he's not on any kind of medication?
The big problem with weed is the stigma attached to it. The pharmaceutical industry shuns it so it seldom gets a fair shake in assessment. As advanced as we've come to believe we are, what we actually know about drug interactions with the body and its chemistry is squat. Odd how what works for one person is a toxin for another. I have seen cannabis used to help keep schizophrenia in check. I suppose one doctor's opinion may well vary from the next.
I don't smoke weed anymore myself, the level of paranoia and anxiety I was experiencing while high just kept getting more extreme and outrageous. I was never a huge smoker, but now I get a little boost just off the fumes. :lol:
For actual information on mental disorders and pot use, here is a quick article.
BBC NEWS | Health | Drug disorder schizophrenia link
BBC NEWS | Health | Drug disorder schizophrenia link
The part where you jump to a conclusion and then later in the thread attempt to back it up with some bs about it's what his doctors think.
For starters, there is a suggestion in actual research that a very very small percentage of youth who smoke pot chronically and show a tendency to psychosis later on in life, may bring about an earlier onset of Schizophrenia.
Of course it's starting to look more and more like some people who have a propensity for Schizophrenia happen to smoke pot as well.
Jumping to the conclusion that pot made your friend Schizophrenic is like saying watching TV makes you have a car accident because lots of people watch TV and have car accidents.
You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who's lobbying against it.
Take California's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who would oppose this proposal?
If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you'd be right! According to the 'No on 5' website, the California State Sheriff's Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.
However, even more disturbing is who's bankrolling the 'No on 5'campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California's powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5.
After all, overcrowded prisons -- In 2007, California declared a 'state of emergency' in the prison system because of the lack of bed space -- and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.
In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that?
If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you'd be correct!
According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the 'No on 5' campaign. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won't leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?
So now that you know who's against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.
In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people's lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.
New study casts doubt on “cannabis-induced psychosis” claims, pot doesn’t cause schizophrenia | NORML's Daily Audio Stash
Marijuana Law Reform - NORML
In case anyone wants to get some information from people who know.
Take California's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who would oppose this proposal?
If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you'd be right! According to the 'No on 5' website, the California State Sheriff's Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.
However, even more disturbing is who's bankrolling the 'No on 5'campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California's powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5.
After all, overcrowded prisons -- In 2007, California declared a 'state of emergency' in the prison system because of the lack of bed space -- and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.
In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that?
If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you'd be correct!
According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the 'No on 5' campaign. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won't leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?
So now that you know who's against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.
In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people's lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.
New study casts doubt on “cannabis-induced psychosis” claims, pot doesn’t cause schizophrenia | NORML's Daily Audio Stash
Marijuana Law Reform - NORML
In case anyone wants to get some information from people who know.
Lets recap what I said, in that post:
1. I do not acknowledge the original statistic as it was posted as a joke, hence the smilie. Anyone would half a brain would say 'gee Said1, what is the total number of people treated for cannabis induced psychosis in order to determine 80% are males?"
2. I said I didn't care if people used drugs and alcohol as I think it's their choice.
3. I said statistics do not explain the presence of mental illness in pot smokers.
4. I said I became interested in the statistical correlations as a friend of mine was diagnosed with a supposed pot related mental illness. I'm sure you're well aware of that fact that statistical correlations are not considered proof. I even used the word 'supposed', in relation to the doctor's diagnosis, which is pretty non-committal.
5. I said it's possible that he had problems prior to getting really bad, and I didn't notice.
6. I said he thinks he mimicked his mother's coping skills.
Is there anything else I need to clarify for you?
I'v seen a very few people experiance problems with cannabis. Usually it was from gross over use. However a long time ago I read that cannibis will tend to bring to the fore and magnify underlying problems.
I've never smoked pot either. As for health effects, I did find this:
Effects of Marijuana - The Health Effects of Marijuana
and
InfoFacts - Marijuana
So it would seem to me that eliminating its use ought to be the government's long-term goal. This does not mean however that criminalization is necessarily the best way to fight it (remember prohibition in the 1930's?). Maybe it is, maybe not, but perhaps we could compare the solutions using historical comparison:
Criminalization
Tried prohibition in the 30s. It didn't stop alcohol consumption, but certainly reduced it. On that front, a success. Inversely, it also led to organized crime and the mafia getting into it. We could make a parallel with pot. It's illegal and so is in the hands of organized crime, and like alcohol in the 1930's prohibition era, isn't so openly used.
Legalization and taxation
After the prohibition era ended, alcohol consumtion increased, but at least organized crime was out of the picture again. So then the governemnt tried increased taxation, at least in Canada (I don't know about the US) which helps to reduce consumtion but again can promote organized crime and smuggling of tax-free cigarettes for example.
Prescription
We criminalize it, but allow addicts to purchase it with prescription. This of course could have strings attached like turning in the dealer, and gradual reduction of quantity over time, etc. tax free prescription marijuana could be the lure as an alternative to the expensive illegal stuff.
I honestly don't know which is the best alternative to fighting marijuana consumption, but here are three that I know.
Effects of Marijuana - The Health Effects of Marijuana
and
InfoFacts - Marijuana
So it would seem to me that eliminating its use ought to be the government's long-term goal. This does not mean however that criminalization is necessarily the best way to fight it (remember prohibition in the 1930's?). Maybe it is, maybe not, but perhaps we could compare the solutions using historical comparison:
Criminalization
Tried prohibition in the 30s. It didn't stop alcohol consumption, but certainly reduced it. On that front, a success. Inversely, it also led to organized crime and the mafia getting into it. We could make a parallel with pot. It's illegal and so is in the hands of organized crime, and like alcohol in the 1930's prohibition era, isn't so openly used.
Legalization and taxation
After the prohibition era ended, alcohol consumtion increased, but at least organized crime was out of the picture again. So then the governemnt tried increased taxation, at least in Canada (I don't know about the US) which helps to reduce consumtion but again can promote organized crime and smuggling of tax-free cigarettes for example.
Prescription
We criminalize it, but allow addicts to purchase it with prescription. This of course could have strings attached like turning in the dealer, and gradual reduction of quantity over time, etc. tax free prescription marijuana could be the lure as an alternative to the expensive illegal stuff.
I honestly don't know which is the best alternative to fighting marijuana consumption, but here are three that I know.
Nope that pretty much did the trick. I re-read what we said here and I think I misunderstood what you meant. Just a few words you used, I considered with another definition than what you actually seemed to mean.
Balderdash!
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I certainly don't agree with yours. I would have to say that since criminalization hasn't worked at all in the last hundred years, it's not likely to start working now or in the future.
Gosh, is all your data like this? Prohibition increased alcohol consumption. The increase in consumption by women and children was dramatic. From 1914 to 1922 alcohol consumption was reduced.
Prohibition started in 1920. By 1925 Arrests for public drunkenness was above pre-prohibition levels. The most important thing about statistics here though is that Al Capone and his friends didn't pay taxes on the alcohol they smuggled into the country, the stuff they made and served nor the alcohol that was made by people who just wanted to make some fast and dirty cash.