If a thing is harmful, shouldn't we be advocating for reducing or removing that harm?
E.g.
- putting vitamins into alcoholic drinks so that alcoholics don't develop micronutrient deficiency
- warnings and restrictions on tobacco sales
- prohibiting production and sale of harmful drugs
The alternative view is to allow people to buy whatever they like and they can deal with the consequences. Do we want to see marijuana for sale in corner stores like tobacco is? Are children and teenagers expected to consider this normal?
All of the arguments I ever see here could just as easily be applied to the drugs considered more harmful.
I think we - as a modern society - have a duty to protect people from these substances. They should never be made available as freely as alcohol and tobacco are.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Here's the part you don't get, Leinna.
Your methods and opinions are fine and admirable. Whatever.
But here's the kicker. Your methods that you are proposing are exactly the same as the methods being employed right now around the world to enforce the marijuana ban.
And any reasonably intelligent person can see that they aren't working.
What we are seeing now, with the war on drugs, is the same thing we saw in the early 20th century with prohibition of alcohol. What's that lovely saying that everyone knows and forgets all the time? "Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them".
This is a textbook example of a time when that phrase applies.
Yes, it might be better for society overall if nobody ever used marijuana. However, that isn't possible, and that isn't the discussion taking place around the world currently.
People are going to smoke marijuana. Period. You can't stop them, no matter how much you might want to.
There are downsides to legalizing marijuana, just like there are downsides to legal tobacco and legal alcohol.
But the downsides to it being illegal are much worse,just like the downsides to making alcohol illegal proved to be.
+5
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Isn't it our responsibility as a society to protect people from that scenario?
Hell no. Is it our responsibility to watch out for our friends and loved ones, and maybe our peers (probably just the closest ones)? Sure.
As I said in my quote, our responsibility as a society. Making everyone's lives better.
I was calling your claim into contention. You asked the question and I said no, and then provided some further thought on when it's appropriate to intervene in other people's lives. And even then there's tons of variables that may make it appropriate or not. But the bottom line is, for strangers, intervention into their lives has more barriers. As there should be.
If a thing is harmful, shouldn't we be advocating for reducing or removing that harm?
Advocating responsible use is reducing harm.
I think we - as a modern society - have a duty to protect people from these substances. They should never be made available as freely as alcohol and tobacco are.
Which substances and why? An outright ban on marijuana has lead to the exact same problems the prohibition of alcohol had. Money is being wasted and people are being killed to no effect. Pretty much anyone can go get pot whenever they want.
It's not an either or proposition. Advocating the responsible legal use of marijuana is not also declaring cocaine be mandatory for children.
If a thing is harmful, shouldn't we be advocating for reducing or removing that harm?
E.g.
- putting vitamins into alcoholic drinks so that alcoholics don't develop micronutrient deficiency
- warnings and restrictions on tobacco sales
- prohibiting production and sale of harmful drugs
The alternative view is to allow people to buy whatever they like and they can deal with the consequences. Do we want to see marijuana for sale in corner stores like tobacco is? Are children and teenagers expected to consider this normal?
All of the arguments I ever see here could just as easily be applied to the drugs considered more harmful.
I think we - as a modern society - have a duty to protect people from these substances. They should never be made available as freely as alcohol and tobacco are.
Few things can be simply and straightforwardly classified as "harmful". In truth, most things are, at worst, potentially harmful in certain situations or for certain segments of the population. For those with allergies, exposure to peanut butter can cause anaphylaxis that may lead to death. For those without, peanut butter is a delicious and--if not laden with stabilizers like icing sugar--rather healthy spread. For those with a latent predisposition to schizophrenia, marijuana use may lead to psychosis. For those without, marijuana use may lead to experiences of heightened pleasure, empathy and relaxation, new appreciation for sensory stimuli, and other things that I would consider broadly positive.
We don't classify peanut butter as harmful and ban it outright. At most, we say it may not be appropriate to have it around or eat it in some locations, like schools where allergic children may be exposed. Similarly, classifying marijuana as harmful seems overzealous. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that we treat marijuana like peanut butter. The risks and tradeoffs are obviously different.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
The second difficulty is it legitimatises a harmful, potentially habit forming, mind altering drug. There will be more frequent use and more harm from effects of the drug - considering the health effects of the drug outside of the social impacts of black market drug trade. I see enough health problems from tobacco already.
In response to the arguments regarding prohibition of alcohol, there are similarities but also differences (alcohol is regularly consumed by the majority of the adult population as opposed to marijuana). I acknowledge that the trade in marijuana profits criminals, but they also trade in other illicit drugs and unless they are all made legal the criminals will remain. So that argument doesn't completely wash with me, unless you propose legal access to all of them.
I admit I am somewhat blinded by my health advocacy over a more general social view. I also personally find smoking a distasteful habit, no matter the substance or whether is is smoked, vaporised etc. But most of all, it is against my ethical views that we should be allowing the legal sale of another harmful drug in addition to tobacco and alcohol.
I would be interested to know how others ethically justify legalising the drug. The strongest argument is that the additional harm from legitimising the drug is offset by the money saved and potential lower crime rate.
Edit:
I am also going to sleep. I am also hoping that the next comic is about SimCity sucking or something else we can all agree on.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
The second difficulty is it legitimatises a harmful, potentially habit forming, mind altering drug. There will be more frequent use and more harm from effects of the drug - considering the health effects of the drug outside of the social impacts of black market drug trade. I see enough health problems from tobacco already.
In response to the arguments regarding prohibition of alcohol, there are similarities but also differences (alcohol is regularly consumed by the majority of the adult population as opposed to marijuana). I acknowledge that the trade in marijuana profits criminals, but they also trade in other illicit drugs and unless they are all made legal the criminals will remain. So that argument doesn't completely wash with me, unless you propose legal access to all of them.
I admit I am somewhat blinded by my health advocacy over a more general social view. I also personally find smoking a distasteful habit, no matter the substance or whether is is smoked, vaporised etc. But most of all, it is against my ethical views that we should be allowing the legal sale of another harmful drug in addition to tobacco and alcohol.
I would be interested to know how others ethically justify legalising the drug. The strongest argument is that the additional harm from legitimising the drug is offset by the money saved and potential lower crime rate.
Edit:
I am also going to sleep. I am also hoping that the next comic is about SimCity sucking or something else we can all agree on.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I also have a very negative bias against weed because of all the stoners I've met (many of whom would seem to be the mature responsible partakers I am often assured are everywhere) who are like a living gallery of cautionary tales.
If you met a stoner who was a cautionary tale, they aren't the mature responsible partakers.
You probably haven't met the responsible ones because, you know, they're responsible and you have a very clear bias against them. So why would someone who responsibly (and secretly) used marijuana tell you?
In my experience, the really responsible users keep it to themselves for the most part and don't use it as an excuse to act all CA-RAAAAZY. A responsible smoker is capable of being productive at work and does not necessarily dress or act the way you might expect them to. In other words, you would probably never ever be able to tell them apart from people who don't smoke.
Such people exist.
That's a bit insulting, but it may have been called for. My bias is obvious to you because I typed it out unambiguously. However, I have formed a relationship or two in my life that I didn't sever the second a blunt was produced. I'm perfectly capable of noninterference in the pleasures of other adults. The fact that literally every one of those adults owes the central conflict in their life to bad decisions they made while they were super high is where my bias comes from. Yes, the same kind of abuse can occur with alcohol and shit, but everyone knows that alcohol = bad decisions. Pot enthusiasts have this real, observable slippery slope where they go from "controlled environment" to "I drive better when I'm stoned." At least, that's been my experience.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
I'll agree to a legalising of the stuff when I'm guaranteed not to have to walk through clouds of the stuff in the street like I already do with ordinary tobacco.
Because allowing people their freedom to enjoy the stuff is all well and good, but what about my and others' freedom to NOT be confronted by it at any point?
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
Abstract
Cannabis has been implicated as a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia, but the exact biological mechanisms remain unclear. In this review, we attempt to understand the neurobiological pathways that link cannabis use to schizophrenia. This has been an area of great debate; despite similarities between cannabis users and schizophrenia patients, the evidence is not sufficient to establish cause-and-effect. There have been advances in the understanding of the mechanisms of cannabis dependence as well as the role of the cannabinoid system in the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. The neurobiological mechanisms associated with the development of psychosis and effects from cannabis use may be similar but remains elusive.. In order to better understand these associations, this paper will show common neurobiological and neuroanatomical changes as well as common cognitive dysfunction in cannabis users and patients of schizophrenia.. We conclude that epidemiologic evidence highlights potential causal links; however neurobiological evidence for causality remains weak.
Stronger evidence is needed before accepting that cannabis plays an important role in the aetiology of schizophrenia in the population.
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a debilitating but poorly understood condition with very few known modifiable risk factors. Cannabis use can acutely induce psychotic experiences, but its causal relationship to schizophrenia is less well understood. Longitudinal cohort studies suggest that the association between cannabis and psychotic outcomes is not due to chance or reverse causation. However, the association could be due to bias or residual confounding. Methods that can test alternative explanations in greater depth are required. This is especially important as ecological studies have found little association between the increase in cannabis use over recent decades and incidence of psychotic disorders; public health models suggest that cannabis use may need to be treated and prevented in many thousands of users in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia. We believe that, while such uncertainty exists, there is a scientific duty to continue to investigate the role of cannabis in the aetiology of schizophrenia and that the policy case for considering cannabis exposure as a critical target for preventing schizophrenia is yet to be made. However, due to other evidence of the harms of cannabis use, this should not affect the public health message that cannabis can be harmful and that cannabis dependence should be prevented.
Cannabis and psychosis: search of a causal link through a critical and systematic review.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Although cannabis use may be involved in the aetiology of acute psychosis, there has been considerable debate about the association observed between cannabis use and chronic psychosis. In particular, because of the frequent co-occurrence between schizophrenia and cannabis use, the question has been raised of a causal link between exposure to cannabis as a risk factor and the development of psychosis or psychotic symptoms.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this article was to examine the evidence that cannabis use causes chronic psychotic disorders by using established criteria of causality. These criteria were defined by: biologic plausibility, strength of the interaction between the risk factor and the disease, reprieability of the results, temporal sequence between the exposure to the risk factor and the beginning of the disease and existence of a dose-effect relationship.
METHODS:
The selected studies were found in Medline using the keywords "cannabis" and "psychosis", "cannabis" and "schizophrenia", "cannabis" and "psychotic symptoms" and "prospective" or "cohort" or "longitudinal". The selected studies were all prospective studies assessing the temporal sequence between cannabis use and emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The search strategies resulted in 60 records that were screened by reading both titles and abstracts. Seventeen studies were considered eligible, and then, after reading the full text, seven met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS:
Together, the seven studies were all prospective cohorts and represented 50,275 human subjects. There were three European studies (from Sweden, Holland and Germany), one from New Zealand and one from Australia. Only one study of the seven did not show a significant association between cannabis consumption and increase of the risk of developing a psychosis. However, this study had some bias, such as low level of cannabis use and the lack of evaluation of cannabis use after inclusion. For the six other studies, data show the existence of a significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders (with an increased risk between 1.2 and 2.8 in Zammit et al.'s study), particularly among vulnerable individuals (that is with a prepsychotic state at the time of inclusion). Therefore, all the studies that assessed a dose-effect relationship showed this link between cannabis use and the emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The fact that all causal criteria were present in the studies suggests that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychosis. Results seem to be more consistent for vulnerable individuals with the hypothesis that cannabis use may precipitate psychosis, notably among vulnerable subjects. In particular, early onset of cannabis use during adolescence should be an environmental stressor that interacts with a genetic predisposition to induce a psychotic disorder.
CONCLUSION:
The objective of this article was to examine whether cannabis use can be an independent risk factor for chronic psychotic disorders, by using established criteria of causality. Data extracted from the selected studies showed that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychotic disorders. Early screening of the vulnerability to psychotic disorder should permit improved focus on prevention and information about the specific risks related to cannabis use among this population.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'll agree to a legalising of the stuff when I'm guaranteed not to have to walk through clouds of the stuff in the street like I already do with ordinary tobacco.
Because allowing people their freedom to enjoy the stuff is all well and good, but what about my and others' freedom to NOT be confronted by it at any point?
Oh come on, like you haven't had someone offer you pot to buy. You know what you do? What I did every time it happened to me - "No thanks dude." And just keep moving, whatevs.
And honestly you're exaggerating on purpose. As much as I hate cigarette smoke, I have never encountered it lingering in the air like some science fiction toxin just because people are outdoors smoking.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
If there aren't clear links, there is no evidence.
I didn't say the links are unclear. The nature of the links are unclear. The third abstract I quoted states, in part, that in "six [of seven] studies, data show the existence of a significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders [...] particularly among vulnerable individuals (that is with a prepsychotic state at the time of inclusion)".
Black box warnings have been earned on less, anyway, and are still effective in terms of malpractice suits.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's assume that the responsibility of society is to better the lives of its people. In fact, let's evaluate the quality of a society as the one that maximizes the mean, median or minimum (bottom 10%) quality of life for its citizens.
1. Banning marijuana effectively costs several billion a year. If we assume marijuana decreases quality of life for those that use it (about 20 million users), we can probably assume going hungry (between 5-10% of the population or 15-30 million people) decreases it more. As does financial ruin from lack of insurance. So we could probably be getting a bigger bang for our buck in terms of quality of life, than by trying to keep people away from marijuana.
2. Decriminalizing a substance makes rehabilitation programs more widely available. When alcoholics realize they have a problem, they can go to AA to work on their issues. There are very few programs like that for illegal drugs in the US. Portugal has an interesting solution to this problem, drugs are still prohibited there, but instead of going to jail, users are referred to rehabilitation programs. This will probably help improve the quality of life of those people who are motivated to try drugs far more than just putting them in jail.
3. Quality of life can have multiple facets, and many people think spirituality is the most important part of quality of life. This point is a little extreme, but when the government starts mandating what is "good" for it's people, it's very likely to be abused. Some people think that teaching religion to children at a young age is child abuse, and while that's not likely to be a policy in the U.S., it is an example of a policy that a government could enact that would be extremely restrictive and in my mind wrong.
I too think governments should be judged based on the quality of life of their people (Myanmar gets an F), but drawing the line between autonomy and quality of life is hard, and erring on the side of autonomy is a good way to avoid totalitarian governments. If you really wanted to find ways to improve quality of life, I'd check out countries that have a higher quality of life index than the U.S. and emulate them (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Australia), which are kind of a mixed bag in their stance on marijuana.
Let's assume that the responsibility of society is to better the lives of its people. In fact, let's evaluate the quality of a society as the one that maximizes the mean, median or minimum (bottom 10%) quality of life for its citizens.
1. Banning marijuana effectively costs several billion a year. If we assume marijuana decreases quality of life for those that use it (about 20 million users), we can probably assume going hungry (between 5-10% of the population or 15-30 million people) decreases it more. As does financial ruin from lack of insurance. So we could probably be getting a bigger bang for our buck in terms of quality of life, than by trying to keep people away from marijuana.
2. Decriminalizing a substance makes rehabilitation programs more widely available. When alcoholics realize they have a problem, they can go to AA to work on their issues. There are very few programs like that for illegal drugs in the US. Portugal has an interesting solution to this problem, drugs are still prohibited there, but instead of going to jail, users are referred to rehabilitation programs. This will probably help improve the quality of life of those people who are motivated to try drugs far more than just putting them in jail.
3. Quality of life can have multiple facets, and many people think spirituality is the most important part of quality of life. This point is a little extreme, but when the government starts mandating what is "good" for it's people, it's very likely to be abused. Some people think that teaching religion to children at a young age is child abuse, and while that's not likely to be a policy in the U.S., it is an example of a policy that a government could enact that would be extremely restrictive and in my mind wrong.
I too think governments should be judged based on the quality of life of their people (Myanmar gets an F), but drawing the line between autonomy and quality of life is hard, and erring on the side of autonomy is a good way to avoid totalitarian governments. If you really wanted to find ways to improve quality of life, I'd check out countries that have a higher quality of life index than the U.S. and emulate them (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Australia), which are kind of a mixed bag in their stance on marijuana.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
Abstract
Cannabis has been implicated as a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia, but the exact biological mechanisms remain unclear. In this review, we attempt to understand the neurobiological pathways that link cannabis use to schizophrenia. This has been an area of great debate; despite similarities between cannabis users and schizophrenia patients, the evidence is not sufficient to establish cause-and-effect. There have been advances in the understanding of the mechanisms of cannabis dependence as well as the role of the cannabinoid system in the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. The neurobiological mechanisms associated with the development of psychosis and effects from cannabis use may be similar but remains elusive.. In order to better understand these associations, this paper will show common neurobiological and neuroanatomical changes as well as common cognitive dysfunction in cannabis users and patients of schizophrenia.. We conclude that epidemiologic evidence highlights potential causal links; however neurobiological evidence for causality remains weak.
Stronger evidence is needed before accepting that cannabis plays an important role in the aetiology of schizophrenia in the population.
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a debilitating but poorly understood condition with very few known modifiable risk factors. Cannabis use can acutely induce psychotic experiences, but its causal relationship to schizophrenia is less well understood. Longitudinal cohort studies suggest that the association between cannabis and psychotic outcomes is not due to chance or reverse causation. However, the association could be due to bias or residual confounding. Methods that can test alternative explanations in greater depth are required. This is especially important as ecological studies have found little association between the increase in cannabis use over recent decades and incidence of psychotic disorders; public health models suggest that cannabis use may need to be treated and prevented in many thousands of users in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia. We believe that, while such uncertainty exists, there is a scientific duty to continue to investigate the role of cannabis in the aetiology of schizophrenia and that the policy case for considering cannabis exposure as a critical target for preventing schizophrenia is yet to be made. However, due to other evidence of the harms of cannabis use, this should not affect the public health message that cannabis can be harmful and that cannabis dependence should be prevented.
Cannabis and psychosis: search of a causal link through a critical and systematic review.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Although cannabis use may be involved in the aetiology of acute psychosis, there has been considerable debate about the association observed between cannabis use and chronic psychosis. In particular, because of the frequent co-occurrence between schizophrenia and cannabis use, the question has been raised of a causal link between exposure to cannabis as a risk factor and the development of psychosis or psychotic symptoms.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this article was to examine the evidence that cannabis use causes chronic psychotic disorders by using established criteria of causality. These criteria were defined by: biologic plausibility, strength of the interaction between the risk factor and the disease, reprieability of the results, temporal sequence between the exposure to the risk factor and the beginning of the disease and existence of a dose-effect relationship.
METHODS:
The selected studies were found in Medline using the keywords "cannabis" and "psychosis", "cannabis" and "schizophrenia", "cannabis" and "psychotic symptoms" and "prospective" or "cohort" or "longitudinal". The selected studies were all prospective studies assessing the temporal sequence between cannabis use and emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The search strategies resulted in 60 records that were screened by reading both titles and abstracts. Seventeen studies were considered eligible, and then, after reading the full text, seven met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS:
Together, the seven studies were all prospective cohorts and represented 50,275 human subjects. There were three European studies (from Sweden, Holland and Germany), one from New Zealand and one from Australia. Only one study of the seven did not show a significant association between cannabis consumption and increase of the risk of developing a psychosis. However, this study had some bias, such as low level of cannabis use and the lack of evaluation of cannabis use after inclusion. For the six other studies, data show the existence of a significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders (with an increased risk between 1.2 and 2.8 in Zammit et al.'s study), particularly among vulnerable individuals (that is with a prepsychotic state at the time of inclusion). Therefore, all the studies that assessed a dose-effect relationship showed this link between cannabis use and the emergence of psychosis or psychotic symptoms. The fact that all causal criteria were present in the studies suggests that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychosis. Results seem to be more consistent for vulnerable individuals with the hypothesis that cannabis use may precipitate psychosis, notably among vulnerable subjects. In particular, early onset of cannabis use during adolescence should be an environmental stressor that interacts with a genetic predisposition to induce a psychotic disorder.
CONCLUSION:
The objective of this article was to examine whether cannabis use can be an independent risk factor for chronic psychotic disorders, by using established criteria of causality. Data extracted from the selected studies showed that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for the development of psychotic disorders. Early screening of the vulnerability to psychotic disorder should permit improved focus on prevention and information about the specific risks related to cannabis use among this population.
That's some funky methodology. You want to see whether or not cannabis is an independent risk factor for psychosis and then you include "vulnerable individuals (...) with a prepsychotic state" in your study? And then your conclusions point out that those people are where the particular significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders exists?
If I was going to do a study, I would screen applicants beforehand to ensure nobody was at any sort of known risk for psychosis. The control group gets fake marijuana and the test subjects get the real deal.
The things is, so many people have been smoking marijuana for so long that if there was a direct, significant causal relationship between marijuana use and psychosis -- and by significant I mean noticeable -- we would have seen that over the long period of time the plant has been consumed. Instead, when you think of someone who smokes weed, you tend to think of people who are too tired to stop eating Bugles, get off the comfy chair, and get in the shower. Not somebody going on a psychotic rampage.
We hand out prescriptions every day across the world that could potentially cause a fatal allergic reaction in the person taking it. That person might never know that they have that allergy until it is too late. But we wouldn't stop prescribing those medications just because a small number of people might die if they take them. And yes, marijuana has a proven medicinal benefit, both in the scientific literature and from personal experience.
And when your argument for all of the evils of prohibition boils down to, "It's worth it because some people who are predisposed to mental disorders will have acute psychotic breakdowns if they take it!"... you're really grasping at straws. Those people are going to smoke marijuana anyway. That's something that you don't seem to be getting. Prohibition in no way reduces the supply or increases the control over who consumes the substance. If you want psychotic people to smoke less marijuana... the best way is to legalize marijuana and regulate it.
I'll agree to a legalising of the stuff when I'm guaranteed not to have to walk through clouds of the stuff in the street like I already do with ordinary tobacco.
Because allowing people their freedom to enjoy the stuff is all well and good, but what about my and others' freedom to NOT be confronted by it at any point?
Oh come on, like you haven't had someone offer you pot to buy. You know what you do? What I did every time it happened to me - "No thanks dude." And just keep moving, whatevs.
And honestly you're exaggerating on purpose. As much as I hate cigarette smoke, I have never encountered it lingering in the air like some science fiction toxin just because people are outdoors smoking.
To be fair, it is extremely difficult to go to any sort of large outdoor concert without having clouds of the stuff wafting over you. See: Tom Petty, Radiohead, Austin City Limits...
And when your argument for all of the evils of prohibition boils down to, "It's worth it because some people who are predisposed to mental disorders will have acute psychotic breakdowns if they take it!"... you're really grasping at straws. Those people are going to smoke marijuana anyway. That's something that you don't seem to be getting. Prohibition in no way reduces the supply or increases the control over who consumes the substance. If you want psychotic people to smoke less marijuana... the best way is to legalize marijuana and regulate it.
If you look at the rest of my posts, you'll realize I'm definitely not advocating for prohibition. I'm actually a big fan of responsible recreational drug use.
All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the concern that weed might tip some people over the line into a really bad place seems pretty legit.
To be clear, I wasn't using the word "you" to refer to you specifically; it was directed towards the people advocating prohibition. Just that if this is an argument the anti-legalization crowd is using, a) the study quoted used people who were predisposed to psychotic episodes and b) I agree that it is a concern for those people. So we should legalize it so that it is tougher for those people to get the stuff. If it's regulated, you can put a stamp on a driver's license or something to say that this person shouldn't smoke. It may not be perfect and they might still be able to get it but it's leagues better than what the dealers are doing now.
I think we agree but I wanted to put those studies into perspective. You can legalize marijuana and still try to reduce usage among sections of the population that shouldn't have it, ie children and people with psychiatric disorders that put them and others at risk. I just wanted to make that explicit is all.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
I couldn't help after reading the last several threads to think that most of you must not be looking at some of the more recent research on cannabis. Namely its use as... wait for it
While the evidence currently existing is little, more is coming in. And get this, the anti-psychotic compound CBD is often thought to be found in lower quantities in modern cannabis because it is a crucial factor in the subjective effects of those who use it. We've been selectively breeding cannabis to display high levels of THC (which has been linked to schizophrenia) and lower levels of CBD (which has been shown to have antipsychotic effects). Making the plant illegal has (arguably, and with terribly tentative links) made it more harmful due to the pressures of the criminal element trying to create more and more potent plants.
In theory, legalization could allow us to breed CBD-rich plants that would be much safer for those predisposed to psychological disorders. And possibly cannabis that does not cause the typical effects of the substance, if the CBD/THC ratio were to be turned the other direction.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
what
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
I couldn't help after reading the last several threads to think that most of you must not be looking at some of the more recent research on cannabis. Namely its use as... wait for it
While the evidence currently existing is little, more is coming in. And get this, the anti-psychotic compound CBD is often thought to be found in lower quantities in modern cannabis because it is a crucial factor in the subjective effects of those who use it. We've been selectively breeding cannabis to display high levels of THC (which has been linked to schizophrenia) and lower levels of CBD (which has been shown to have antipsychotic effects). Making the plant illegal has (arguably, and with terribly tentative links) made it more harmful due to the pressures of the criminal element trying to create more and more potent plants.
In theory, legalization could allow us to breed CBD-rich plants that would be much safer for those predisposed to psychological disorders. And possibly cannabis that does not cause the typical effects of the substance, if the CBD/THC ratio were to be turned the other direction.
What we'll more likely do is isolate and purify cannabidiol from cannabis and separately schedule it pending FDA approval (it's already in Phase 2 clinical trials). It's kind of what we did for Marinol, except we'll probably have to tweak it a little bit to get a pharm patent.
That is an interesting study and reflects the controversial nature of the pharmacology of cannabis that also cropped up when it was found to theoretically have carcinogenic and anti-cancer effects.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
Thousands of products can ruin people's lives.
The second difficulty is it legitimatises a harmful, potentially habit forming, mind altering drug. There will be more frequent use and more harm from effects of the drug - considering the health effects of the drug outside of the social impacts of black market drug trade. I see enough health problems from tobacco already.
Yet it is legal.
In response to the arguments regarding prohibition of alcohol, there are similarities but also differences (alcohol is regularly consumed by the majority of the adult population as opposed to marijuana). I acknowledge that the trade in marijuana profits criminals, but they also trade in other illicit drugs and unless they are all made legal the criminals will remain. So that argument doesn't completely wash with me, unless you propose legal access to all of them.
Nearly half of America has used pot. And your false dichotomies are getting annoying. It isn't make everything illegal or nothing.
I admit I am somewhat blinded by my health advocacy over a more general social view. I also personally find smoking a distasteful habit, no matter the substance or whether is is smoked, vaporised etc. But most of all, it is against my ethical views that we should be allowing the legal sale of another harmful drug in addition to tobacco and alcohol.
It's against my ethical view that a drug that isn't really all that harmful at all is being used to help fuel a horrific drug trade that costs billions to fight on the hypocritical stance that it's bad for people. Yet when far more dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco are pointed out they're hand waved away by people like you because they'd cost too much to prohibit and besides you're used to them.
Leinna, why is it the government's job to keep people from making potentially bad decisions?
Because that's a major part of being a government.
Of course when preventing people from making less than stellar decisions the justification should be stronger than reactionary laws passed in the 30's out of racism. Like an actual cost/benefit analysis.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
This alone negates any argument you have presented. this is not acid or PCP. I've never heard of any person going insane from smoking pot. The most affect it might have on you is make you have the munchies and lay on the couch.
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
This alone negates any argument you have presented. this is not acid or PCP. I've never heard of any person going insane from smoking pot. The most affect it might have on you is make you have the munchies and lay on the couch.
Well, I have seen someone previously well become completely psychotic.
The link is there. The controversy is over causation, to which there is evidence supporting both views. Given my personal experience I tend to put my faith in the positive studies.
Leinna, why is it the government's job to keep people from making potentially bad decisions?
Only when those bad decisions affect other people against their will.
This already covers drink-driving, and smoking in enclosed spaces. It should include marijuana outdoors at all because of the possibility of affecting children. And don't anybody tell me that contact highs don't exist and aren't a problem for minors and babies.
I support anyone's right to make stupid, life changing decisions like smoking (a child's habit that adults just can't kick) and drinking and whatever else. But why should your freedoms to be reckless affect other people?
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
This alone negates any argument you have presented. this is not acid or PCP. I've never heard of any person going insane from smoking pot.
I have refrained from getting involved in this, but the fact you personally do not have any anecdotal evidence for something doesn't mean it's not true. There is scientific research showing a possible link between marijuana use and some neuroses; the question is the strength of and precise nature of that link, as you would know if you had read any of the previous posts discussing that issue. Saying "Well, I've never seen or heard of anybody going nuts from smoking pot" doesn't mean shit either way.
I should clarify just in case I havn'et already; I meant smoking in the street specifically. In your own homes and, like, cafe's or whatever like they have in Amsterdam? Go nuts!
The main difficulty I have is that I find it abhorrent to think of marijuana being sold legally when it can potentially make you insane for the rest of your life.
This alone negates any argument you have presented. this is not acid or PCP. I've never heard of any person going insane from smoking pot. The most affect it might have on you is make you have the munchies and lay on the couch.
Well, I have seen someone previously well become completely psychotic.
The link is there. The controversy is over causation, to which there is evidence supporting both views. Given my personal experience I tend to put my faith in the positive studies.
Well, okay, if there's evidence supporting both views, what studies are you looking at that indicate it's capable of 'driving someone insane'? I've been looking for a little while here and I can't find anything.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2892048
This one is a large study of Swedish conscripts. Marijuana was associated with a sixfold higher risk. The risk persisted after accounting for confounding factors. This suggested that marijuana was an independent risk factor for schizophrenia. Amongst the strongest
epidemiological evidence
available.
In response to the tobacco and alcohol arguments above -
Although some products that are legal can cause harm, this does not give inherent justification that other products that cause harm should be legalised.
We will be increasing the harm to some parts of the community by legalising marijuana, with the potential benefit of reducing crime rates. I still contend that criminals will make money through sales of other illicit drugs and the crimes will continue.
Well, I have seen someone previously well become completely psychotic.
The link is there. The controversy is over causation, to which there is evidence supporting both views. Given my personal experience I tend to put my faith in the positive studies.
As someone previously stated, nearly half (42%) of the population of the United States population has used Marijuana, and those are just the ones who admit it in a survey. Leaving aside what that says about the rate of psychosis resulting from Marijuana, it makes it pretty clear that that the attempt to make it inaccessible has failed terribly. What's more, it sets a rather firm upper bound for how many more individuals could be exposed due to legalization, even if there are some individuals who will become psychotic after a single use.
You've made it clear in previous posts that you feel that alcohol and tobacco are also detrimental to society, and seem to feel it would be best for those to be banned if it were practical. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a reasoned and consistent position. I'm curious what makes you think that Marijuana can be put back in the bottle, as it were, while alcohol and tobacco cannot. The prevailing opinion seems to be that, regardless of whatever harms the drug might inflict, prohibition of it has been as much of a failure as the prohibition of alcohol was.
Leinna, why is it the government's job to keep people from making potentially bad decisions?
Only when those bad decisions affect other people against their will.
This already covers drink-driving, and smoking in enclosed spaces. It should include marijuana outdoors at all because of the possibility of affecting children. And don't anybody tell me that contact highs don't exist and aren't a problem for minors and babies.
I support anyone's right to make stupid, life changing decisions like smoking (a child's habit that adults just can't kick) and drinking and whatever else. But why should your freedoms to be reckless affect other people?
Posts
E.g.
- putting vitamins into alcoholic drinks so that alcoholics don't develop micronutrient deficiency
- warnings and restrictions on tobacco sales
- prohibiting production and sale of harmful drugs
The alternative view is to allow people to buy whatever they like and they can deal with the consequences. Do we want to see marijuana for sale in corner stores like tobacco is? Are children and teenagers expected to consider this normal?
All of the arguments I ever see here could just as easily be applied to the drugs considered more harmful.
I think we - as a modern society - have a duty to protect people from these substances. They should never be made available as freely as alcohol and tobacco are.
Your methods and opinions are fine and admirable. Whatever.
But here's the kicker. Your methods that you are proposing are exactly the same as the methods being employed right now around the world to enforce the marijuana ban.
And any reasonably intelligent person can see that they aren't working.
What we are seeing now, with the war on drugs, is the same thing we saw in the early 20th century with prohibition of alcohol. What's that lovely saying that everyone knows and forgets all the time? "Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them".
This is a textbook example of a time when that phrase applies.
Yes, it might be better for society overall if nobody ever used marijuana. However, that isn't possible, and that isn't the discussion taking place around the world currently.
People are going to smoke marijuana. Period. You can't stop them, no matter how much you might want to.
There are downsides to legalizing marijuana, just like there are downsides to legal tobacco and legal alcohol.
But the downsides to it being illegal are much worse,just like the downsides to making alcohol illegal proved to be.
I was calling your claim into contention. You asked the question and I said no, and then provided some further thought on when it's appropriate to intervene in other people's lives. And even then there's tons of variables that may make it appropriate or not. But the bottom line is, for strangers, intervention into their lives has more barriers. As there should be.
Advocating responsible use is reducing harm.
Which substances and why? An outright ban on marijuana has lead to the exact same problems the prohibition of alcohol had. Money is being wasted and people are being killed to no effect. Pretty much anyone can go get pot whenever they want.
It's not an either or proposition. Advocating the responsible legal use of marijuana is not also declaring cocaine be mandatory for children.
Few things can be simply and straightforwardly classified as "harmful". In truth, most things are, at worst, potentially harmful in certain situations or for certain segments of the population. For those with allergies, exposure to peanut butter can cause anaphylaxis that may lead to death. For those without, peanut butter is a delicious and--if not laden with stabilizers like icing sugar--rather healthy spread. For those with a latent predisposition to schizophrenia, marijuana use may lead to psychosis. For those without, marijuana use may lead to experiences of heightened pleasure, empathy and relaxation, new appreciation for sensory stimuli, and other things that I would consider broadly positive.
We don't classify peanut butter as harmful and ban it outright. At most, we say it may not be appropriate to have it around or eat it in some locations, like schools where allergic children may be exposed. Similarly, classifying marijuana as harmful seems overzealous. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that we treat marijuana like peanut butter. The risks and tradeoffs are obviously different.
The second difficulty is it legitimatises a harmful, potentially habit forming, mind altering drug. There will be more frequent use and more harm from effects of the drug - considering the health effects of the drug outside of the social impacts of black market drug trade. I see enough health problems from tobacco already.
In response to the arguments regarding prohibition of alcohol, there are similarities but also differences (alcohol is regularly consumed by the majority of the adult population as opposed to marijuana). I acknowledge that the trade in marijuana profits criminals, but they also trade in other illicit drugs and unless they are all made legal the criminals will remain. So that argument doesn't completely wash with me, unless you propose legal access to all of them.
I admit I am somewhat blinded by my health advocacy over a more general social view. I also personally find smoking a distasteful habit, no matter the substance or whether is is smoked, vaporised etc. But most of all, it is against my ethical views that we should be allowing the legal sale of another harmful drug in addition to tobacco and alcohol.
I would be interested to know how others ethically justify legalising the drug. The strongest argument is that the additional harm from legitimising the drug is offset by the money saved and potential lower crime rate.
Edit:
I am also going to sleep. I am also hoping that the next comic is about SimCity sucking or something else we can all agree on.
Evidence suggests that your fears of increasing harms are largely unfounded. The Portuguese "decriminalized all drugs" over a decade ago. In that time, drug abuse has apparently decreased by about half.
what
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
I heard it one time from some guy SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Because allowing people their freedom to enjoy the stuff is all well and good, but what about my and others' freedom to NOT be confronted by it at any point?
Come on now. There are documented links between marijuana use and schizophrenia/psychosis, though the precise nature of those links remains unclear. Let's not deny the evidence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23491968
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361397
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748375
Oh come on, like you haven't had someone offer you pot to buy. You know what you do? What I did every time it happened to me - "No thanks dude." And just keep moving, whatevs.
And honestly you're exaggerating on purpose. As much as I hate cigarette smoke, I have never encountered it lingering in the air like some science fiction toxin just because people are outdoors smoking.
If there aren't clear links, there is no evidence.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
1. Banning marijuana effectively costs several billion a year. If we assume marijuana decreases quality of life for those that use it (about 20 million users), we can probably assume going hungry (between 5-10% of the population or 15-30 million people) decreases it more. As does financial ruin from lack of insurance. So we could probably be getting a bigger bang for our buck in terms of quality of life, than by trying to keep people away from marijuana.
2. Decriminalizing a substance makes rehabilitation programs more widely available. When alcoholics realize they have a problem, they can go to AA to work on their issues. There are very few programs like that for illegal drugs in the US. Portugal has an interesting solution to this problem, drugs are still prohibited there, but instead of going to jail, users are referred to rehabilitation programs. This will probably help improve the quality of life of those people who are motivated to try drugs far more than just putting them in jail.
3. Quality of life can have multiple facets, and many people think spirituality is the most important part of quality of life. This point is a little extreme, but when the government starts mandating what is "good" for it's people, it's very likely to be abused. Some people think that teaching religion to children at a young age is child abuse, and while that's not likely to be a policy in the U.S., it is an example of a policy that a government could enact that would be extremely restrictive and in my mind wrong.
I too think governments should be judged based on the quality of life of their people (Myanmar gets an F), but drawing the line between autonomy and quality of life is hard, and erring on the side of autonomy is a good way to avoid totalitarian governments. If you really wanted to find ways to improve quality of life, I'd check out countries that have a higher quality of life index than the U.S. and emulate them (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Australia), which are kind of a mixed bag in their stance on marijuana.
1. Banning marijuana effectively costs several billion a year. If we assume marijuana decreases quality of life for those that use it (about 20 million users), we can probably assume going hungry (between 5-10% of the population or 15-30 million people) decreases it more. As does financial ruin from lack of insurance. So we could probably be getting a bigger bang for our buck in terms of quality of life, than by trying to keep people away from marijuana.
2. Decriminalizing a substance makes rehabilitation programs more widely available. When alcoholics realize they have a problem, they can go to AA to work on their issues. There are very few programs like that for illegal drugs in the US. Portugal has an interesting solution to this problem, drugs are still prohibited there, but instead of going to jail, users are referred to rehabilitation programs. This will probably help improve the quality of life of those people who are motivated to try drugs far more than just putting them in jail.
3. Quality of life can have multiple facets, and many people think spirituality is the most important part of quality of life. This point is a little extreme, but when the government starts mandating what is "good" for it's people, it's very likely to be abused. Some people think that teaching religion to children at a young age is child abuse, and while that's not likely to be a policy in the U.S., it is an example of a policy that a government could enact that would be extremely restrictive and in my mind wrong.
I too think governments should be judged based on the quality of life of their people (Myanmar gets an F), but drawing the line between autonomy and quality of life is hard, and erring on the side of autonomy is a good way to avoid totalitarian governments. If you really wanted to find ways to improve quality of life, I'd check out countries that have a higher quality of life index than the U.S. and emulate them (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Australia), which are kind of a mixed bag in their stance on marijuana.
That's some funky methodology. You want to see whether or not cannabis is an independent risk factor for psychosis and then you include "vulnerable individuals (...) with a prepsychotic state" in your study? And then your conclusions point out that those people are where the particular significant association between cannabis use and psychotic disorders exists?
If I was going to do a study, I would screen applicants beforehand to ensure nobody was at any sort of known risk for psychosis. The control group gets fake marijuana and the test subjects get the real deal.
The things is, so many people have been smoking marijuana for so long that if there was a direct, significant causal relationship between marijuana use and psychosis -- and by significant I mean noticeable -- we would have seen that over the long period of time the plant has been consumed. Instead, when you think of someone who smokes weed, you tend to think of people who are too tired to stop eating Bugles, get off the comfy chair, and get in the shower. Not somebody going on a psychotic rampage.
We hand out prescriptions every day across the world that could potentially cause a fatal allergic reaction in the person taking it. That person might never know that they have that allergy until it is too late. But we wouldn't stop prescribing those medications just because a small number of people might die if they take them. And yes, marijuana has a proven medicinal benefit, both in the scientific literature and from personal experience.
To be fair, it is extremely difficult to go to any sort of large outdoor concert without having clouds of the stuff wafting over you. See: Tom Petty, Radiohead, Austin City Limits...
If you look at the rest of my posts, you'll realize I'm definitely not advocating for prohibition. I'm actually a big fan of responsible recreational drug use.
All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the concern that weed might tip some people over the line into a really bad place seems pretty legit.
I think we agree but I wanted to put those studies into perspective. You can legalize marijuana and still try to reduce usage among sections of the population that shouldn't have it, ie children and people with psychiatric disorders that put them and others at risk. I just wanted to make that explicit is all.
I couldn't help after reading the last several threads to think that most of you must not be looking at some of the more recent research on cannabis. Namely its use as... wait for it
an anti-psychotic
see: http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/07/marijuana-compound-may-beat-antipsychotics-at-treating-schizophrenia/39803.html (just the first google link i found, not the best one)
While the evidence currently existing is little, more is coming in. And get this, the anti-psychotic compound CBD is often thought to be found in lower quantities in modern cannabis because it is a crucial factor in the subjective effects of those who use it. We've been selectively breeding cannabis to display high levels of THC (which has been linked to schizophrenia) and lower levels of CBD (which has been shown to have antipsychotic effects). Making the plant illegal has (arguably, and with terribly tentative links) made it more harmful due to the pressures of the criminal element trying to create more and more potent plants.
In theory, legalization could allow us to breed CBD-rich plants that would be much safer for those predisposed to psychological disorders. And possibly cannabis that does not cause the typical effects of the substance, if the CBD/THC ratio were to be turned the other direction.
What we'll more likely do is isolate and purify cannabidiol from cannabis and separately schedule it pending FDA approval (it's already in Phase 2 clinical trials). It's kind of what we did for Marinol, except we'll probably have to tweak it a little bit to get a pharm patent.
That is an interesting study and reflects the controversial nature of the pharmacology of cannabis that also cropped up when it was found to theoretically have carcinogenic and anti-cancer effects.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yet it is legal.
Nearly half of America has used pot. And your false dichotomies are getting annoying. It isn't make everything illegal or nothing.
It's against my ethical view that a drug that isn't really all that harmful at all is being used to help fuel a horrific drug trade that costs billions to fight on the hypocritical stance that it's bad for people. Yet when far more dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco are pointed out they're hand waved away by people like you because they'd cost too much to prohibit and besides you're used to them.
Because that's a major part of being a government.
Of course when preventing people from making less than stellar decisions the justification should be stronger than reactionary laws passed in the 30's out of racism. Like an actual cost/benefit analysis.
This alone negates any argument you have presented. this is not acid or PCP. I've never heard of any person going insane from smoking pot. The most affect it might have on you is make you have the munchies and lay on the couch.
Tumbr
DeviantArt
The link is there. The controversy is over causation, to which there is evidence supporting both views. Given my personal experience I tend to put my faith in the positive studies.
Only when those bad decisions affect other people against their will.
This already covers drink-driving, and smoking in enclosed spaces. It should include marijuana outdoors at all because of the possibility of affecting children. And don't anybody tell me that contact highs don't exist and aren't a problem for minors and babies.
I support anyone's right to make stupid, life changing decisions like smoking (a child's habit that adults just can't kick) and drinking and whatever else. But why should your freedoms to be reckless affect other people?
I have refrained from getting involved in this, but the fact you personally do not have any anecdotal evidence for something doesn't mean it's not true. There is scientific research showing a possible link between marijuana use and some neuroses; the question is the strength of and precise nature of that link, as you would know if you had read any of the previous posts discussing that issue. Saying "Well, I've never seen or heard of anybody going nuts from smoking pot" doesn't mean shit either way.
I should clarify just in case I havn'et already; I meant smoking in the street specifically. In your own homes and, like, cafe's or whatever like they have in Amsterdam? Go nuts!
Well, okay, if there's evidence supporting both views, what studies are you looking at that indicate it's capable of 'driving someone insane'? I've been looking for a little while here and I can't find anything.
Review of literature suggesting that the weight of evidence supports a causative role in the development of psychopathology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507965
Earlier onset of psychosis seen in users of marijuana.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2892048
This one is a large study of Swedish conscripts. Marijuana was associated with a sixfold higher risk. The risk persisted after accounting for confounding factors. This suggested that marijuana was an independent risk factor for schizophrenia. Amongst the strongest
epidemiological evidence
available.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17349865
Abstract only, but evidence exists for both hypotheses.
In response to the tobacco and alcohol arguments above -
Although some products that are legal can cause harm, this does not give inherent justification that other products that cause harm should be legalised.
We will be increasing the harm to some parts of the community by legalising marijuana, with the potential benefit of reducing crime rates. I still contend that criminals will make money through sales of other illicit drugs and the crimes will continue.
As someone previously stated, nearly half (42%) of the population of the United States population has used Marijuana, and those are just the ones who admit it in a survey. Leaving aside what that says about the rate of psychosis resulting from Marijuana, it makes it pretty clear that that the attempt to make it inaccessible has failed terribly. What's more, it sets a rather firm upper bound for how many more individuals could be exposed due to legalization, even if there are some individuals who will become psychotic after a single use.
You've made it clear in previous posts that you feel that alcohol and tobacco are also detrimental to society, and seem to feel it would be best for those to be banned if it were practical. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a reasoned and consistent position. I'm curious what makes you think that Marijuana can be put back in the bottle, as it were, while alcohol and tobacco cannot. The prevailing opinion seems to be that, regardless of whatever harms the drug might inflict, prohibition of it has been as much of a failure as the prohibition of alcohol was.
Contact highs are a real thing.
They just aren't what you think they are.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_high#section_1
What you think a contact high does not, in fact, actually exist.